Q&A – The History of Treason & Presidential Immunity
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station page in the iHeart app.
Today’s entry: (Submitted via Talkback) The Supreme Court ruled that a president could not be prosecuted for decisions he made that were part of his official duty. I don't think committing treason has anything to do with official duties or attempting a coup is not an official duty. So, isn't there vulnerability there?
Bottom Line: From a point of principle – I hear you, understand, and agree with what you’re saying. From both a legal and political reality however...
Today’s question/frustration comes as many on the right want accountability for deep state actors responsible for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax of nine years ago. However, as I said last Thursday in my Top 3 Takeaways... DNI Tulsi Gabbard released new evidence in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that did two things. First, it illustrated that in fact, President Obama did personally collude with deep state actors, led by then-CIA Director John Brennan, to peddle the discredited Steel Dosier, aka the Hunter Biden tales, to undermine the Trump presidency and all the nonsense we’d eventually see that played out. But here’s the thing. Nothing changes. No one is going to jail over this and most certainly Barack Obama won’t be. D.C. juries wouldn’t convict the deep state actors that John Durham brought charges against four years ago. It’s most definitely not going to happen now.
Following those comments President Trump – who earlier in the week, right before the dropping of the newly declassified docs – had this to say when asked about potential legal liability for former President Obama and specifically whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in his case last year aids Obama: It probably helps him a lot. Probably helps 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 helps him a lot... he owes me big, Obama owes me big.
So, at this point even President Trump, who let’s not forget is the victim of the Russian collusion hoax, thinks Obama is off the hook from and potential liability which speaks volumes in addressing today’s topic.
Under federal law treason is defined as: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.
Without getting into the legal weeds, it’d be a tough putt to bring treason charges for any of the Trump-Russia collusion hoaxers let alone President Obama, who based on the evidence provided, became knowledgeable and potentially directed the misinformation campaign after President Trump’s win in 2016. Had, for example, President Obama colluded with Russia directly on this – it could be stated that would be adherence to our country's enemies. But the collusion was within his administration's intelligence agencies. So, in other words, independent of factors like the presidential immunity ruling, and the political reality that a D.C. jury is beyond unlikely to ever find administration actors – most especially President Obama guilty – it may be a stretch, at least legally anyway – to say that what Team Obama did was treason. Sedition, perhaps. On that note, treason is one of the rarest prosecutions to be attempted and the least successful in gaining a conviction.
In the history of the United States only 40 cases have for treason have been tried. Of those, only 13 convictions resulted, and none since the “Tokyo Rose” case of 1952. The 33% conviction rate for treason in U.S. history stands in stark contrast to the 94% conviction rate for all federal cases. As for the immunity ruling that President Trump himself thinks protects President Obama from charges...
In Trump v. United States (the immunity case of 2024), the Supreme Court ruled former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts within the "outer perimeter" of their responsibilities. No immunity applies to unofficial or private acts. All the documentation released by the DNI shows that President Obama’s involvement was through official channels and not unofficial acts or acts in his private life. This is analogous to President Trump’s call to Georgia’s Secretary of State seeking to find extra votes for him in 2020 or to not certify election results, for example.
I understand the desire for accountability, and I understand the frustration by many on the right, however I’ll always tell you what you need to hear as opposed to what you may want to hear.