🚨 Obama Can now be summoned before a Grand Jury, but he CANNOT Plead the 5th because he has immunity from Prosecution
“He HAS TO TELL THE TRUTH… if he lies as a private citizen about what he did as President, he will not longer have that immunity. And that is the TRAP that Obama is potentially facing.
The irony is that on January 5, 2015, Obama presided over a meeting in the White House where the FBI just cleared General Mike Flynn of any wrongdoing.. and they schemed in that meeting how they might jam up
@GenFlynn
.
That’s when they came up with the idea to lure him into an interview, catch him in a lie, and then prosecute him that way.
Barack Obama now is about to face a similar situation,”
BOOMERANG 🪃 💥
FOLLOW
@John17thletter_
THE NEXT DROP WILL BE SHOCKING
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I'd like to remind people that in this information war, inflooencers, scam artists and grifters can ALL use good information to increase their visibility, try to establish credibility, and gain clicks or money.
The real information in this post is from John Solomon, who Q mentioned several times, and who has consistently upheld the best standards of legacy professional journalism.
The post here, on the other hand, is made by Pascal Najadi.
If you'd like to know more about him, I refer you to my post from two years ago:
Summary Najadi positioned himself as 'an insider with secret information' and a secret mission to 'disclose', 'connections' with Space Force, and more. Lots of evidence indicates he bought media exposure using multiple 'publication for $$' operations.
My post presents my research into what he did and who he used to try to position himself 2 years back.
The upshot here is:
its important to distinguish between good information and the people who spread and share it.
The very epitome of grifting or controlled opposition is using good <stuff> (almost always someone else's) to establish some sort of credibility, but with an ulterior motive.
See where Najadi's post leads? It concludes here:
FOLLOW @John17thletter_
THE NEXT DROP WILL BE SHOCKING
Right. So, an X account masquerading as JFK jr. (remember this one, OG's?) with OMG! The NEXT drop!!! (All caps) /s
Excellent points and well made Fren. I copy pasted that tweet and actually considered deleting that last line but thought, they're not my words so I'll include the lot.
Interesting about Pascal. I didn't know he had done any of those things. I remember during the covid years him being angry about he jabs he shouldn't have taken. I thought he was reputable.
Regardless, like you mention, It's the John Solomon clip that is the real meaty info here. Up to this point he seems trustworthy, pretty much always bringing receipts.
I think he keeps his immunity for official acts he made done in furtherance of official duties from 2009-2017, whether he talks, admits to things
however, since he might have done things unlawfully, or even treasonous, such as knowingly running for president and taking the oath of office if he knew he was not a natural born citizen
or if he ran for the purpose of bringing in the M. Brotherhood to bring down America
then he might be advised to take the 5th after all, and John Solomon’s thoughts might not be right for all Obama’s predicaments
and this is where your question seems to be applicable: if he faces charges of treason, using the office of the presidency to bring down a lawful president (Trump) then to get immunity for this kind of charge, he might have to agree to tell everything
although I think White Hats have it all, and Zero immunity will be offered, and examples will be made so that the socialist woke globalists will not get a chance of doing this ever
He will pull the HRC defense.....i am too sick to sit for an interview. Thus he will not ever sit down and be grilled over his actiona in the WH. But I'm sure Q has a backup plan in case that happens.
And was devilishly brilliant mind thought up the concept of Presidential immunity existing to protect the executive branch’s ability to govern effectively without fear of partisan retribution or distracting litigation?
Bull shit - MAYBE what he did as POTUS gives him immunity (not if it's treason) but all the shit that was done after he left office can not be immunized.
Not fond of the messenger here (Najadi) for myriad reasons, but I have zero reasons to not trust Solomon and a boatload of ones to trust him.
This could be a very significant development given Solomon being targeted early by the white hats to dispense key pieces of information to the public.
Or it might be a bit of a nothing burger. But it's difficult to believe that this isn't important given that Solomon is stepping away from what I assume is a very demanding life for four months to assist in this project.
What's protecting Obama are the millions of rabidly insane liberals who would immediately riot and burn everything in sight if he were ever arrested. I know there is a plan on how to deal with these people. I don't think they would ever listen to reason or objectively look at any evidence presented to them. Obama will go down. But how they do it without mass violence I have no idea.
I don't get this claim. Presidential immunity is just a shield against getting prosecuted for official acts as president. It doesn't cancel the 5th Amendment or force Obama to testify without pleading the 5th. Immunity from prosecution isn't the same as elimination of self incrimination risk.
He can still say "I don't recall" or plead the 5th if it risks other crimes. Lying under oath is perjury, but it doesn't magically strip his immunity for old official stuff.
The same rule protects all ex-presidents, including Obama. Why is it a special "trap" for him but not Trump?
I'm pretty sure this is just a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling.
Because Obama was directly involved in extremely shifty stuff. Trump wasn't. Treasonous actions, by Obama. The trap is, the facts are out there, and provable.
To be NOT trapped by the facts, you need to bury the facts, or make it so that no one can bring them to light.
"They never thought she would lose" pertains.
Once they lost, they fell into jeopardy. No choice but to cheat, lie, commit crimes in order to save their skins.
They win? Its over. Facts buried. History written by 'the victors'.
They lose? They can squirm but the facts and evidence then become a real tangible liability.
That's the real trap here. But Obama? If he is called to testify, in a trial case, its not something he can simply dodge.
re: pleading the fifth: not certain, but it hinges on an ability to 'incriminate' oneself. That is, cause oneself to be liable for a crime. Apparently a court can compel a person to testify if they cannot incriminate themselves (and hence use the fifth).
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that Solomon knows what he's talking about here. To really grasp the situation, one needs to have specific legal knowledge, not simply a layman's view of what law is or should be.
The 5th Amendment isn't limited to crimes you're guaranteed to be prosecuted for. It's protection against being compelled to provide potentially incriminating testimony.
Even if Obama has immunity for some official acts, that doesn't automatically eliminate every possible source of criminal exposure arising from his answers.
More importantly, if this theory is correct, wouldn't it apply equally to every former president, including Trump? I'm still not seeing what makes this a special legal trap unique to Obama rather than a general consequence of presidential immunity.
"Obama is in a unique situation" is different from "Obama can't plead the 5th."
Even if Obama is sitting on a mountain of damaging facts, that doesn't automatically eliminate his 5th Amendment rights.
The question isn't whether Obama has problems. The question is why presidential immunity would prevent him from pleading the 5th in the first place. I'm still not seeing the legal mechanism for that.
I dug around using grok, and thought the explanation sensible. I did not look at the specific references, but it appears there is legal precedent that immunity from prosecution for a crime means the person cannot incriminate themselves. (Incriminate meaning exposing oneself to a criminal charge.) Meaning that person cannot plead the 5th, because the 5th is an option that can be chosen when one might actually incriminate oneself.
To me the logic seems pretty clear. However, some further investigation may clear up the matter for you. Depending on how much you want to make your opinion or conclusions based in fact. "I don't get it" is completely valid, but its not really evidence that means what you are not getting is wrong (or incorrect).
Fwiw, I don't think that Solomon is just going to be shooting off his mouth without any basis. He's too credible a source.
From what I looked at, I'm satisfied, but we're all different.
I'm not asking whether Obama is in a uniquely bad position if evidence exists.
I'm asking for the legal mechanism that supposedly prevents him from invoking the 5th Amendment.
The claim in the OP isn't "Obama is vulnerable." The claim is "Obama cannot plead the 5th because he has presidential immunity."
Those are two different claims.
Presidential immunity protects certain official acts from prosecution. The 5th protects against compelled self-incrimination.
What's the legal authority that says presidential immunity automatically eliminates 5th Amendment protection?
If that principle exists, it shouldn't be unique to Obama. It would apply to every former president, including Trump.
So far I've seen arguments about Obama's alleged conduct, Solomon's credibility, and why Obama might be in trouble if facts come out. I haven't seen the actual precedent or legal reasoning that gets from "presidential immunity exists" to "Obama cannot plead the 5th."
That's the part I'm still trying to understand.
I'm curious why you didn't bother to look at the legal precedent that you say Grok provided, since I specifically asked about what laws would make this work.
This is the point where your own research becomes important.
I've tried to help your understanding by presenting my own understanding, reasoning or logic, but ultimately, one has to find out for one's self. indeed, unless one researches for oneself, can you every truly be confident in (your) conclusions?
The information that comes across your screen should really be the departure point for investigation, not the conclusion of your investigation. Myself, I frequently check the information in posts here, dig around, until I'm satisfied that I understand the information or that its incorrect, or bogus.
I'll wrap up with a few points:
If that principle exists, it shouldn't be unique to Obama
I agree. But did anyone say its unique to Obama? If so you should address this query to them (ask them why they think so).
What's the legal authority that says presidential immunity automatically eliminates 5th Amendment protection?
I think you are missing a key element here. It has nothing to do with 'presidential' immunity. The legal principle being referenced here is that immunity from prosecution precludes the ability to plead the 5th. Where that immunity is derived is irrelevant. Its the case for anyone, a president, a regular citizen, or anyone under jurisdiction of the US legal system.
that gets from "presidential immunity exists" to "Obama cannot plead the 5th."
OK. So try instead to ask if legal immunity precludes a person's ability to plead the 5th. Forget Obama, forget Presidential.
You know, you can do your own research and investigation. Try asking Grok. Engaging with AI is a very effective way of learning how to refine your questions to get the answers you want.
I'm curious why you didn't bother....
Because the reason I investigate and research is to satisfy my own threshold for conviction. As I already said, to me it makes sense, and when I dug into this, the information I found made sense to me and I felt satisfied I can accept Solomon's statements.
since I specifically asked...
