WorldNetDaily kept up its Trump Regime Media routine regarding the Trump-Russia document dump by flip-flopping over whether Barack Obama could be prosecuted for his purported offenses regarding it. Bob Unruh wrote in a July 25 article:
President Donald Trump won a huge precedent at the Supreme Court only months ago, establishing immunity for the occupant of the president’s office on a number of issues.
Now, he candidly has admitted, his victory probably is helping Barack Obama.
Obama, along with his henchmen James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, possibly even Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, are under several investigations for misleading the American public, suppressing an intel community conclusion that Russia was no big deal during the 2016 election, and instead rewriting reports to make it look bad for Trump.
That was the election the conspirators fabricated a Trump campaign-Russia collusion conspiracy theory for which there was no evidence.
Now that government records are being declassified that confirm it was made up, there’s rampant speculation about charges, including perjury, lying to Congress and more.
A reporter asked Trump about that immunity ruling.
He said, “It probably helps him a lot, probably helps him a lot, the immunity ruling. But it doesn’t help the people around him at all. But it probably helps him a lot. He’s done criminal acts, there’s no question about it, but he has immunity, and it probably helped him a lot. He owes me big. Obama owes me big!”
The Supreme Court ruled that a president as total immunity for exercising “core” constitutional powers, and presumptive immunity for actions they took as president. The ruling gave no immunity for private actions.
As we’ve documented, Gabbard’s document dump doesn’t support what Unruh wants you to think it does, and it ignores that Russia really did interfere in the 2016 election. Because Unruh bothered to tell only one side of the story, his readers won’t know that.
A few days later, however, Unruh changed his mind and declared that Obama could be impeached after all:
Impeach Obama!
Back in the day there were such slogans on bumper stickers, posters and the like.
They focused on his radical agenda that subjected Americans to what now is known as Obamacare, and other issues. His abuse of the nation, where he claimed it no longer is a “Christian nation” added to the sentiment.
But could it actually happen? Especially as declassified government documents now show Obama was a driver behind a grand conspiracy launched in 2016 against then-candidate Donald Trump and pursued by Democrats for years.
The claim that Obama said the U.S. is not a Christian nation is a zombie lie Unruh and WND have been peddling for years. Obama actually said we are not just a Christian nation. Nevertheless, Unruh continued to rant:
According to Democrats, impeach of Obama, a former president, is possible.
That’s from one of the lawyers who defended Trump during his second impeachment, launched by Nancy Pelosi because of her claims that Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol was an “insurrection” that Trump orchestrated, claims that also have long since fallen into disrepute.
It’s from David Schoen, a lawyer specializing in federal criminal defense and civil rights, who was one of the lawyers representing Trump during his second impeachment trial, the one that happened after he left office.
“President Trump is right when he said the immunity decision would help President Obama,” Schoen said on Newsmax. “But you know what it doesn’t help him with? Impeachment.”
Schoen cited Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution — “the very clause that Democrats used during their second sham impeachment of President Trump to argue that a former president could still be tried and barred from holding office again. In doing so, they opened the door for the same standard to apply to Obama,” said a report at the Gateway Pundit.
Unruh refused to explain how, exactly, claims that Trump encouraged the Capitol riot had “fallen into disrepute.” He also didn’t explain how an impeachment of Obama more than eight years after he left office could possibly be taken seriously or seen as anything other than vindictive lawfare.