&w=3840&q=100)
Can Trump really prosecute Obama over the 2016 Russia probe?
Former US President Barack Obama and US President-elect Donald Trump speak ahead of the state funeral services for former President Jimmy Carter at the National Cathedral on January 9, 2025 in Washington, DC, US. File Image/Pool via Reuters
Is there a possibility of legal action against former United States President Barack Obama and senior officials from his administration by President Donald Trump?
At the centre of this growing controversy is Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic representative who now leads the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Gabbard has made extraordinary allegations involving the 2016 US election, characterising the actions of Obama-era intelligence officials as part of a coordinated attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's first election win.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Gabbard's statements have gained traction within pro-Trump circles and prompted direct endorsement from the president himself.
Gabbard accuses Obama of orchestrating a 'years-long coup'
Gabbard has publicly accused Barack Obama and several of his top national security advisers of participating in what she described as a deliberate and illegal effort to discredit Trump after his electoral win in November 2016.
According to her, the effort relied on 'manufactured intelligence' and misrepresented analysis, and was aimed at supporting the idea that Russian interference had handed Trump the presidency.
Donald Trump, left, looks on as Tulsi Gabbard speaks at the National Guard Association of the United States' 146th General Conference, August 26, 2024, in Detroit, US. File Image/AP
In Gabbard's words: 'The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.'
'No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. The American people's faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it.'
She claimed that the Obama administration's post-election assessment of Russian interference contradicted the intelligence community's consensus in the months before the election, which had allegedly concluded that Russia was unlikely to interfere or influence the outcome.
Her office has made available a cache of documents including a partially redacted Obama-era intelligence assessment on cyber threats, and internal memos from senior officials such as then-DNI James Clapper.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Among those named by Gabbard were Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former US Secretary of State John Kerry, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Obama himself.
Gabbard's team also published commentary alongside these documents, alleging that leaks following a December 9, 2016, meeting of Obama's senior national security team were part of a broader disinformation campaign.
The material refers to a memo titled The Russia Hoax, which claimed: 'Deep State officials in the IC [intelligence community] begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post … claiming that Russia used 'cyber means' to influence 'the outcome of the election.''
'Later that evening, another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA 'concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened' in the election to help President Trump.'
The same document states that on January 6, 2017, the Obama administration publicly released a declassified intelligence assessment that referenced 'further information' suggesting Russian President Vladimir Putin directed efforts to aid Trump's campaign.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
According to Gabbard, the additional information cited in the assessment turned out to include the Steele dossier, a compilation of unverified claims, some of which were later discredited.
How Trump responded
Trump has not only endorsed Gabbard's accusations but has taken visible steps to promote the message.
Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump praised a Fox News appearance by Harrison Fields, a Special Assistant in his administration, stating: 'Great job by young and talented Harrison Fields on Fox News. The Panel was fantastic on prosecuting Obama and the 'thugs' who have just been unequivocally exposed on highest level Election Fraud.'
'Congratulations to Tulsi Gabbard. Keep it coming!!!'
In a separate post on X, Gabbard wrote: 'For months preceding the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community shared a consensus view: Russia lacked the intent and capability to hack US elections. But weeks after President Trump's historic 2016 victory defeating Hillary Clinton, everything changed.'
🧵 Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama Administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President @realDonaldTrump, subverting the… pic.twitter.com/UQKKZ5c4Op — DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) July 18, 2025
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Trump also posted a 45-second AI-generated video depicting Obama being arrested in the Oval Office. The video, which originally circulated on TikTok, was uploaded without commentary to Trump's Truth Social account.
It began with real footage of Obama stating, 'especially the President is above the law,' followed by various prominent Democrats, including Joe Biden, repeating the phrase 'no one is above the law.'
Donald J. Trump Truth Social 07.20.25 06:47 PM EST pic.twitter.com/Xf5LYzkZiI — Fan Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) July 20, 2025
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The scene then shifts to a fabricated depiction of Trump and Obama in the White House, where FBI agents enter and arrest Obama, who later appears in a jail cell wearing an orange jumpsuit.
The soundtrack: 'YMCA' by the Village People, a staple at Trump rallies.
Where the facts stand
Despite the volume of material released by Gabbard and the forcefulness of her claims, multiple previous investigations — both bipartisan and nonpartisan — have offered a more nuanced interpretation of Russia's actions in 2016 and the Obama administration's response.
Democratic lawmakers have called Gabbard's report inaccurate and misleading. Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, labelled the allegations 'baseless.'
