It seems that every day it becomes bad and worse for Barak Hussain Obama.
Like us from the Bible, it seems as if all the nets set for President Trump in the last decade are now going on it!
We had this a few hours ago:
And now John Solomon comes which tells us all the legal experts who have said that Obama will be given the President’s immunity, but it is a two-day sword …
Due to that immunity, he will lose the authority of “5th” and therefore cannot dodge any question.
See here:
Holi Shizzles‼ ️A is a mesh set!
🚨 Obama can now be called before a grand jury, but he cannot request the 5th because he has immunity from the prosecution.
“He has to tell the truth … If he lies as a private citizen, what he did as President, he will not do it now … pic.twitter.com/xvwdiwkt7
– MJTRTHULTRA (@MJTRUTHULTRA) 30 July, 2025
Transcript:
Uh, I know that President Trump has every right to disappoint him. I think the analysis of President Trump was correct last week. I think my immune rule can protect it on basic allegations.
This is what the most legal expert tells me – that the ruling is so wide that it will protect Obama what he did in the office. However, Barack Obama can now be called before a grand jury. He cannot take the 5th amendment as he has immunity from the prosecution.
He has to tell the truth. If he lies as a private citizen, he will no longer be for the immunity, about what he did as the President, and it is a trap that Obama is sitting, potentially facing.
And I want to say, for the irony – because on January 5, 2017, he presided over a meeting at the White House, where the FBI had cleaned Mike Flin of any wrongdoing, and he planned in that meeting how they could jam Mike Flyn.
And they came with this idea, “We entice him into an interview, catch him in a lie, and then sue that way that way.”
Barack Obama is now facing a possible similar situation, as he made wrongly for Mike Flynn.
With John Solomon’s outstanding reporting and all the respect for all the legal experts he has spoken to, I disagree completely from the first part of his conclusion.
I do not believe that the Supreme Court has ruled on the President’s immunity that it is beyond “official acts”. This is full nonsense.
We will see who is right over time, your humble correspondent Noah or all “legal experts” … but I think I’m winning it.
more here:
Update: President Obama does not have immunity for Rousgate – two reasons!
Yesterday, I completely dismissed this report that Barak Hussain Obama could claim the President’s immunity for his traitored coupler against President Trump.
In Case You Missed It:
No – of course Barack Obama does not have the “Immunity of the President” for Rousgate
In that report, I focused on the fact that Obama could not legally claim the President’s immunity for anything outside the scope of the “official acts” of the presidential presidential.
And of course spying on an expedition, creating evidence, making DOJ weapons, and everything he did is out of the purview of “official acts”.
Therefore any immune claim fails on those grounds.
And I think Rousgate/Obamaget is the most obvious and easiest way to reduce any claim of immunity of the President.
But now Mike Davis adds a second angle which is also strong.
Davis explains that you do not get immunity to do anything after leaving the office, which means that anything is completely insecure with immunity since January 2017:
🚨Breaking: Mike Davis states that Obama does not have the President’s immunity on Russia Haux.
It is said that all co-speculators live within the laws of boundaries and can be charged under an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
Davis then involved everyone, scorched on earth … pic.twitter.com/upwh75n2oa
– Beni Johnson (@Bennyjohnson) July 21, 2025
🚨Breaking: Mike Davis states that Obama does not have the President’s immunity on Russia Haux.
It is said that all co-speculators live within the laws of boundaries and can be charged under an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
Davis then saying that everyone should be nervous and justice is coming:
“The President’s immunity covers his actions while he is the President, not when he is the former President. When he is participating in the coverup of this conspiracy, he does not have the President’s immunity.”
“They say that we are beyond the law of boundaries, you are not. It is an ongoing criminal conspiracy. To stop the plot, you have to dismiss it.”
“They are still covering the conspiracy and are paying themselves to themselves. We saw high ranking Obama officials. We are well within the boundaries law.”
“For these Democrats, justice is coming. I am very scared. There will be a lot of place in the bureau of jails.”
