Trump: Obama ‘Owes Me Big’ After SCOUTS Immunity Ruling/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ President Donald Trump claims the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling likely benefits Barack Obama, whom he accuses of orchestrating the Trump–Russia collusion narrative. A newly declassified House Intel report, released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, alleges biased CIA practices in the 2017 assessment on Russian election interference. Obama denies the accusations as “bizarre” and politically motivated.
Trump’s Obama Accusation + Quick Looks
- Trump says Obama benefits from Supreme Court’s immunity ruling
- Accuses Obama of criminal acts tied to Russiagate origins
- Declassified intel suggests rushed, biased 2017 CIA assessment
- Tulsi Gabbard warns “deep state” tried to block disclosures
- Obama’s office firmly denies Trump’s allegations
- DNI Gabbard declassifies House Intel Committee findings
- Former CIA Director Brennan allegedly pushed discredited dossier
- Report reveals ICA produced with unusual presidential directives
- Debate over election interference findings reignites amid political tension
Trump: Obama ‘Owes Me Big’ After SCOUTS Immunity Ruling
Deep Look
President Donald Trump asserted on Friday that the Supreme Court’s recent decision affirming presidential immunity could ultimately shield former President Barack Obama from legal consequences related to the origins of the Trump–Russia investigation.
In an interview with Fox News, Trump stated, “Obama owes me big,” adding that although he believes Obama committed criminal acts, “the immunity ruling probably helps him a lot.”
These comments follow a series of new revelations stemming from declassified findings released by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard. The documents, originally drafted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, suggest that the Obama administration played a direct role in commissioning and shaping a controversial 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that implicated Russia in aiding Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Report Claims CIA Bias and Presidential Pressure
According to the committee’s findings—based on a 2020 report spearheaded by former Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes—the 2017 ICA was developed by only five CIA analysts under the leadership of then-CIA Director John Brennan. The report asserts that the anti-Trump dossier, later discredited, was knowingly pushed for inclusion in the ICA, despite being based on what was described as “internet rumor.”
The report further claims that President Obama issued “unusual directives” that bypassed traditional CIA oversight procedures, enabling the ICA to be published without internal challenge or broad review. “Production of the ICA was rushed,” it stated, with an explicit aim to release the assessment two weeks before Trump’s inauguration.
Tulsi Gabbard, now serving as Director of National Intelligence, declassified the report this week and claimed there were efforts within the intelligence community to suppress the findings.
“There are a lot of deep state actors still here within Washington,” she said on Jesse Watters Primetime. “They didn’t want this to see the light of day.”
Obama Responds to Trump’s Claims
In a rare public rebuttal, Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush issued a firm denial, stating, “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.” He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling does not alter the broader understanding that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election, even if there was no evidence of vote manipulation.
“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” the statement continued, “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.”
Trump Denies Involvement in Epstein Birthday Letter
Separately, Trump also responded to a Wall Street Journal report about a lewd birthday letter allegedly addressed to Jeffrey Epstein and signed with Trump’s name. Trump flatly denied any involvement, saying, “Somebody could have written a letter and used my name, and that’s happened a lot.” He has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Journal’s parent company, claiming no authentic letter or drawing exists.
This episode has further fueled questions about Trump’s associations with Epstein and media portrayals of his personal and political history.
Legal and Political Implications
While the Supreme Court’s immunity decision has focused attention on the sitting president’s legal protections, Trump’s framing of it as a defense mechanism for Obama introduces a new dimension. Legal scholars caution that while the ruling could indeed shield presidents from certain forms of prosecution for official acts, it would not extend to aides or intelligence officials involved in decisions or assessments that preceded or followed those acts.
Meanwhile, the claims have reignited conservative calls for accountability over Russiagate’s origins, a saga that has persisted as a political flashpoint since Trump’s first campaign. The debate over media bias, intelligence manipulation, and legal immunity now intersects with a presidential election cycle, intensifying partisan divisions.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.