Several reviews, including those by the US intelligence community and the Senate Intelligence Committee, have concluded that while Russian actors attempted to access voter registration data in states like Illinois and Arizona, there was no evidence that vote tallies were altered.
Intelligence reports also consistently stated that Russia's primary effort was focused on influence operations — shaping American public opinion through disinformation, fake social media accounts, and leaked Democratic emails, rather than changing the actual results.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A Republican-led Senate report also endorsed the assessment that Moscow's efforts were aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton and benefiting Donald Trump.
Among the Republicans on that committee was Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who now serves as US Secretary of State in the Trump administration.
A recent CIA review acknowledged concerns about how quickly the Obama-era assessment had been compiled, reported The New York Times.
In its wake, the agency referred John Brennan to the FBI for investigation regarding how he managed the preparation of the intelligence conclusions. However, no charges have been brought.
One email cited in Gabbard's documentation indicated that Obama requested a comprehensive assessment of Russian interference methods before leaving office, fearing that an incoming Trump administration might suppress or ignore the intelligence findings.
US Senator Mark Warner of Virginia responded to the Gabbard report by stating: 'This is one more example of the director of national intelligence trying to cook the books. We're talking about apples and oranges. The Russians were not successful at manipulating our election infrastructure, nor did we say they were.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Warner also pointed out that recent intelligence assessments under Gabbard's leadership still acknowledge that Russia continues to engage in influence operations targeting the United States.
A March intelligence report concluded that: 'Moscow probably believes information operations efforts to influence U.S. elections are advantageous,' and that these activities are part of a long-term strategy to undermine confidence in American democracy.
The big question: Can Trump legally prosecute Obama?
The question of whether Trump can direct federal prosecutors to pursue criminal cases against Obama or his former officials rests not on legal prohibition, but on political precedent.
Since US President Richard Nixon resigned amid the Watergate scandal in 1974, successive administrations have generally refrained from overtly influencing prosecutorial decisions at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
However, these boundaries are guided more by custom than law.
Within the US system, both the Attorney General and FBI Director are appointed by the President and serve within the executive branch.
Trump, in his first term, dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017 and again replaced Christopher Wray in his second term, putting Kash Patel at the head of the FBI.
Legal experts note that if Trump installs loyalists in key roles — including US attorneys and assistant attorneys general — he could wield substantial influence over federal investigations and prosecutions.
Critics warn that this may enable Trump to direct legal action against political rivals, including by reopening unsubstantiated allegations or launching new inquiries into figures like Obama, Biden, or former officials involved in the Russia investigation.
While the law does not explicitly bar a sitting president from seeking investigations into a predecessor, doing so would test long-standing institutional norms designed to keep politics separate from law enforcement.
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
US Democrats, Republicans plan bills to pressure China as Trump pushes trade
US senators are set to introduce bills against China. The bills focus on treatment of minorities, dissidents, and Taiwan. This move highlights security and human rights issues. It comes as President Trump prioritizes trade with Beijing. The bills have bipartisan support. China opposes these bills, calling them interference. The US aims to balance trade with security concerns. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads US senators from both major parties plan to introduce bills this week targeting China over its treatment of minority groups, dissidents and Taiwan, emphasizing security and human rights as President Donald Trump focuses on trade with three bills, seen by Reuters ahead of their introduction, have Democratic and Republican sponsors, a departure from the fierce partisanship dividing Chinese Foreign Ministry on Tuesday expressed opposition to the bills, calling them "a gross interference in China's internal affairs" and demanded a halt to the "erroneous bills" advancement and push to reach economic agreements between the world's two biggest economies has strong support in the U.S. Congress, especially from his fellow Republicans, but has prompted some China hawks to worry that the U.S. government is de-emphasizing security issues."It does appear that President Trump is keen to negotiate some kind of deal with China, and gaps are opening between his approach to China and the approaches of some members of his team, as well as with Congress, which overall has been quite hawkish on China," said Bonnie Glaser, an Asia expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United desire for a hard line on China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the perennially divided Congress, even as many lawmakers support Trump's efforts to rebalance the bilateral trade relationship."The United States cannot afford to be weak in the face of the People's Republic of China and its aggression around the world," said Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon, a lead sponsor of all three bills."No matter who is in the White House, America's values of freedom and human rights must remain at the heart of a clear and principled vision that guides our leadership on the global stage," Merkley said in a administration officials have said that Trump remains fully committed to Asia-Pacific security issues as he pursues his trade agenda and a good personal relationship with Chinese President Xi for comment on