Trump has his biggest target in crosshairs. What can happen
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The political temperature in Washington has surged again, this time over a storm of accusations from President Donald Trump , targeting former President Barack Obama . During a press appearance alongside Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Trump accused Obama of orchestrating a 'coup' in 2016 by politicising intelligence regarding Russian election interference . The spark for this latest escalation: a set of newly declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard last week, which Trump claims are proof of treason. He is now demanding that the Department of Justice (DOJ) open a criminal investigation.This unprecedented moment raises a pressing question: can a former US president actually face prosecution for actions taken while in office? And what are the legal and political implications of such a move?At the heart of the controversy are intelligence documents recently declassified by Tulsi Gabbard, who now heads the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Gabbard's disclosures allege that Obama-era officials -- specifically James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Susan Rice, and Andrew McCabe --deliberately distorted or suppressed intelligence to frame a narrative of Russian election interference that would damage Trump.Gabbard argued that this manipulation of intelligence was not only unethical but possibly criminal, referring to it as a 'treasonous conspiracy". According to her statements, certain intelligence reports that cleared the Trump campaign of collusion were deliberately downplayed or ignored, while narratives emphasising Russian interference were selectively elevated. Importantly, the materials do not show that votes were altered or that Obama directly interfered in vote counts. Rather, they appear to suggest a pattern of politically motivated intelligence shaping which is serious, but far from the clear-cut criminal behaviour that would normally prompt a DOJ indictment.Capitalising on the released documents, Trump quickly amplified the narrative. He accused Obama of treason and insisted that the DOJ open an investigation. Trump even went so far as to post an AI-generated video showing the FBI arresting Obama in the Oval Office, a move that was widely condemned as inflammatory and reckless. While Obama's office rarely responds to Trump's ongoing attacks, the former president issued a statement calling the accusations 'bizarre,' 'ridiculous,' and 'a weak attempt at distraction". The statement emphasised the unprecedented nature of the accusation and suggested it was designed to distract from Trump's own mounting legal and political troubles.Nevertheless, Trump's message resonated with his base. Conservative media and MAGA-aligned lawmakers echoed his call for accountability, with several suggesting that the disclosures represent the biggest scandal in American history.Despite the political firestorm, the likelihood that Obama will face criminal prosecution remains extremely slim. The evidence currently available may not establish that Obama committed a prosecutable offence. The documents suggest internal disagreements and potentially politicised decision-making, but not necessarily criminal behaviour. Under US law, proving treason or criminal conspiracy requires evidence of intent, coordination and direct action to break the law.Also, there is the matter of precedent and prosecutorial norms. No former US president has ever been prosecuted for actions taken while in office unless there was incontrovertible proof of criminal conduct. Even in high-profile cases like Watergate, those involved were either pardoned or avoided criminal charges through plea deals and immunity arrangements. While it is possible that the DOJ may quietly review the Gabbard disclosures, the standard for launching a formal criminal case against a former president is extraordinarily high. Without compelling evidence, it's unlikely that Attorney General Merrick Garland would take the risk of igniting a constitutional crisis.Gabbard has promised more disclosures in the coming weeks. If new documents emerge that contain stronger evidence of deliberate falsification or political manipulation, especially if Obama is directly implicated, then the DOJ could face renewed pressure to act.Politically, the allegations have already become a powerful tool for Trump and his allies, who are using the narrative to galvanise support and frame the 2016 Russia investigation as a calculated attack. For Democrats, however, the accusations are viewed largely as a diversion tactic, aimed at deflecting attention from Trump's own troubles. Within the intelligence community, Gabbard's unilateral declassification has raised alarm, with critics arguing that it undermines institutional credibility and could damage relationships with allied intelligence services. These concerns have been echoed by figures such as Senator Mark Warner, who warned that such politicisation erodes the foundational trust that intelligence-sharing depends on.While the legal pathway seems narrow, the political implications are far-reaching. Trump and his allies have seized on the moment to reframe the Russia investigation as a political weapon wielded by Obama to undermine the peaceful transfer of power. In their view, the disclosures prove that the 2016 Russia investigation was a 'hoax' built on fabricated intelligence and partisan motives. This can help Trump regain support of many of those among MAGA who have been disppointed by the Trump adminsitration's handling of Epstein files.Gabbard's role in all of this cannot be overstated. Once a Democratic congresswoman known for her anti-establishment stance, she has become a central figure in reshaping how intelligence is handled in the executive branch. Critics say she is politicising national security, while supporters argue she is exposing long-standing corruption.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump pauses export controls to bolster China trade deal: Report
