By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has publicly accused former President Obama of “treason” and called for his arrest, referencing declassified documents and media segments that allege a conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election. These accusations, amplified on social media, claim that Obama orchestrated efforts to vilify Trump by stirring up a Russia scandal, with former CIA Director John Brennan and Hillary Clinton implicated. Despite these renewed calls, no indictments have been made against Obama or any former Obama officials, and investigations have historically found insufficient evidence to charge Trump campaign officials with conspiring with Russia.
Read the original article here
Fresh off what appears to be a pattern of late-night social media pronouncements, the former president has once again resurrected calls for the arrest of Barack Obama, leveling accusations of “treason” against him and other unspecified individuals. This sudden resurfacing of such extreme rhetoric, particularly targeting a former president, raises significant concerns and invites scrutiny. It’s a dramatic escalation, even for someone known for provocative statements, and it immediately calls into question the motivations behind such a public accusation.
The core of these recent claims seems to stem from a deep-seated belief that Obama, along with figures like James Comey, somehow orchestrated a plot against him. This narrative, however, directly contradicts years of intelligence findings and investigations, suggesting that these allegations are more politically motivated than fact-based. The assertion that these individuals committed “treason” appears to be a broad brush stroke applied without concrete evidence, aiming to discredit perceived adversaries rather than present a substantiated case.
Furthermore, a closer look at the timeline of investigations, such as the one conducted by Robert Mueller, offers a counter-narrative. It’s often pointed out that the FBI publicly announced its investigation into Hillary Clinton just before an election, while the investigation into Russian interference remained more discreet. This timing raises questions about the supposed conspiracy against Trump; if such a coordinated effort existed, one might expect the FBI’s actions to have been reversed, potentially targeting Trump’s opponents more openly.
It’s crucial to remember the findings of the Mueller investigation and subsequent analyses. The investigation did not, as sometimes claimed, exonerate Trump. The popular right-wing slogan “no collusion” is particularly misleading, as the report itself rarely uses the phrase and certainly not in the context of absolving Trump or his campaign of wrongdoing. Both the Mueller probe and a Republican-led Senate panel concluded that Russia actively engaged in “information warfare” and attempted to interfere in the 2016 election, aiming to benefit Trump and damage Clinton’s campaign.
The extent of Russian interference detailed in reports is quite significant. It involved direct targeting of election systems, hacking of organizations and individuals associated with the Clinton campaign, and manipulation of American voters through various digital means. The “Internet Research Agency,” a Russian entity, began its elaborate interference efforts as early as mid-2014, eventually setting up fake social media accounts that reached millions and were designed to promote Trump and sow division among Americans.
The Mueller report meticulously outlines how this Russian interference campaign intertwined with American political operatives, including members of the Trump campaign. Over a hundred pages are dedicated to detailing numerous Russian contacts with the Trump campaign and administration. Russian agents reportedly posed as American citizens and actively sought cooperation from the Trump campaign. The report highlights multiple links between the campaign and Russian entities, with several individuals connected to the campaign found to have lied to investigators and attempted to obstruct the probe.
Specific instances of these connections are often cited, such as WikiLeaks’ direct communication with Russians regarding Hillary Clinton-related materials, followed by the release of stolen documents that aimed to undermine her candidacy. Trump’s own business dealings, including his 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow, are also noted as a point of connection, leading to his family’s engagement with Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov and subsequent preliminary agreements to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
The involvement of individuals like Michael Cohen and Felix Sater in the Moscow project further illustrates these ties. Sater reportedly communicated with Cohen about engineering a Trump presidency with the backing of “all of Putin’s team.” This Moscow project is presented as just one of about a dozen channels through which Russian contacts were established.
Campaign figures like Carter Page met with Russians and spoke in Russia. Michael Flynn engaged with the Russian ambassador, discussing potential sanctions relief. Even Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General, met with the Russian ambassador. Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman, is reported to have shared internal polling data with Russian intelligence. George Papadopoulos had multiple meetings with a Russian intelligence agent who indicated knowledge of damaging information on Clinton.
The infamous June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, where Russians offered damaging information on Clinton, is also a significant point of contention. Trump Jr. expressed enthusiasm for such an offer, indicating a willingness to engage with foreign influence. The report notes Trump’s private reaction to the appointment of a special counsel, stating it was “the end of his presidency,” which some interpret as the words of someone aware of potential wrongdoing.
Furthermore, the report details instances where Trump allegedly attempted to obstruct justice. He reportedly instructed White House counsel Don McGahn to have then-acting AG Rod Rosenstein remove Mueller, citing conflicts of interest. McGahn did not comply. Mueller’s report documents at least ten instances of obstruction of justice by Trump, although prosecution was not pursued due to Department of Justice policy regarding indicting a sitting president. The report clearly states that substantial evidence indicates attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to investigations into the president’s conduct and were intended to prevent further scrutiny.
The investigations stemming from these contacts resulted in numerous indictments, with 34 individuals facing charges. Key figures like Rick Gates and Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, and Roger Stone was charged with obstruction and lying to Congress about his Russian contacts and involvement in the release of stolen documents. The “Steele Dossier,” often cited in discussions, is noted as having had no bearing on the initial findings of the Mueller probe, which began in response to Russian hacking and intelligence about their plot to offer dirt on Clinton.
Trump’s own public statements, such as urging hackers to “find the 30,000 emails that are missing” and Russia targeting Clinton’s office within hours of those remarks, are seen as further evidence of his campaign’s entanglement with Russian efforts. Throughout his presidency, Trump consistently downplayed the threat of Russian cyberattacks and election meddling, often aligning with Putin over his own intelligence agencies.
His campaign, as noted in the Mueller report, reportedly “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Actions like firing the head of NSA and US Cyber Command, Timothy Haugh, a non-partisan appointee crucial in overseeing cyber defenses against Russian threats, and suggesting a cybersecurity task force with Russia, are viewed by critics as further evidence of a compromised approach to national security and foreign interference.
The Republican Party’s perceived failure to adequately address foreign election interference is also raised, with the argument that they have politically benefited from such meddling over several election cycles. The conclusion drawn by many is that Trump was compromised from the outset and that the concerns voiced by Democrats were justified.
The current rhetoric, accusing Obama of treason and calling for his arrest, can be seen as a continuation of this pattern – an attempt to deflect from ongoing legal challenges and public scrutiny by attacking political opponents with extreme accusations. It’s a familiar playbook, often employed when facing difficult circumstances, and it plays into the established narratives that resonate with his base, aiming to distract from pressing issues and maintain a fervent level of political engagement. This approach, while potent with supporters, also raises serious questions about the stability of political discourse and the potential consequences of unchecked accusations leveled against former leaders.