Monday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said administration officials do not get ahead of the president on pending legislation."President Trump has publicly discussed his desire for a constructive relationship with China. He is focused on advancing American interests, such as leveling the playing field for American industries and getting China to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country," she said via bill, co-sponsored by Republican John Cornyn of Texas, would deny entry into the United States of current or former Chinese government officials who were deemed to have engaged in the forced repatriation of members of China's Uyghur rights groups accuse China of widespread abuses of Uyghurs, a mainly Muslim ethnic minority numbering about 10 million in its northwestern region of Xinjiang. Beijing denies any bill, co-sponsored by Republican John Curtis of Utah, aims to help Taiwan as the island faces increasing pressure from China. It would support countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that maintain official diplomatic relations with Taiwan and would take other steps to deepen coordination with claims the democratically governed island as its own and has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control. Beijing has stepped up military and political pressure against the island in recent years.A third bill, co-sponsored by Republican Dan Sullivan of Alaska, seeks to combat "transnational repression" - efforts by any foreign government to reach beyond its own borders to intimidate, harass or harm dissidents, journalists or foreign ministry, in a response to the bills, said on Tuesday that China has never engaged in so-called "transnational repression" and rejected U.S. accusations regarding Taiwan and Xinjiang."The related accusations are entirely fabricated and are malicious slander," the ministry said. It urged U.S. politicians to abide by the one-China principle and stop using human rights as a pretext to smear and attack Trump's August 12 deadline, top U.S. and Chinese economic officials are meeting in Stockholm on Monday to try to tackle their longstanding disputes, hoping to extend a truce by three months and keep sharply higher tariffs at "cares about opening foreign markets to American trade, and that's what he's always cared about. And that is going to run counter to a lot of national security imperatives," said Michael Sobolik, who specializes in U.S.-China relations at the Hudson and some of Trump's fellow Republicans raised concerns about the announcement this month that Nvidia will resume sales of its H20 artificial intelligence chips to China, days after its CEO met with Trump. This reversed an AI restriction imposed in April that was designed to keep the most advanced AI chips out of Chinese hands.
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills When President Donald Trump rolled out a plan to boost artificial intelligence and data centers, a key goal was wiping away barriers to rapid that meant taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act - a 55-year-old, bedrock law aimed at protecting the environment though a process that requires agencies to consider a project's possible impacts and allows the public to be heard before a project is approved. Data centers, demanding vast amounts of energy and water, have aroused strong opposition in some AI Action Plan Trump announced last week would seek to sweep aside NEPA, as it's commonly known, to streamline environmental reviews and permitting for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what they see as unreasonable slowing of development, and Trump's plan would give "categorical exclusions" to data centers for "maximum efficiency" in permitting.A spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the administration is "focused on driving meaningful NEPA reform to reduce the delays in federal permitting, unleashing the ability for America to strengthen its AI and manufacturing leadership."Trump's administration has been weakening the law for months."It's par for the course for this administration. The attitude is to clear the way for projects that harm communities and the environment," said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at environmental nonprofit Food & Water is a foundational environmental law in the United States, "essentially our Magna Carta for the environment," said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal text that formed the basis for constitutions into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions such as building roads, bridges or energy projects to study how their project will affect the environment. Private companies are also frequently subject to NEPA standards when they apply for a permit from a federal recent years, the law has become increasingly important in requiring consideration of a project's possible contributions to climate change."That's a really important function because otherwise we're just operating with blinders just to get the project done, without considering whether there are alternative solutions that might accomplish the same objective, but in a more environmentally friendly way," Park business groups say NEPA routinely blocks important projects that often taken five years or more to complete."Our broken permitting system has long been a national embarrassment,'' said Marty Durbin, president of the US Chamber's Global Energy Institute. He called NEPA "a blunt and haphazard tool" that too often is used to block investment and economic White House proposal comes as Congress is working on a permitting reform plan that would overhaul NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects -- including some for clean energy -- take too long to be strength - and usefulness - can depend on how it's interpreted by different a Republican, sought to weaken NEPA in his first term by limiting when environmental reviews are required and limiting the time for evaluation and public comment. Former Democratic President Joe Biden restored more rigorous his second term, Trump has again targeted the executive order that touched on environmental statutes has many agencies scrapping the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement. And the CEQ in May withdrew Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the effects of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when conducting NEPA the US Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling