Last week National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard declassified a bunch of Russiagate documents and referred former President Barack Obama and officials in his administration to the Department of Justice for potential criminal investigation. There are some legal “experts” who claim that Barack Obama has immunity, while others claim that he has immunity only for certain behaviors.
Experts
in the first group point to Trump v. United States (July 2024). According
to an article by the Blaze TV staff, the Supreme Court held in this case that “former
presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within
their ‘core constitutional powers’ and presumptive immunity for other official
acts with the ‘outer perimeter’ of their responsibilities. However, they have
no immunity for unofficial or private acts.”
Mark
Levin is of the second group of legal “experts” who believe that Obama does not
have immunity in the Russiagate. This site gave the following information on
Levin’s legal background.
Mark
Levin is a well-known name in the political arena, but his legal career is
equally noteworthy. After graduating with a J.D. from Temple University Beasley
School of Law, Levin embarked on a path to see him rise to significant
positions within the U.S. government. His role as chief of staff to Attorney
General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration was a crucial period in his
legal journey, allowing him to engage with complex legal and constitutional
matters.
Levin’s
involvement in legal cases during this time gave him substantial experience,
and his contributions have been recognized in various conservative legal
circles. He also worked with the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative
legal organization focused on public interest law, further solidifying in his
reputation as a constitutional expert.
Levin’s
legal background has always been the foundation of his commentary, particularly
on issues related to constitutional law, federalism, and individual liberties.
His understanding of the law enables him to dissect and analyze policies and
court decisions with precision. This legal expertise has also influenced his
numerous best-selling books, which often revolve around constitutional
principles and the preservation of liberty.
Moreover,
Levin continues to use his legal knowledge to influence public policy through
his media platform….
The
Blaze TV staff interviewed Levin for their recent article. The following
information comes from that article.
Mark
Levin recalls the time when President Obama ordered the killing of Al-Qaeda
terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen.
“He
can’t be charged for killing that person, nor should he have been,” says Levin,
“but ladies and gentlemen, if the president of the United States … is
embezzling funds or he’s running some kind of a drug racket while he’s
president of the United States, those are not his official duties, and so after
he leaves the presidency, he can be charged with that.”
Orchestrating
Russiagate – a “treasonous conspiracy” as Director Gabbard called it – would most
certainly fall into the latter category if Obama was found guilty.
If
“Barack Obama, is involved in a scheme, the purpose of which is to interfere
with a presidential election because he wants Hillary Clinton and the Democrats
to win, and subsequent to that, if [he] is involved in a scheme to usurp the
new president’s role or to sabotage the new president’s role, that’s not an
official duty,” says Levin, “and certainly [he] can be charged with that.”
“There
are criminal statutes for making false claims … and hoaxes. And it actually
uses the word hoaxes,” he explains. “Donald Trump has called [Russiagate] a
hoax from day one, and he’s exactly correct.”
In
a recent press conference, President Trump, when asked about the Russiagate
developments, was crystal clear: “This is, like, proof – irrefutable proof –
that Obama was seditious, that Obama was trying to lead a coup, and it was with
Hillary Clinton, with all these other people, but Obama headed it up … and it
says so right in the papers.”
If
the DOJ conducts its criminal investigation and concurs that the papers indeed
incriminate Obama, the Constitution, specifically the separation of powers
doctrine and Article II, as well as SCOTUS’ ruling on Trump v. United
States, should not protect him from prosecution.
Further,
considering all the lawfare waged on President Trump, “Why shouldn’t Barack
Obama be criminally investigated, put under oath … in order to determine the
extent to which he was involved in a silent coup?” Levin asks.
“So
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (who I like very much), are you prepared to
subpoena Barack Obama?”
It is a
sad day when one President of the United States (POTUS) presides over an
administration that prosecutes a former President of the United States. It may
even be called a danger to the Constitution. However, America has already been
through several cases where a current administration prosecutes a former POTUS.
This site gives specific information about the various cases when the Joe Biden
administration prosecuted Trump.
·
Classified
Documents Case
Special
counsel Jack Smith led two federal probes against Trump. The first probe [June]resulted
in Trump being indicted for mishandling top secret documents at Mar-a-Lago, his
Florida estate. The indictment alleged that Trump enlisted aides and lawyers to
help hid records.
The
second indictment [July]charged Trump of trying to delete surveillance footage
at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump
faced 40 felony charges in the classified documents case with the most serious
charge carrying a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
·
Election
Interference
Smith
unveiled a second case in August when Trump was indicted in Washington on felony
charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election results before the violent
mob at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
This
indictment carried four counts that included charges of conspiracy to defraud
the United States government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
(congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory).
In
addition to the two federal cases, there were two state cases – New York (Stormy
Daniels case) and Georgia (election case). In all, there were about 90 charges
against Trump. After Trump was re-elected in 2024, Smith dismissed the two
federal cases before inauguration day, and the two state cases were put on hold
until after Trump leaves the Oval Office.
The bottom line is: If the Biden administration can prosecute Trump for so-called crimes, then the Trump administration should be allowed to investigate possible crimes of Barack Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment