Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's recent claims, accusing former President Barack Obama and senior officials of orchestrating a "treasonous conspiracy" to undermine Donald Trump's 2016 election victory through a fabricated Russia collusion narrative, have ignited a firestorm of controversy. Gabbard alleges that Obama, along with figures like former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, and former DNI James Clapper, manipulated intelligence, including the discredited Steele dossier, to delegitimise Trump's presidency. She has referred documents to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a criminal investigation, asserting "overwhelming evidence" of a years-long coup against Trump. If these allegations lead to a conviction of a former president, an unprecedented event in U.S. history, what would follow? This blog piece explores the legal, political, and social ramifications, with a focus on the potential for civil unrest.
A criminal conviction of Barack Obama would be a historic anomaly. No former U.S. president has ever faced criminal prosecution, largely due to constitutional ambiguities and political norms. Gabbard's allegations center on serious charges, potentially conspiracy, treason, or misuse of intelligence, stemming from the claim that Obama and his team knowingly fabricated the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) to undermine Trump. For a conviction to occur, the DOJ would need to build a case proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama intentionally directed the creation of false intelligence with seditious intent, violating specific federal statutes.
The legal process would likely involve:
DOJ Investigation: The DOJ, possibly through a special counsel to avoid bias, would investigate Gabbard's declassified documents, including emails, memos, and the 2017 ICA. Evidence would need to show direct orders from Obama to manipulate intelligence, not just bureaucratic missteps or policy disagreements.
Indictment: If sufficient evidence exists, a grand jury could indict Obama and co-conspirators like Brennan, Comey, or Clapper. Charges might include conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503), or, in an extreme case, seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384), though treason (U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3) requires a high bar of aiding enemies during wartime.
Trial: A public trial would be a media spectacle, with prosecutors presenting documents and witness testimony, while Obama's defence would likely argue the actions were within executive authority or lacked criminal intent. The Steele dossier's inclusion, criticised in prior investigations, could be a focal point, though its use alone may not constitute a crime.
Conviction: If convicted, Obama could face prison time, fines, or other penalties, depending on the charges. Sentencing would hinge on the severity of the crime and judicial discretion, though political considerations might lead to a reduced sentence or pardon discussions.
The likelihood of conviction is uncertain. Prior investigations, by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the DOJ Inspector General, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Special Counsel John Durham, found no evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate the Russia narrative. The Senate's 2020 bipartisan report, led by then-Senator Marco Rubio, affirmed Russia's interference to aid Trump, contradicting Gabbard's claims. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers like Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, call her evidence misleading, pointing to its reliance on pre-election assessments that Russia didn't alter vote tallies, which don't negate the ICA's broader findings on influence campaigns. The Steele dossier, while flawed, was a minor part of the ICA, and Durham's probe only resulted in one low-level conviction. These factors suggest a weak case, but a politically charged DOJ could pursue it regardless.
A conviction would send shockwaves through the political landscape. Obama remains a revered figure among Democrats, with a 2024 Gallup poll showing 71% approval among Democrats compared to 12% among Republicans. His conviction would be seen by many as a triumph of justice by Trump supporters, who have long viewed the Russia probe as a "hoax," and a travesty by Democrats, who might perceive it as retribution by a vindictive administration.
Trump Administration Narrative: A conviction would bolster Trump's claim of being targeted by a "deep state," energising his base and justifying further purges of perceived enemies. Gabbard's role as DNI, already controversial, would gain prominence, though her credibility could suffer if the evidence is deemed flimsy. Trump's social media posts, including an AI-generated video of Obama's arrest, suggest he'd frame it as a personal victory, potentially escalating tensions.
Democratic Response: Democrats would likely rally around Obama, framing the prosecution as a politicised attack on a historic figure. Leaders like Warner and Himes have already called Gabbard's claims "ludicrous" and "error-ridden." A conviction could galvanise Democratic voters, fuel fundraising, and intensify calls for investigations into Trump's own actions, such as his ties to Jeffrey Epstein or January 6.
Institutional Trust: Public trust in institutions, the DOJ, FBI, and intelligence community, already low at 30% for the DOJ per a 2023 Pew survey, would erode further. A perception of partisan overreach could delegitimise the justice system, especially if the case lacks airtight evidence.
The most pressing concern is whether a conviction would spark civil unrest. The U.S. is deeply polarised, with 80% of Americans in a 2025 YouGov poll expressing concern about political violence. Several factors could drive unrest:
Partisan Divide: Obama's conviction would be a lightning rod. His supporters, particularly in urban and progressive strongholds, might view it as an attack on democratic norms, especially given his status as the first Black president. Protests could erupt in cities like Chicago, New York, or Washington, D.C., where Obama enjoys strong support. Conversely, Trump supporters might celebrate, leading to counterprotests and potential clashes, as seen after the 2020 election.
Racial Tensions: Obama's historic presidency carries symbolic weight. A conviction could be perceived as racially motivated by some, inflaming tensions. The 2020 George Floyd protests, which drew millions nationwide, show how quickly racial injustice narratives can mobilise crowds. While Obama's case is distinct, it could tap into similar sentiments, especially if framed as a targeted prosecution.
Precedent of Political Violence: Recent events, like the January 6 Capitol riot and protests over Trump's 2024 indictments, indicate a readiness for mobilisation. Social media, particularly platforms like X, could amplify calls to action. Posts on X already show polarised reactions, with some users hailing Gabbard's claims and others dismissing them as fabricated. A conviction could escalate online rhetoric into real-world action.
Scale and Nature of Unrest: Unrest could range from peaceful protests to violent riots. Urban areas with strong Democratic leanings might see large demonstrations, potentially met with heavy law enforcement presence, risking escalation. Rural or conservative areas might see smaller, armed counterprotests, as seen in 2020 militia gatherings. The 2020 protests cost an estimated $2 billion in damages; a similar or larger scale could result.
Mitigating factors exist. Obama's calm public persona and calls for restraint could temper reactions. The DOJ's handling, transparency, evidence strength, and perceived fairness, would be critical. If the case is seen as a partisan stunt, unrest could intensify; if evidence is compelling, it might limit backlash. Federal and local authorities would likely prepare extensively, drawing on post-2020 crowd control strategies.
Beyond unrest, a conviction would reshape American discourse:
Precedent for Prosecuting Leaders: Convicting a former president would lower the bar for future prosecutions, potentially normalising legal battles against political figures. This could deter public service or entrench a cycle of retribution.
Media and Misinformation: Media outlets, already divided, would amplify narratives. Conservative outlets like Fox News, which reported Gabbard's claims extensively, would celebrate, while liberal ones like CNN would critique. Social media could spread misinformation, as seen with Trump's AI-generated arrest video.
International Ramifications: Allies might question U.S. stability, while adversaries like Russia could exploit the narrative to undermine democracy. Gabbard's claim that Russia didn't aid Trump contradicts global intelligence consensus, potentially weakening U.S. credibility.
If Barack Obama were convicted based on Gabbard's allegations, the U.S. would face a historic crisis. The legal process would test the judiciary's independence, the political fallout would deepen division, and the risk of civil unrest would loom large. While protests are likely, their scale depends on the case's legitimacy, public perception, and leadership responses. The evidence, as critiqued by sources like The Washington Post and FactCheck.org, appears thin, suggesting a conviction might be seen as partisan overreach, heightening unrest risks. To avoid chaos, the DOJ must adopt transparency, and leaders across the spectrum should call for calm. The nation's resilience would be tested, but its institutions, if guided by reason, could weather the storm. Until the next one.
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/dni-gabbard-refers-obama-for-criminal