Fact Check: Obama's 'silent coup' isn't immune, Mark Levin calls for full DOJ probe

Fact-Check: "Obama's 'silent coup' isn't immune, Mark Levin calls for full DOJ probe"

What We Know

Mark Levin, a conservative commentator, recently called for a full investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into former President Barack Obama, alleging his involvement in a "silent coup" against Donald Trump. This claim arose following the declassification of documents related to the Russiagate investigation by National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who suggested that Obama and other officials could face criminal charges for their actions during the 2016 election cycle (TheBlaze, TheBlaze).

Levin referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States (July 2024), which established that former presidents have "absolute immunity" for actions within their constitutional powers but no immunity for unofficial or private acts. He argued that if Obama was involved in illegal activities, such as interfering with a presidential election, he could be prosecuted after leaving office (TheBlaze, TheBlaze).

Analysis

Levin's assertions hinge on the interpretation of legal immunity for former presidents. The Supreme Court's ruling indeed suggests that while former presidents are protected for actions taken in their official capacity, they may be held accountable for actions outside of that scope. This legal framework is crucial when discussing potential criminal investigations into Obama.

However, Levin's claims about a "silent coup" and the implications of the Russiagate documents lack substantial evidence. While he cites Gabbard's declassification of documents, the context and content of these documents are not fully detailed in the sources, making it difficult to assess their relevance or validity (TheBlaze, TheBlaze). Furthermore, Levin's characterizations of Obama's actions as "treasonous" and his insistence on a DOJ probe appear to be politically charged rather than based on concrete legal findings.

The sources used to support Levin's claims, primarily from TheBlaze and Levin's own commentary, are known for their conservative bias. This raises questions about the objectivity and reliability of the information presented. While Levin's legal interpretations are based on actual court rulings, the broader claims about Obama's alleged misconduct are not substantiated by independent investigations or findings (Fox News, TheBlaze).

Conclusion

The claim that Obama is not immune from prosecution for alleged actions during his presidency is Partially True. While legal precedent does suggest that former presidents can be held accountable for unofficial acts, the specific allegations made by Levin regarding Obama's involvement in a "silent coup" lack robust evidence and are primarily driven by political rhetoric. Therefore, while there is a basis for investigating any former president if credible evidence arises, the current claims made by Levin do not meet the threshold of substantiated fact.

Fact Check: Obama's 'silent coup' isn't immune, Mark Levin calls for full DOJ probe