The United States has temporarily eased restrictions on technology exports to China. This decision aims to facilitate ongoing trade negotiations with Beijing. It also supports President Trump's efforts to meet with President Xi Jinping. The Commerce Department has been instructed to avoid taking strict actions against China. Nvidia will resume sales of its H20 GPUs to China. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The U.S. has paused curbs on tech exports to China to avoid disrupting trade talks with Beijing and support President Donald Trump 's efforts to secure a meeting with President Xi Jinping this year, the Financial Times said on industry and security bureau of the Commerce Department, which oversees export controls, has been told in recent months to avoid tough moves on China, the newspaper said, citing current and former could not immediately verify the report. The White House and the department did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment outside business U.S. and Chinese economic officials are set to resume talks in Stockholm on Monday to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two giant Nvidia said this month it would resume sales of its H20 graphics processing units (GPU) to China, reversing an export curb the Trump administration imposed in April to keep advanced AI chips out of Chinese hands over national security planned resumption was part of U.S. negotiations on rare earths and magnets, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has paper said 20 security experts and former officials, including former deputy US national security adviser Matt Pottinger, will write on Monday to Lutnick to voice concern, however."This move represents a strategic misstep that endangers the United States' economic and military edge in artificial intelligence," they write in the letter, it added.
India.com
9 minutes ago
- India.com
P Chidambaram's ‘Homegrown Terrorists' Remark Sparks Political Firestorm Ahead Of Op Sindoor Debate
New Delhi: A massive political storm has erupted ahead of the Operation Sindoor debate in Parliament, following remarks made by senior Congress leader and former Home Minister P. Chidambaram. In a recent interview with The Quint, Chidambaram questioned the official narrative surrounding the Pahalgam terror attack and suggested that the attackers could have been "homegrown terrorists." "Have they identified the terrorists? Where they came from? I mean, for all we know, they could be homegrown terrorists. Why do you assume that they came from Pakistan? There's no evidence of that," Chidambaram said, adding that the government has been unwilling to disclose what the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has found so far. His comments have drawn sharp criticism from the ruling BJP, which has accused the Congress of once again 'giving a clean chit' to Pakistan. Reacting to Chidambaram's remarks, BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya said on X, "P Chidambaram, former UPA-era Home Minister and the original proponent of the infamous 'Saffron Terror' theory, covers himself with glory yet again: Have they (NIA) identified the terrorists or where they came from? For all we know, they could be homegrown terrorists. Why do you assume they came from Pakistan? There is no evidence of that." "Once again, the Congress rushes to give a clean chit to Pakistan, this time after the Pahalgam terror attack. Why is it that every time our forces confront Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, Congress leaders sound more like Islamabad's defence lawyers than India's opposition?" Malviya added. "When it comes to national security, there should be no ambiguity. But with the Congress, there never is – they always bend over backwards to protect the enemy," he said. P. Chidambaram, former UPA-era Home Minister and the original proponent of the infamous 'Saffron Terror' theory, covers himself with glory yet again: 'Have they (NIA) identified the terrorists or where they came from? For all we know, they could be homegrown terrorists. Why do… — Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) July 27, 2025 BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla echoed the criticism, saying, '26/11 to Surgical Strike to Pahalgam, Congress ka haath, Pakistan ke saath!' He accused the Congress of siding with Pakistan just hours before the crucial Parliament debate on Operation Sindoor. Chidambaram also alleged that the government is concealing details about India's counter-offensive, Operation Sindoor, launched after the Pahalgam massacre in which 26 civilians were killed in front of their families. He said the Centre was 'hiding the losses' India suffered during the operation. "They are also hiding the losses. I said it in a column that in a war, losses will occur on both sides. I understand that India would have suffered losses. Be upfront," Chidambaram said. Referencing World War II, he added: "Winston Churchill in World War II made a statement every other day. Whatever losses they suffered, Britain suffered; they made it plain. Therefore, they are reluctant to admit the losses. But losses are inevitable and natural in a war. So, admit the losses. I think they think they can put a large shroud on Operation Sindoor. It won't work." He further questioned the Prime Minister's silence on the issue: "And why is the Prime Minister not speaking on Operation Sindoor? Why do you think there's a reluctance to have a debate in the temple of democracy? That's what Parliament is. After all, Prime Minister Modi has addressed the nation. He's addressed various rallies." Chidambaram also raised questions about the ceasefire, implying that it wasn't initiated by India. "Because let's be honest, it was not the Indian government that announced it. It was Donald Trump," he claimed. Meanwhile, Congress MP Imran Masood backed Chidambaram's statements, turning the criticism back on the government. "You stopped the forces. You brought India and Pakistan to the same level on the global stage. The terrorists are still alive. Aren't you ashamed? If the Pahalgam killers are alive, every Indian should be ashamed," Masood said. As the Parliament debate on Operation Sindoor begins, Chidambaram's comments are expected to be a major flashpoint between the ruling party and the Opposition.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Explained: What is the new 15% US-EU tariff deal and what does it cover?
