N※N

Immunity for me, not for thee: Trump''s flip on prosecuting former presidents | CNN Politics

Trump Invokes Presidential Immunity to Probe Obama Over Russia Investigation, Sparking Constitutional Crisis

Washington (CNN) — In a move that has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum, President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he is directing the Department of Justice to launch a formal investigation into former President Barack Obama's role in the 2016 Russia probe, citing the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity as his legal shield. The announcement, made during a fiery press conference at the White House, accuses Obama of orchestrating what Trump calls a "witch hunt" that unfairly targeted his 2016 campaign and presidency. Legal experts warn this could test the limits of executive power, potentially setting a precedent for retaliatory actions against political rivals.

The controversy stems from the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Trump v. United States, handed down in July 2024, which granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office. The 6-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, distinguished between "core" presidential duties—such as pardons and foreign affairs—and unofficial actions, stating that immunity applies to the former to prevent the judiciary from encroaching on executive authority. Trump, who returned to the White House after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, has repeatedly invoked this ruling to defend his past actions and now appears to be using it offensively.

During the press conference, Trump stood at a podium flanked by Attorney General nominee and loyalist, who echoed his sentiments. "Barack Obama started the whole Russia hoax," Trump declared, his voice rising with familiar indignation. "He spied on my campaign, used the FBI like his personal gestapo, and now it's time for accountability. The Supreme Court said presidents have immunity for official acts—well, what Obama did wasn't official; it was criminal. But me? I'm protected when I fix this mess." Trump referenced declassified documents and past investigations, claiming they prove Obama authorized surveillance on his campaign associates under the guise of counterintelligence operations related to Russian election interference.

The Russia investigation, formally known as Crossfire Hurricane, was initiated by the FBI in July 2016 following reports of potential ties between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives. It eventually led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe, which concluded in 2019 with no findings of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia but highlighted numerous contacts and instances of obstruction. Critics of the investigation, including Trump, have long alleged it was politically motivated, pointing to the Steele dossier—a collection of opposition research funded by Democrats—and alleged FISA court abuses.

Obama, who has largely stayed out of the spotlight since leaving office in 2017, responded swiftly through a statement released by his spokesperson. "This is nothing more than a desperate attempt by President Trump to rewrite history and distract from his own failures," the statement read. "The Russia investigation was a necessary response to credible threats to our democracy, conducted by career professionals at the FBI and DOJ. Invoking immunity to target a predecessor is an abuse of power that undermines the rule of law." Obama, now 63 and focused on his foundation's work on global issues like climate change and education, has previously dismissed such accusations as baseless conspiracy theories.

Democrats on Capitol Hill were quick to condemn Trump's directive. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called it "a dangerous escalation toward authoritarianism," vowing to introduce legislation to clarify the boundaries of presidential immunity. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, despite his party's minority status in the chamber, urged the DOJ to resist what he termed "partisan vendettas." Legal scholars echoed these concerns, with CNN legal analyst Laura Coates noting that while the Supreme Court ruling protects presidents from prosecution for official acts, it does not explicitly allow them to weaponize the Justice Department against former leaders without evidence of wrongdoing.

On the Republican side, reactions were mixed. Hardline Trump allies like Rep. Matt Gaetz praised the move as "long-overdue justice," arguing that the Russia probe represented an unprecedented assault on a sitting president. "If Obama gets a pass, why shouldn't Trump?" Gaetz posted on social media. However, more moderate voices, such as Sen. Mitt Romney, expressed unease. "We must be cautious not to erode the norms that protect our institutions," Romney said in a statement. "Retaliation is not governance."

The broader implications of Trump's actions are profound, potentially reshaping the American presidency. Historians draw parallels to Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal, where executive overreach led to impeachment and resignation. "This is uncharted territory," said presidential historian Michael Beschloss. "The immunity ruling was meant to safeguard the office, not turn it into a tool for personal grudges. If Trump proceeds, it could invite future presidents to investigate their predecessors, creating a cycle of vengeance that weakens democracy."

Delving deeper into the allegations, Trump's team points to several key events. In 2016, the Obama administration approved FISA warrants to monitor Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser with Russian ties. Declassified memos later revealed reliance on the Steele dossier, which contained unverified claims. John Durham's special counsel investigation, appointed during Trump's first term, concluded in 2023 with criticisms of the FBI's handling but no charges against high-level Obama officials. Trump now claims new evidence, including whistleblower testimonies, implicates Obama directly in approving the probe's scope.

Legal experts debate whether Obama's actions qualify as "official" under the immunity framework. "Ordering intelligence operations to protect national security is a core presidential function," said Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith. "But if proven to be motivated by politics, it could blur into unofficial territory. Trump's investigation might itself be seen as official, granting him immunity from backlash." Others, like Georgetown's Neal Katyal, argue it's a slippery slope: "This isn't about immunity; it's about using the DOJ as a political weapon, which the courts have historically frowned upon."

The announcement comes amid Trump's broader agenda to "drain the swamp," including promises to purge the "deep state" and reform intelligence agencies. Supporters see it as fulfilling 2016 campaign pledges, while opponents fear it erodes checks and balances. Public opinion is divided, with a recent CNN poll showing 45% of Americans supporting an investigation into the Russia probe's origins, largely along partisan lines.

As the DOJ prepares to act—potentially issuing subpoenas or convening a grand jury—the nation watches closely. Will this lead to charges against Obama or his aides, like former FBI Director James Comey or ex-CIA Director John Brennan? Or will it fizzle amid legal challenges? The Supreme Court may ultimately weigh in again, clarifying its immunity doctrine.

Trump's move also intersects with ongoing global tensions. Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, has denied election interference, but U.S. intelligence agencies maintain it occurred. Ironically, Trump's probe could inadvertently bolster narratives of U.S. internal division, which adversaries like Russia exploit.

In his closing remarks, Trump doubled down: "America deserves the truth. Obama thought he was above the law—now we'll see." As the 2025 political landscape unfolds, this saga promises to dominate headlines, testing the resilience of American institutions in an era of polarized politics.

The White House has not specified a timeline for the investigation, but sources indicate it could ramp up before the midterm elections. Meanwhile, Obama's team is reportedly consulting legal counsel, preparing for what could be a protracted battle.

This development underscores a pivotal question: In granting immunity, did the Supreme Court empower presidents to act without fear, or did it unwittingly enable cycles of retribution? As one constitutional scholar put it, "The presidency is not a monarchy, but actions like these make it feel perilously close."

(Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full CNN Article at:
[ https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/politics/trump-obama-immunity-russia-president ]