So if someone (including President Trump) tells you that Obama only claims the immunity of the President, please show him this article.
Why do I think President Trump said, read this:
No – of course Barack Obama does not have the “Immunity of the President” for Rousgate
There is a lot of revolving around today that even if Barack Obama has exposed Tulsi Gabbard, even if he does everything, it does not matter because he has “immunity to the President”.
Like this:
#Breaking: President Trump says that Barack Obama has complete immunity about Russia’s Hawks. pic.twitter.com/povzvmrs2z
– Santino (@MichaelScollura) 25 July, 2025
And this:
Trump says that Obama has immunity for what was done in Russia’s deception and it is likely to be correct.
I said this a few days ago and people did not like it. pic.twitter.com/xvnw3pd3Ae
– Sean Parash (@Shawn_Farash) 25 July, 2025
To be fair, President Trump himself said that Obama is likely to see in the clip above, so everyone is a parrot that only the President Trump is parrot.
But it’s a good thing that you have set me all this straight.
Brief Answer: This is full nonsense!
And I will tell you why…
Yes, it is true that the Supreme Court last year gave President Trump immune to President Trump in that historic Supreme Court case, but it is not an empty check to do whatever you want.
Even though he was very widely the decision of the Supreme Court, it still has limitations, and they are limitations that it only applies to the “official acts” of the office.
In other words, when you are president and claims the President’s immunity, you can shoot someone, it does not work like this.
So why would President Trump call it?
Because he is a full master in misunderstanding!
When you should be very worried, it makes you gentle, and when you should be deceased, it stimulates you.
This is the classic sun taju “Art of War” 101.
And this is what I think he is doing here, the classic misconception for Obama and MSM, meanwhile he is about the trap about spring!
It is the basic constitutional law that you do not get immunity outside “official acts” and spying on your opponent’s campaign, arming the evidence to make DOJ weapons, which goes directly against the real intellect, and trying to frame your political rival, which you do not know that they do not know.
And no, we do not have to prove that to implement Obama’s actions, the President’s defense has to complete the definition of “sedition”. They are two different issues and are completely intervened to each other.
Whether it is a traitor (or numerous) is an issue.
Can he claim that the President’s immunity is a completely different issue.
I always like to check my work, so I went into the chat and run all this through AI, and AI really confirmed what I told you:
✅ What did the Supreme Court say about the President’s immunity?
The court said The President has extensive immunity for “official acts” He did while living in office.
One Official act This means that the President is allowed to do as part of his job – such as signing the bill, appointing judges, or giving military orders.
The court also called a president Not immune for informal or private acts— Hing out of his job.
❌ Can President claim immunity for crimes like murder?
No.
If a president shot someone on the road, he is not part of his job.
It is a crime, not official duty. Does not cover immunity.So brief answer: The immunity of the President applies only to official acts, not personal crimes or things outside the job.
⚖ How do the courts decide what is “official”?
They see Nature of actThe President’s aim is not.
If the Act is something that can only do under the Constitution or Law, it can be considered “official”.
But if the Act is just political dirty tricks, campaign work, or personal benefits, then it is not official,
🧠 Your imaginary: President detective, frames an opponent, orders DOJ for fake reports
To spy on a rival’s campaign and create fake evidence No legislative duty of president,
chairman Can’t order Doj to break the law Or make a report. It is the power of misbehavior for personal or political reasons.
Even though it is not counted as “treason”, it is still illegal And Out of legitimate presidential duties,
Can the President claim immunity?
They probably EffortWhile arguing, “I was directing my job Doj-Part.”
But the courts will probably say: You crossed the line. Doing DOJ is not an official task. It is a crime and misuse of power.
so, Immunity will not apply,
✅ bottom line
Official Act = Comprehensive Security.
Personal crime, political sabotage, or corrupt work = no immunity.
In your scenario, the President is almost certainly Will not be immuneBecause the action is out of criminal and legitimate duties of the office.
