USA Immunity for Me, Not for Thee: Trump’s Legal Double Standard

[webfact]

Picture courtesy of AA

 

President Donald Trump, amid turbulence over the Jeffrey Epstein files, has presented his base with a juicy alternative topic: the possibility of charging Barack Obama with treason during Trump’s first presidency.

 

This all hinges on unfounded claims of Obama orchestrating intelligence around Russian interference in the 2016 election. However, there's one major snag: presidential immunity, a precedent partly enabled by Trump himself.

 

Trump's administration argues that presidents should be immune from most criminal charges. His stance gained favour at the Supreme Court, complicating any attempts to prosecute Obama, even if Trump’s claims were valid. The issue circles back to whether a president’s actions fall within their official duties, a topic the Court has tackled, with Chief Justice John Roberts setting a high threshold for when immunity wouldn't apply.

 

While Trump and Tulsi Gabbard suggest Obama could face charges, Trump's own counsel previously argued against prosecuting sitting presidents to avoid hindering presidential duties. This immunity notion is tangled with assertions that a president's "outer perimeter" actions, those not evidently outside their authority, should remain protected, even amid allegations of overreach, reported CNN.

 

Harvard's Richard Lazarus points out that if allegations involve Obama acting within his official capacity, immunity seems clear. However, if he stepped outside his role for personal political gains, it’s murkier. However, since intelligence gathering likely falls within the remit of presidential duties, Obama’s defence could arguably be stronger than Trump’s defences related to January 6.

 

Trump’s claims, reiterating this potential Obama prosecution, serve more as a curious distraction from more pressing matters, like the Epstein file revelations. His rhetoric clashes with previous legal team assertions that full immunity befits a president, a viewpoint that seemingly contradicts his stance on his predecessor.

 

This situation raises a broader legal quandary: Are official presidential acts, including the handling of intelligence, shielded by inherent immunity? While Trump’s team leveraged this principle for his benefit, applying it to past presidents like Obama provokes debate. Legal experts like UCLA's Rick Hasen note that such duties might well fall within protected acts, challenging arguments against former presidencies.

 

Yet, the political theatre surrounding these claims could deflect from substantive discussions of presidential powers and their boundaries. Trump’s apparent strategy of “immunity for me, not for thee” underscores ongoing tensions between personal gain and institutional norms.

 

Ultimately, Trump’s insistence on emphasising this angle diverts attention from the implications of potential immunity to a self-serving twist in his own narrative. Whether Trump’s charges could reach beyond mere media headlines remains shrouded in legal uncertainty. The paradox persists: presidential immunity serves as both a legal bastion and a political weapon, wielded strategically with differing targets in sight.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from CNN 2025-07-26

 

 

[poyai111]

Whose decision was it to run with a CNN report? CNN is infamous for its biased reporting and to assert that the report is based on "unfounded claims" in spite of the fact that Gabbard holds the receipts is downright delusional.

[novacova]

12 minutes ago, poyai111 said:

Whose decision was it to run with a CNN report? CNN is infamous for its biased reporting and to assert that the report is based on "unfounded claims" in spite of the fact that Gabbard holds the receipts is downright delusional.

It’s like children’s programming, cartoons and such, some never grow out of it and are incapable of differentiating fact from fiction.

[pomchop]

yes too bad cnn can't be all fair and balanced like fox propaganda channel...epstein who's that??....obama obama hunter biden blah blah blah....read the polls ...even maga wants to know about esptein but fox has likely been told they better toe the line as the king has spoken.

 

Fox News has indeed shied away from Epstein coverage ― just as Trump has asked. The report by Media Matters for America finds that on Monday, for example, Fox News mentioned former President Barack Obama 117 times and Epstein just twice.

[thaipo7]

Obama tried all he could to never be in the spotlight for what he was doing to the county in the name of "Transformation."  Every one in  his administration knew not to keep any emails with his name attached so nothing could ever come back on him.  It had to happen.  May this administration put in the effort to hold his administration (they also worked for Biden) be accountable as what Obama did to make sure President would never be elected to bring all this to the public view.

 

Now, Mark Levin highlights.  Mark did a deep dive into the documents that was released by Tulsi Gabbard.  He also read reports that went along with the documents.  He looked at the Durham report from 2017, the House report from 2020 that was just release and he went through it all.

