There has been a lot swirling around online today about how even if Barack Obama did do everything Tulsi Gabbard has exposed, it won’t matter because he has “Presidential Immunity”.

Like this:

And this:

To be fair, President Trump himself said Obama likely has immunity as you can see in the clip above, so everyone parroting that is simply parroting President Trump.

But it’s a good thing you have me to set this all straight.

SHORT ANSWER: that’s complete nonsense!

And I’ll tell you why…

ADVERTISEMENT

Yes, it’s true that the Supreme Court did grant President Trump wide-ranging Presidential Immunity in that landmark Supreme Court case last year, but that is not a blank check to do whatever you want.

Even though that Supreme Court ruling was very broad based, it still has boundaries, and those boundaries are that it only applies to “Official Acts” of the office.

In other words, you can’t shoot someone while you’re President and claim Presidential Immunity, it doesn’t work like that.

So why would President Trump say it?

Because he’s the absolute master at misdirection!

He gets you complacent when you should be very worried, and he agitates you when you should be complacent.

It’s classic Sun Tzu “Art of War” 101.

And that’s exactly what I think he’s doing here, classic misdirection to Obama and to the MSM, meanwhile he’s about to spring the trap!

It’s basic Constitutional Law that you don’t get immunity outside of “Official Acts” and spying on your opponent’s campaign, weaponizing the DOJ to fabricate evidence that goes directly against the real intelligence that had, and trying to frame your political opponent for something you know they did not do is so far from “Official Acts” it’s laughable.

ADVERTISEMENT

And no, we don’t have to prove Obama’s actions meet the definition of “Treason” in order for Presidential Immunity to apply.  Those are two separate issues and entirely mutually independent of each other.

Whether he committed Treason (or a myriad of other crimes) is one issue.

Whether he can claim Presidential Immunity is an entirely separate different issue.

I always like to Fact-Check my own work, so I went to ChatGPT and ran all of this through the AI, and the AI confirmed EXACTLY what I just told you:

✅ What Did the Supreme Court Say About Presidential Immunity?

  • The Court said a President has broad immunity for “official acts” done while in office.

  • An official act means something the President is allowed to do as part of their job—like signing bills, appointing judges, or giving military orders.

  • The Court also said a President does NOT have immunity for unofficial or private acts—things outside their job.

❌ Can a President Claim Immunity for Crimes Like Murder?

No.
If a President shot someone in the street, that’s not part of their job.
That’s a crime, not an official duty. Immunity doesn’t cover that.

So the short answer: Presidential Immunity only applies to official acts, not personal crimes or things outside the job.

ADVERTISEMENT

⚖ How Do Courts Decide What’s “Official”?

  • They look at the nature of the act, not the President’s motive.

  • If the act is something only the President can do under the Constitution or law, it might be considered “official.”

  • But if the act is just political dirty tricks, campaign work, or personal gain, that’s not official.

🧠 Your Hypothetical: President Spies, Frames a Rival, Orders DOJ to Fake Reports

  • Spying on a rival’s campaign and creating fake evidence is not a lawful duty of the President.

  • The President cannot order DOJ to break the law or make up reports. That’s abusing power for personal or political reasons.

  • Even if it doesn’t count as “treason,” it’s still illegal and outside legitimate presidential duties.

Could the President claim immunity?

  • They might try, arguing “I was directing the DOJ—part of my job.”

  • But the courts would likely say: You crossed the line. Making DOJ do fake investigations is not an official function. It’s a crime and an abuse of power.

    ADVERTISEMENT

  • Therefore, immunity would not apply.

✅ Bottom Line

  • Official acts = broad protection.

  • Personal crimes, political sabotage, or corrupt acts = no immunity.

  • In your scenario, the President almost certainly would not be immune, because the actions are criminal and outside the lawful duties of the office.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.
 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.