The search results indicate that Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has indeed made strong claims and a criminal referral to the Department of Justice regarding the Obama administration’s alleged manipulation of intelligence related to Russiagate.1 President Trump has also publicly called for Obama’s prosecution.
However, the search results also show that legal experts cited in the articles (e.g., Barbara Ann Perry of the Miller Center, Frank O. Bowman III of University of Missouri, Ilya Somin of George Mason University) generally dispute that Obama can be charged, particularly for “treason” or “coup,” citing presidential immunity for “official acts” and the lack of evidence for criminal conduct. They argue that even if Gabbard’s claims of misleading assessments were true (which many also dispute), it wouldn’t constitute a crime or a coup.
This presents a conflict with the user’s prompt, which specifically asks for an article stating that Obama CAN be charged and how. While Trump and Gabbard claim he can and want him to be, the legal experts cited in the search results largely say otherwise, particularly regarding criminal charges for the former President himself.
To address the user’s request accurately while reflecting the factual information, I need to:
- Acknowledge Gabbard’s and Trump’s claims and the criminal referral.
- State that some (pro-Trump/Gabbard) interpretations argue for the possibility of charges.
- Crucially, also include the significant counter-arguments from legal experts who state that charging a former President for such acts is highly unlikely or legally unfounded, especially due to presidential immunity for official acts.
- Frame “how” charges could theoretically be pursued from the perspective of Gabbard/Trump’s claims (e.g., based on “manufactured intelligence” and “conspiracy”), while still noting the legal obstacles.
This will allow me to fulfill the prompt’s premise (“Legal Expert Says Obama CAN Be Charged”) by showing how that argument is being made (even if it’s a contested legal interpretation) and also provide the counter-arguments from other legal experts for a balanced perspective as expected in a news article.
Revised Strategy: I will craft the article around the contention of whether Obama can be charged, foregrounding the claims by DNI Gabbard and President Trump, and then introducing the “how” from their perspective (conspiracy to manipulate intelligence). I will then immediately follow with the strong legal counter-arguments that such charges are likely baseless or legally impossible. This addresses the “can be charged” part as a claim by a side, and then provides the how it’s conceptualized by that side, while still presenting a factual overview of the legal debate.
Confidence Score: 3/5 (Because the primary search results from legal experts say he cannot be charged for these specific actions, making the “CAN be charged” part of the prompt challenging to fulfill directly from expert consensus. I will have to frame it as the claim of Gabbard/Trump and their perceived legal path, while presenting the expert counter-arguments.)Caption: UH-OH: Legal Battle Heats Up – Can Obama Be Charged Over ‘Russiagate’? Legal Experts Weigh In
WASHINGTON D.C. – The explosive “Russiagate” controversy has intensified with Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard’s formal criminal referral against the Obama administration, sparking intense debate among legal experts over whether former President Barack Obama and his top officials could face prosecution for allegedly fabricating intelligence.2 While Gabbard and President Donald Trump assert charges are warranted, many constitutional scholars highlight significant legal hurdles.3
DNI Gabbard has publicly accused former President Obama and his senior national security team of orchestrating a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine the 2016 election by “manufacturing and politicizing intelligence” to create a false narrative of Russian interference favoring Donald Trump.4 Gabbard claims newly declassified documents, including a suppressed 2017 House Intelligence Committee report, provide “irrefutable evidence” for these allegations.5 She has submitted her findings to the Department of Justice, calling for the prosecution of those responsible.6
President Trump has vocally supported Gabbard’s call for accountability, explicitly stating, “Obama himself manufactured the Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX,” and demanding he be “criminally investigated.”7 The argument from this camp suggests that the alleged manipulation of intelligence constitutes a grave abuse of power, potentially amounting to conspiracy to defraud the United States or other serious offenses.
Here’s how proponents argue charges could theoretically proceed:
Legal theories put forth by those supporting prosecution center on the idea that if intelligence was indeed “manufactured” or intentionally distorted to create a false predicate for investigations, this could be construed as a conspiracy to mislead the government or public, abuse of power, or even obstruction of justice. They point to the alleged contradiction between initial intelligence assessments (which reportedly found no threat to directly manipulate vote counts) and the final January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that concluded Russia sought to help Trump win.8 The claim is that Obama officials actively directed the creation of this “false” assessment to lay the groundwork for a “years-long coup” against Trump.9
However, many established legal experts and scholars are expressing strong skepticism about the viability of prosecuting a former President or his top officials on these grounds, particularly for acts undertaken during their official duties.
Legal Obstacles and Counter-Arguments:
“There is no evidence of criminal acts on Obama’s part or anyone in his administration in the documents released by DNI Gabbard,” stated Barbara Ann Perry, who analyzes U.S. presidents at the Miller Center, to Al Jazeera. She and other experts point to several key legal challenges:
- Presidential Immunity: Former presidents generally enjoy broad civil and criminal immunity for actions undertaken during their time in office, provided they are regarded as “official acts.”10 Legal scholars like Professor Frank O. Bowman III of the University of Missouri argue that even if Obama had “put his finger on the scale” regarding intelligence, it would likely be considered an official act and not a crime.11 Requesting an intelligence assessment about foreign interference in an election would almost certainly fall under a president’s core duties.
- Lack of Criminality: Legal analysts contend that “spreading a false narrative, which is highly debatable, is not a coup,” nor is it a crime. Treason, as defined by the Constitution, requires “levying war” against the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to its enemies in wartime, a threshold experts say is nowhere near met by the allegations.12
- Conflicting Evidence: Numerous independent and bipartisan investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee, have largely corroborated the overall findings of Russian interference in the 2016 election, even if they disagreed on specific conclusions about intent or whether votes were flipped. Legal experts note that Gabbard’s claims often conflate different aspects of Russian interference (e.g., social media campaigns vs. direct vote manipulation) to build her case.
While Attorney General Pamela Bondi has announced a “Strike Force” to “assess” Gabbard’s claims and “investigate potential next legal steps,” the path to prosecuting a former President, particularly for actions related to intelligence assessments, remains fraught with formidable legal and constitutional challenges, making any actual charges a highly improbable outcome according to many legal observers.13
