Does SCOTUS decision protect Obama?

[mspart]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/18/tulsi-gabbard-obama-2016-election-russia

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/19/politics/gabbard-threatens-obama-officials-2016-election

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4086-pr-15-25

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-receives-gabbards-criminal-referral-bombshell-claims-obama-admin-manufactured-russian-collusion-hoax

By now we all have known about the hoax for many years.   But that it was initiated by Obama and his folks before leaving office is a bombshell  new piece of solid info, where it was suspected for years with no real evidence.  

The info is now with DOJ for action.  

SCOTUS decided that if a president does stuff as a part of his duties, he should be immune from prosecution.   Is setting up the incoming President and his staff part of his official duties?   I'm not saying Obama should be prosecuted, I don't have  much info other than the above.   But if he was, would the SCOTUS decision protect him from prosecution?

mspart

[Offthemat]

17 minutes ago, mspart said:

Is setting up the incoming President and his staff part of his official duties?  

Not in their wildest dreams. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/18/tulsi-gabbard-obama-2016-election-russia

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/19/politics/gabbard-threatens-obama-officials-2016-election

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4086-pr-15-25

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-receives-gabbards-criminal-referral-bombshell-claims-obama-admin-manufactured-russian-collusion-hoax

By now we all have known about the hoax for many years.   But that it was initiated by Obama and his folks before leaving office is a bombshell  new piece of solid info, where it was suspected for years with no real evidence.  

The info is now with DOJ for action.  

SCOTUS decided that if a president does stuff as a part of his duties, he should be immune from prosecution.   Is setting up the incoming President and his staff part of his official duties?   I'm not saying Obama should be prosecuted, I don't have  much info other than the above.   But if he was, would the SCOTUS decision protect him from prosecution?

mspart

Pay no attention to the Jeffrey Epstein client list. We have this to distract you instead.

[mspart]

What is bigger Epstein or Possible Obama interfering with a duly elected president before he assumes the office?   I hope you say the latter.   I am still on record saying that the Epstein files need to be released. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

What is bigger Epstein or Possible Obama interfering with a duly elected president before he assumes the office?   I hope you say the latter.   I am still on record saying that the Epstein files need to be released. 

mspart

possible? not yet probable. wake me when evidence has been vetted. Headlines are cheap.

[mspart]

Headlines are cheap.   Allegations given to DOJ.   They are serious allegations taken from documents from that time.  

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

Headlines are cheap.   Allegations given to DOJ.   They are serious allegations taken from documents from that time.  

mspart

Serious allegations are just that. Serious allegations go unsupported by facts often. But Pam Bondi has the facts on her desk unless the facts do not actually exist or they do exist but they are not facts because they were made up by Obama.

[mspart]

What?  If the allegations from the Obama documents show that they tried to interfere with the incoming president and his team, that would be grounds for prosecution I would think.   Where in the law is that allowed?

Don't get me wrong, there will be no prosecution of Obama.   If anything they will go after Comey and Clapper and maybe some other underlings.   Obama is presumably safe.   But that is not the question.   The question is if the SCOTUS decision protects him from this or not.  I say it doesn't as hindering an incoming President is not part of the Presidential duties outlined in the Constitution. 

mspart

[nick]

Other viewpoints

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/gabbard-garbles-2016-intelligence-russia

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-cia-director-didnt-read-his-own-report-2016-russia-election-interference-trump-russia-intelligence

https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/can-trump-prosecute-obama-2016-russia-investigation-gabbard-dni-report-explained-13909756.html

[WrestlingRasta]

So far nothing has been released other than a statement from Tulsi Gabbard, who is, among all the very trustworthy individuals in government, most definitely among the most trustworthy.  
 

Maybe everyone should just sit tight and see if anything actually comes of this.  Nothing for us to see here yet.  The files are on the DOJ desk, awaiting review.
 

[mspart]

Yep it is a wait and see situation now.   But the question isn't about wait and see, it is about the SCOTUS decision and how it would impact Obama if he were indicted.   Would it protect him or not?

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

Yep it is a wait and see situation now.   But the question isn't about wait and see, it is about the SCOTUS decision and how it would impact Obama if he were indicted.   Would it protect him or not?

mspart

Well it does seem the Supreme Court has taken a pretty broad interpertation of what a president can’t be charged for.   Seems that would be more a question for the Supreme Court than a wrestling board.  

Edited 6 hours ago by WrestlingRasta

[mspart]

If it gets to it, that is where it will go.   But they said a president is immune from prosecution as long as he/she is doing constitutional duties.   Domestic post-election interference is not one of those duties I'm guessing.  The wrestling board can guess and discuss what the SCOTUS meant with the decision, else why have the board?   That's what we do, in the most civil way possible of course. 

mspart

[1032004]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

So far nothing has been released other than a statement from Tulsi Gabbard, who is, among all the very trustworthy individuals in government, most definitely among the most trustworthy.  
 

Maybe everyone should just sit tight and see if anything actually comes of this.  Nothing for us to see here yet.  The files are on the DOJ desk, awaiting review.
 

They did release some documents, but in a quick skim I don’t see much.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-Evidence-Obama-Subvert-President-Trump-2016-Victory-Election-July2025.pdf
 

A lot of people seem to be focused on the claim that “they changed their conclusion!”  But the initial “conclusion” was that Russia did not hack vote totals, and the later conclusion was that they ran an “influence campaign,” both of which of course are not mutually exclusive.

I’ve seen some claims about “spying on Trump” but not sure where exactly in the documents that supposedly is.

[WrestlingRasta]

40 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

They did release some documents, but in a quick skim I don’t see much.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-Evidence-Obama-Subvert-President-Trump-2016-Victory-Election-July2025.pdf
 

A lot of people seem to be focused on the claim that “they changed their conclusion!”  But the initial “conclusion” was that Russia did not hack vote totals, and the later conclusion was that they ran an “influence campaign,” both of which of course are not mutually exclusive.

I’ve seen some claims about “spying on Trump” but not sure where exactly in the documents that supposedly is.

By nothing I meant nothing of any substance. 

[Offthemat]

They should install bars on that horrendous monstrosity in Chicago and label it the Obama Presidential Prison Library. 

[red viking]

These claims that Obama did something illegal are complete bs. Obama simply ordered a review of evidence. He didn't manufacture any evidence itself. There's absolutely zero evidence of that. 

Another winger lie. It's literally nonstop. 

Edited 3 hours ago by red viking

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, red viking said:

 Obama simply ordered a review of evidence. He didn't manufacture any evidence itself. There's absolutely zero evidence of that. 

How could you possibly know this ... where's your evidence?  

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

How could you possibly know this ... where's your evidence?  

Because trumptards admin lies about everything and there's nothing specific released. Zero charges now or ever. Isn't happening. These idiots lie nonstop so there's no reason to believe any of them. 

[ionel]

12 minutes ago, red viking said:

Because trumptards admin lies about everything and there's nothing specific released. Zero charges now or ever. Isn't happening. These idiots lie nonstop so there's no reason to believe any of them. 

evidence?

[red viking]

23 minutes ago, ionel said:

evidence?

They need to provide evidence or press charges for this to have any credibility whatsoever. They lie nonstop so I'm assuming this is simply a continuation of that. Convenient distraction from Epstein files. 

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

They need to provide evidence or press charges for this to have any credibility whatsoever. They lie nonstop so I'm assuming this is simply a continuation of that. Convenient distraction from Epstein files. 

Where's your evidence?