Though there is no evidence that Russia directly intervened in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to help Trump win, it has been revealed that then-President Barack Obama instructed intelligence agencies to fabricate evidence, leading to calls in the U.S. for "Obama to be prosecuted." Some are even arguing that 'treason' should be applied to Obama. The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a team to investigate whether Obama's administration manipulated information, but it's unclear whether treason charges can actually be applied.
On the 23rd (local time), according to foreign news outlets including Fox News and BBC, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director General of National Intelligence (DNI), stated through declassified documents recently released at the direction of President Donald Trump that Obama and his national security team deliberately distorted evidence to make it appear as though Russia had directly intervened in the U.S. presidential election. According to Gabbard, shortly after the 2016 presidential election, U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that Russia did not possess the capability to hack the actual voting systems or manipulate the election. However, Obama ordered intelligence authorities to revise their assessments to indicate that "Russia intervened to help Trump". The documents released by Gabbard detailed this information.
Gabbard claims that the reason Obama directed the distortion of evidence was for political purposes, either to pull down the victorious Trump or to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration. Trump evaluated the document released by Gabbard as "irrefutable evidence of Obama's treason," stating, "It is now time to achieve justice."
In response, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn demanded that Attorney General Pam Bondi appoint a special prosecutor, and the Department of Justice announced the formation of an investigative team in cooperation with Director General Gabbard. Thus, the theory of prosecuting Obama is moving from being a simple political investigation to the execution phase of an official federal inquiry.
Opinions are divided on the possibility of Obama actually being criminally prosecuted. Some experts believe the likelihood is low given he is a former president, while others argue that it is indeed possible. Gabbard is expected to release additional documents in the future, and the scope of the Department of Justice investigation could expand, making the unprecedented situation of prosecuting a former president a possibility that cannot be completely ruled out.
However, there is strong skepticism regarding the application of treason charges against Obama. The U.S. Constitution defines treason as "levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies." Former Deputy Attorney General Elliott Williams stated in an interview with CNN, "While judgments about the gathered information can be incorrect, that alone does not constitute treason." In fact, many argue that while the documents presented by Gabbard may reflect the political intent of Obama and the Democrats, it is questionable to consider them as evidence of supporting an enemy nation.
Another obstacle in applying treason charges is presidential immunity. In 2024, the federal Supreme Court ruled that presidents cannot face legal penalties for public acts conducted during their term in office. This means that presidents have an absolute immunity for performing at least their core constitutional duties and may also qualify for presumptive immunity for other public actions. According to this ruling, tasks such as directing intelligence agencies or approving reports can clearly be categorized as official acts, which also applies to former presidents.
In fact, key associates of Trump and conservative figures see charges of perjury, the falsification of documents, and conspiracy as a more realistic approach than treason.
In this regard, former Fox News anchor and attorney Megan Kelly predicted that "the treason charge frame might have significant political effects but would be legally very difficult to prove" and suggested that it would ultimately be narrowed down to more specific and verifiable allegations like perjury.
However, there are still opinions that argue treason charges can be applied. Conservative lawyer Mike Davis stated, "While immunity may apply to a president's official acts during their term, if cover-up actions have continued to the present, they may not be covered by immunity and are not subject to statutes of limitations."
There is also a view that Trump's camp is politically exploiting this issue. Progressive media, including CNN, point out that the Obama prosecution theory put forth by Trump's camp is a "distraction issue" meant to divert attention from the 'Epstein files.' Recently, it was claimed that Trump has not disclosed the client files of Jeffrey Epstein, the sex offender who provided minors for sexual trafficking to powerful figures in politics and business, indicating that Trump's name is also on this file. However, Gabbard drew a line, stating that by releasing the classified documents, "This is not a partisan fight between Republicans and Democrats, but a matter of national security."