The Trump administration is diving into a seismic legal and political showdown in its investigation of the Obama-era weaponization of intelligence community, a confrontation that could redefine the boundaries of presidential power and accountability.

Former President Barack Obama could face impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution, potentially stripping him of the immunity recently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, contends David Schoen, President Donald Trump’s former impeachment attorney

This claim follows Trump’s assertion that the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 ruling on presidential immunity, which he credits with shielding Obama, could be circumvented under specific constitutional provisions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, handed down on July 1, 2024, granted former presidents absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for official acts within the "outer perimeter" of their duties.

The 6-3 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that such protections are essential to prevent the executive branch from being paralyzed by the threat of post-office prosecution.

Trump, who benefited from this ruling in his own legal battles, suggested on last week during a press interaction before his trip to Scotland, that it also shields Obama.

"He has done criminal acts, no question about it. But he has immunity and it probably helps him a lot. He owes me big. Obama owes me big," Trump said.

However, Schoen, speaking on Newsmax, warns that this immunity could be nullified if Obama were impeached post-tenure.

Citing Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which states that a president removed through impeachment remains "“liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law," Schoen argued: “President Trump is right when he said the immunity decision would help President Obama."

" But you know what it doesn’t help him with? Impeachment," Schoen continued. "According to the Democratic Party and the House managers in the second impeachment trial, a former President, once out of office, is still subject to impeachment. In other words, they’ve argued Lincoln could be impeached, George Washington impeached. Certainly, as I predicted at the time, this would come back—they would rue the day—because President Obama could be impeached if this evidence really says what it says. And that could also strip off the immunity, because under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, the Democrats argued it bars one from holding further office. The language itself says you’re still subject to criminal prosecution or indictment. We’ll see how that plays out."

WATCH:

This legal theory builds on the precedent set during Trump’s second impeachment trial in 2021, where Democrats argued that a former president could be impeached to bar future office-holding—a strategy now potentially applicable to Obama.

Similarly, constitutional expert Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, argues Obama has no protection as a former president and could face the repercussions for the crimes he committed while in office.

“Once they’re no longer in office, they lose that protection. So, if a former president is involved in a criminal cover-up after leaving office, they can be held legally accountable—immunity no longer applies,” Davis told recently told conservative talk show host Benny Johnson.

The allegations against Obama stem from newly declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on July 18, 2025.

Gabbard, in a bombshell announcement on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures on July 20, 2025, claimed that the evidence points to Obama orchestrating a "treasonous conspiracy" and seditious conspiracy against Trump.

"Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected," Gabbard explained. "This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue that is so serious it should concern every single American because it has to do with the integrity of our democratic republic. Creating this piece of manufactured intelligence that claims that Russia had helped Donald Trump get elected contradicted every other assessment that had been made previously in the months leading up to the election that said exactly the opposite, that Russia had neither the intent nor the capability to try to ‘hack the United States election.’

"We have whistleblowers, actually, coming forward now after we released these documents because there are people who were around, who were working within the intelligence community at this time who were so disgusted by what happened. We're starting to see some of them come out of the woodwork here because they… want to see justice delivered."

Gabbard’s documents allege that Obama and senior officials, including then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey, manipulated intelligence to fabricate the Russia Collusion Hoax, aiming to undermine Trump’s 2016 victory.

She has referred the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation, escalating the political firestorm.

As the nation watches, the interplay between Supreme Court immunity, constitutional impeachment powers, and Gabbard’s explosive claims could set a historic precedent.

The Obama administration has yet to issue a detailed response, leaving the legal and political landscape in flux..