Supreme Court’s Trump Immunity Ruling Could Shield Barack Obama, Legal Experts Say
Legal analysts are cautioning that former President Barack Obama may be shielded from potential prosecution in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling in Trump v. United States — a decision that granted presidents broad protection from criminal liability for “official acts” performed while in office.
The issue resurfaced after President Donald Trump accused Obama of treason, alleging he and senior members of his administration orchestrated a “manufactured intelligence operation” to undermine Trump’s presidency following his 2016 election victory.
According to Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, newly declassified intelligence suggests that top Obama-era officials “politicized intelligence” to construct what she described as a “years-long coup attempt” against Trump. Gabbard said she plans to submit a formal criminal referral to the Department of Justice and the FBI.
“The evidence we’ve uncovered and released directly points to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment,” Gabbard said.
Legal Experts Weigh In
During a discussion on Hannity, Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) weighed the implications of both the alleged misconduct and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Jordan pointed to testimony from former CIA Director John Brennan before Congress, claiming Brennan had misled lawmakers regarding the now-discredited Steele dossier — a central document in the so-called “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative.
“I went back and read that transcript. John Brennan wasn’t square with Congress about the dossier,” Jordan said. “We’ll see about the statute of limitations, but I appreciate what Tulsi has done and the work that Pam [Bondi] is doing to pursue accountability.”
Jarrett added that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity could ironically end up shielding Obama himself.
“If the ongoing conspiracy includes events like the Mar-a-Lago raid, then that’s when the statute of limitations starts,” Jarrett said. “But Barack Obama should be thanking Donald Trump — because Trump just won from the Supreme Court the same kind of immunity that will now protect Obama.”
Declassified House Intel Report Raises New Questions
Gabbard also declassified a previously unreleased report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, dated September 18, 2020. The document stemmed from an investigation led by then-Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), while Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) chaired the committee when the report was finalized.
The inquiry examined the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
The report alleges that then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the anti-Trump Steele dossier — despite knowing it was based largely on “internet rumor.”
“Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees,” the report states, describing how Brennan’s team of just five CIA analysts “rushed” the assessment to release it before Trump’s inauguration.
According to the committee, the assessment misrepresented the credibility of certain intelligence sources.
“The ICA misrepresented these reports as reliable, without mentioning their significant underlying flaws,” the report said.
One particularly revealing line noted that a “single, unclear, and unverifiable fragment” from one substandard report served as the only classified evidence suggesting Putin “aspired” to help Trump win.
The committee further revealed that multiple senior CIA officers had warned Brennan that there was “no direct information” proving Putin’s intent to aid Trump’s election victory. Despite those warnings, the Obama administration proceeded with publication.
“The ICA did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective,” the document concluded.
The Political and Legal Fallout
The revelations have reignited partisan tensions surrounding the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation — and the broader question of how intelligence agencies were used during the Obama years.
While Trump allies view the report and Gabbard’s actions as proof of politically motivated wrongdoing, legal experts emphasize that Trump v. United States may effectively insulate Obama and his top aides from prosecution for any alleged “official acts.”
In essence, the very legal precedent established to protect Trump’s presidential authority may now serve as Obama’s safeguard — a paradox not lost on those watching the case unfold.
As the Justice Department reviews Gabbard’s referral and political divisions deepen, one reality has become increasingly clear: the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling has not only reshaped the legal landscape for Trump but may also redefine the limits of presidential accountability itself.
The story originally appeared on [Link].