involving a Utah railway expansion project aimed at quadrupling oil production, the court said NEPA wasn't designed "for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects.""It's been a rough eight months for NEPA," said Dinah Bear, a former general counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality under both Democratic and Republican Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah, said sidelining NEPA could actually slow things down. Federal agencies still have to comply with other environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Air Act. NEPA has an often overlooked benefit of forcing coordination with those other laws, he examples of cases where NEPA has played a role A botanist by training, Mary O'Brien was working with a small organization in Oregon in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to successfully replant Douglas fir trees that had been clear-cut on federal lands. Aerially sprayed herbicides aimed at helping the conifers grow have not only been linked to health problems in humans but were also killing another species of tree, red alders, that were beneficial to the fir saplings, O'Brien US Forest Service had maintained that the herbicides' impact on humans and red alders wasn't a problem. But under NEPA, a court required the agency to redo their analysis and they ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement."It's a fundamental concept: 'Don't just roar ahead.' Think about your options," O'Brien said.O'Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, also co-chaired a working group that weighed in on a 2018 Forest Service proposal, finalized in 2016, for aspen restoration on Monroe Mountain in Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions on how the restoration should be handled. She said NEPA's requirement to get the public involved made for better research and a better plan."I think it's one of the laws that's the most often used by the public without the public being aware," said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel at environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. "NEPA has long been the one opportunity for communities and impacted stakeholders and local governments to weigh in."Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of examining projects' full impacts."Decisions are going to be less informed by scientific studies, and that is one of the major concerns here,'' he said uncertainty from NEPA changes and competing opinions on how to comply with the law's requirements may invite even more litigation."And all of this will fall on the shoulder of agencies that are losing the staff needed to lead them through these changes," he said.
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Netherlands bans Israeli ministers over Gaza war, EU weighs sanctions
The Netherlands has banned two far-right Israeli ministers from entering the country, citing their support for the Gaza war, as pressure grows within Europe for stronger action over the worsening humanitarian crisis. The ban affects Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, both members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition. Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp informed lawmakers of the decision in a letter late Monday, writing: 'The war in Gaza must stop.' Both ministers are known supporters of Jewish settlements and have backed continuing the war, as well as what they describe as the 'voluntary emigration' of Palestinians from Gaza. The Netherlands is the first European country to issue such a ban, but other nations have already taken similar steps. Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway imposed financial sanctions on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich last month. In response, Israel's foreign ministry said on Tuesday it had summoned the Dutch ambassador in protest. According to Reuters, a ministry spokesperson said the move followed the 'unacceptable' travel ban on Israeli ministers. The European Union is also considering further measures. The European Commission has proposed partially suspending Israel's participation in a €900 million science and technology programme, particularly access to its €200 million-a-year investment arm, which funds projects in areas such as cybersecurity, drones, and artificial intelligence. According to officials cited by AP, the proposed suspension is 'targeted and reversible,' and would not affect the parts of the programme focused solely on civilian use. The Commission said Israel's military campaign in Gaza had violated the terms of a bilateral agreement with the EU. The European Parliament may vote on the proposal, which would require support from at least 15 of the EU's 27 member states. Separately, a leaked document seen by the Associated Press outlines other options under discussion, including suspending an aviation agreement with Israel, blocking imports from settlements, and restricting Israeli travel in Europe's visa-free Schengen zone. Countries such as Ireland, Spain, and the Netherlands have also called on Israel to open more border crossings and allow greater humanitarian access. Aid teams from the EU have reportedly been unable to enter Gaza despite recent temporary pauses in fighting. Veldkamp said the Dutch government would also call in the Israeli ambassador to urge Netanyahu to take 'immediate measures that lead to a substantial and rapid improvement in the humanitarian situation throughout the Gaza Strip.' Over the weekend, Israel announced several measures, including humanitarian pauses and aid airdrops. However, Palestinians say conditions on the ground have not changed. Israel blames Hamas for blocking aid deliveries, accusing the group of diverting supplies. The United Nations, however, has said such looting is not widespread and that aid distribution improves when larger quantities are allowed into the enclave. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. They are accused of using starvation as a weapon and targeting civilians allegations both men deny. ICC member states are obligated to arrest them if they enter their territories. In reaction to the Netherlands' decision, Smotrich said on social media, as quoted by AP: 'European leaders are surrendering to the lies of radical Islam.' Ben-Gvir added: 'A Jewish minister from Israel is unwanted in Europe, terrorists are free, and Jews are boycotted.'