 

The one thing missing from the Durham report, the House report and really, all the reports is the role of Barack Obama.  This is the key.  Barack Obama was never investigated.  Even at a lower threshold, he was never questioned.  This was a criminal enterprise and Obama was the mob boss.  

 

The key meeting was 12-16-2016.  Trump was elected President.  Russia was found to interfere in the election but this did not do anything to change the election.  No evidence at all that Russia tried to help Trump in any respect.   None

 

But the date of 12-16-2016 is when Obama called together his senior staff.  He directed that a new assessment be created.  He was not happy with the current assessment.  

 

Less than a month later the new assessment had in it that Russia was heavily involved in getting Trump elected.  This was a lie.   

 

Hillary Clinton was going to allege that Russia helped Trump for two reasons.  1) To take the attention off of her emails and 2) to put Trump on the defensive.  So her campaign paid for dossier on Trump.  

 

All reports stated that the dossier was a lie, yet the media ran with the story.  It was the narrative.   All of the leaks were organized to the NY Times and the NY Post to organize all the media sites.  

 

In the June and July time frame they came to the aid of Hillary Clinton.  The DOJ had a slam dunk case against her with her emails with the Espionage Act, but Comey who did not have the authority announced that he was not going to proceed with the case.  It wasn't his call but he did it anyway.   So, while they were helping Hillary, they were trying to take out Donald Trump.  

 

This was our FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies and what was taking place was shocking.   They went to the FISA Court four times to get a FISA Warrant.  They used the dossier that they knew was false to get the FISA Warrant.   The FISA Court was misled to get what they wanted.  

 

But Obama had never been questioned.  Now we have Lindsey Graham and and John Cornyn wanting a Special Counsel appointed to look into Obama.  A Special Counsel is used when you have a conflict of interest in an administration.  This is not the case here and a special counsel can take years to complete.  Donald Trump's DOJ is capable to taking a case against a former President who is now a civilian.

 

The Left will say that they hate Obama.  Hating Obama is not a Conflict of Interest.  There should be no Special Counsel.  If the Special Counsel happens, this will be a black hole and 20 years before we hear anything.  

 

Barack Obama needs to be questioned, thoroughly deposed under oath, so the perjury statute applies, about his role in some of the documents that were released by Tulsi Gabbard released.  

 

In addition, Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, the acting AG in her place, Comey, McCabe and all the usual suspects should be brought back and investigated about Barack Obama's role.  

 

But we have these hacks and armchair lawyers referencing the July 1, 2024 on immunity.  They say, "What's the point, they can't go after private citizen Obama anyway because he acted under his constitutional duties anyway."  

 

John Roberts wrote that there is constitutional immunity when a President is operating within his Constitutional bounds.  

 

But when a President operates outside the outer circle of his constitutional authority, there is presumptive immunity.  There is enough here to have an investigation.

[mikebike]

Good work folks. Not one reply yet to the actual article and the point of POTUS immunity. Lots of bitching about the messenger tho. Again, kudos. 😉

[SMIAI]

Trump supporters here are literally nuts.

[rudi49jr]

10 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Good work folks. Not one reply yet to the actual article and the point of POTUS immunity. Lots of bitching about the messenger tho. Again, kudos. 😉

 

7 minutes ago, SMIAI said:

Trump supporters here are literally nuts.

Exactly. Even Ted Cruz has already admitted that Obama can not be prosecuted for treason.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ted-cruz-admits-trump-treason-154646392.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAL86bSyKd0w0hX7bS-ZiLSVTU2-Rk15P3ZXUQK7K3b_DjxLy1SOQjVTMIRVpqBtF32Tj1yaudM65pQrR1zIAOS1OrTcuvdPnzsGabbob8aNJ6YSuHOGNKQgqbWLD0MCDUZ38Ikt7zVrLafgkzUF3XuDhLbDpAMs9TEUa_2xymGbo

 

 

[Captain Flack]

Troll posts removed.

 

@proton @renaissanc only reminder,

 

Rule 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles  may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW.

[thesetat]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

This all hinges on unfounded claims of Obama orchestrating intelligence around Russian interference in the 2016 election. However, there's one major snag: presidential immunity, a precedent partly enabled by Trump himself.

There is already sufficient proof Obama has done all the Trump has said. The question only remains is if the DOJ files charges or not. 

[SMIAI]

Trump team is doing everything they can to deflect from the Epstein debacle....but keep your eye on J D Vance 😊