This week, investigative journalist John Solomon told Steve Bannon that former President Barack Obama is unlikely to face legal consequences for his alleged role in the Russia collusion hoax. According to Solomon, the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Trump v. United States effectively shields Obama under presidential immunity. "President Trump's immunity victory… is gonna protect Barack Obama," he remarked, suggesting the decision created a precedent that insulates former presidents from prosecution. But this interpretation doesn't align with what the Court actually ruled.

Supreme Court Ruling Does Not Grant Blanket Immunity: The 2024 Trump v. United States ruling clarified that while presidents have immunity for official acts, they can still be prosecuted for unofficial, political, or personal misconduct. This undercuts claims that Barack Obama is immune from indictment for actions related to the Russiagate affair.

Obama's Alleged Role Was Political, Not Presidential: Investigative findings, including declassified documents from DNI Tulsi Gabbard, suggest Obama directed a political smear campaign against Donald Trump, involving intelligence officials like James Clapper and John Brennan. Such conduct falls outside protected presidential duties.

Possible Criminal Statutes Apply: If Obama engaged in activities such as lying to federal investigators, orchestrating fraudulent intelligence, or participating in a political cover-up, he could potentially face charges under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements), § 1343 (wire fraud), and § 2384 (seditious conspiracy).

Indictment Is Legally Possible, but Politically Unlikely: Although legal pathways for prosecuting Obama exist, journalist John Solomon argues that the political system is unlikely to hold him accountable. Still, the constitutional framework allows for prosecution if compelling evidence shows he acted outside his official role.

Obama likely to face trial and do prison time, despite his arrogance and assumed "untouchable-ness"

Contrary to some public perception, the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States did not grant blanket immunity for all presidential actions. The ruling specifically drew a legal boundary between official presidential acts—those tied directly to the duties of the presidency—and unofficial acts, which include personal, political, or illegal actions taken outside the scope of constitutional responsibility. As the ruling made clear: "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts… The President is not above the law."

This distinction is critical. If a president engages in unlawful activity unrelated to official duties—such as lying to investigators, committing fraud, or manipulating intelligence—he can still be prosecuted like any other citizen. Several criminal statutes remain applicable regardless of one's former office:

18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements to federal officials),

18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud),

18 U.S.C. § 2 and § 3 (aiding and abetting, accessory after the fact),

and even 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (seditious conspiracy), if applicable.