US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday, July 27, announced a wide-ranging trade agreement that imposes a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports into the US. The deal, which was finalised during a brief meeting at Trump's Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, averted the looming threat of a 30 per cent tariff that was set to take effect on August 1. While the headline tariff rate is fixed at 15 per cent, many of the agreement's finer details are still unclear. The deal includes zero tariffs on select 'strategic goods' such as aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, some agricultural products, and critical raw materials. However, pharmaceuticals, steel, and some farm goods remain outside the scope of this agreement. What is not included in the deal? While the agreement removes immediate tariff threats, several issues remain unresolved. Trump confirmed that the existing 50 per cent US tariff on imported steel will stay in place. Talks will continue on setting steel import quotas and reducing overcapacity in the global market. Pharmaceuticals were not included in this agreement. Von der Leyen clarified that those discussions are ongoing, separate from Sunday's deal. Tariffs on some EU agricultural products also remain unchanged, but with no clear indication of which items are excluded. What impact will the agreement have? The 15 per cent tariff is a significant increase from the pre-Trump average US tariff of about 1 per cent on European goods and above the 10 per cent baseline tariff applied during negotiations. For European exporters, the impact could be considerable as many companies will face the difficult choice of either passing the cost on to US consumers or absorbing losses. The earlier 10 per cent tariff was already enough to prompt the European Commission to slash its growth forecast from 1.3 per cent to 0.9 per cent. Now, with 15 per cent, German industry leaders warn of 'immense negative effects' on export-reliant sectors. Von der Leyen defended the deal, calling it 'the best we could do' and noting that it secures continued access to the US market and brings a degree of stability. How are different sectors reacting, especially carmakers? The car industry, which was gearing for a 30 per cent tariff, sees the 15 per cent rate as a relief. Von der Leyen pointed out that the new rate is significantly lower than the current 27.5 per cent tariff on cars from all countries — which includes Trump's 25 per cent tariff and the pre-existing 2.5 per cent US auto tariff. Still, European automakers remain under pressure. Volkswagen revealed it had already lost $1.5 billion in profits in the first half of the year due to higher US tariffs. Mercedes-Benz, which produces a significant share of its US-sold vehicles in Alabama, said price hikes are likely for future model years. What were the key issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump's presidency, US-EU tariffs were relatively low. According to the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank, the US averaged a 1.47 per cent tariff on European goods, while the EU imposed 1.35 per cent on American products, Associated Press reported. Trump frequently criticised the $235 billion US merchandise trade deficit with the EU, calling the European market unfair — particularly in the automotive sector. However, the EU argues that the US enjoys a substantial surplus in services like cloud computing, travel, and financial services, which helps offset the imbalance. Despite Trump's stance that the EU 'was formed to screw the United States', both sides have recognised the need to preserve their trading relationship. With $2 trillion in annual commerce, the US and EU form the world's largest bilateral trading bloc. How did the deal come together? The last-minute breakthrough came just days before the US deadline to impose new tariffs. Trump and von der Leyen held brief talks at Trump's golf resort in Scotland, joined by top EU trade officials. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the August 1 deadline was firm. 'No extensions, no more grace periods,' he said. Yet he said that Trump remained open to future dialogue. The EU had prepared its own list of retaliatory tariffs targeting hundreds of US goods, including beef, auto parts, beer, and even Boeing aircraft. Without a deal, everything from French cheese to German electronics could have become more expensive for American consumers. What are the concerns going forward? While the agreement avoided an immediate trade war, analysts caution that the deal remains vague in parts. 'There is nothing on paper, yet,' said ING's global chief of macro Carsten Brzeski. He warned that the lack of formal documentation makes enforcement and interpretation difficult. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz praised the outcome for preserving 'core interests' but expressed disappointment that deeper tariff relief wasn't achieved. (With agency inputs)