If you are not satisfied with your own understanding or with the information being presented to you, you NEED to do your own investigations.
Generally speaking, on this board, most of us try to share useful information, reasoning, understanding, but ultimately, each person has to choose: do I investigate and/or research (research is really just investigation) to satisfy my own questions, or do I simply want to accept what other people tell me because I'm not really that bothered about whether I have the facts or not.
I'm not making the claim here. Solomon is. How you approach the claim is really your choice, but don't rely on me to solve this for you.
The internet is the greatest material information resource ever available to humanity. Now, with dozens of AI functions out there, its easier more than ever to investigate. Learning how to use that tool, however, is important.
Pascal Najadi @imPascalNajadi on X:
HOLEE SHIZZLES‼️A TRAP IS SET!
🚨 Obama Can now be summoned before a Grand Jury, but he CANNOT Plead the 5th because he has immunity from Prosecution
“He HAS TO TELL THE TRUTH… if he lies as a private citizen about what he did as President, he will not longer have that immunity. And that is the TRAP that Obama is potentially facing.
The irony is that on January 5, 2015, Obama presided over a meeting in the White House where the FBI just cleared General Mike Flynn of any wrongdoing.. and they schemed in that meeting how they might jam up @GenFlynn .
That’s when they came up with the idea to lure him into an interview, catch him in a lie, and then prosecute him that way.
Barack Obama now is about to face a similar situation,”
BOOMERANG 🪃 💥
FOLLOW @John17thletter_ THE NEXT DROP WILL BE SHOCKING
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I'd like to remind people that in this information war, inflooencers, scam artists and grifters can ALL use good information to increase their visibility, try to establish credibility, and gain clicks or money.
The real information in this post is from John Solomon, who Q mentioned several times, and who has consistently upheld the best standards of legacy professional journalism.
The post here, on the other hand, is made by Pascal Najadi.
If you'd like to know more about him, I refer you to my post from two years ago:
The CURIOUS CASE of Pascal Najadi (w/ Well-Known Trump Friend and Ally Derek Johnson) - Join the Dots and See What you Think... March 2024
Summary Najadi positioned himself as 'an insider with secret information' and a secret mission to 'disclose', 'connections' with Space Force, and more. Lots of evidence indicates he bought media exposure using multiple 'publication for $$' operations.
My post presents my research into what he did and who he used to try to position himself 2 years back.
The upshot here is:
its important to distinguish between good information and the people who spread and share it.
The very epitome of grifting or controlled opposition is using good <stuff> (almost always someone else's) to establish some sort of credibility, but with an ulterior motive.
See where Najadi's post leads? It concludes here:
Right. So, an X account masquerading as JFK jr. (remember this one, OG's?) with OMG! The NEXT drop!!! (All caps) /s
Grifters gonna grift.
Excellent points and well made Fren. I copy pasted that tweet and actually considered deleting that last line but thought, they're not my words so I'll include the lot.
Interesting about Pascal. I didn't know he had done any of those things. I remember during the covid years him being angry about he jabs he shouldn't have taken. I thought he was reputable.
Regardless, like you mention, It's the John Solomon clip that is the real meaty info here. Up to this point he seems trustworthy, pretty much always bringing receipts.
Thanks for the heads up mate. Appreciate it.
Agreed, I think Solomon warrants a lot of confidence. His track record speaks for itself.
Najadi on the other hand...... kek. (I guess his track record speaks for itself as well. Just, the message is different!)
He can still lie. More than likely instead of pleading the 5th it will simply be " i don't recall."
Well, Solomon's pointy is that from a legal standpoint, Obama cannot plead the 5th.
So, he has only two options: tell the truth, or lie. And if he lies, he becomes vulnerable.
He might go with the "I don't recall" but that's not a blanket fix. Facts will out.
that seemed to work for Bonnie and Clyde of Arkansas.
So far.
excellent trap, John Solomon.
Trump v. United States July 1, 2024
presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken within their constitutional authority
presidents have presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for any official acts they undertake
presidents do not have immunity for their unofficial acts
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-939/
And if he participates in a continuity of action following his presidency, he is committing a conspiracy, which has no statute of limitations.
excellent insight, thanks!
Does this also mean if he wants immunity he would have to admit to doing things while president, thus destroying his squeaky clean reputation?
I think he keeps his immunity for official acts he made done in furtherance of official duties from 2009-2017, whether he talks, admits to things
however, since he might have done things unlawfully, or even treasonous, such as knowingly running for president and taking the oath of office if he knew he was not a natural born citizen
or if he ran for the purpose of bringing in the M. Brotherhood to bring down America
and this is where your question seems to be applicable: if he faces charges of treason, using the office of the presidency to bring down a lawful president (Trump) then to get immunity for this kind of charge, he might have to agree to tell everything
although I think White Hats have it all, and Zero immunity will be offered, and examples will be made so that the socialist woke globalists will not get a chance of doing this ever
Gotcha. Finally.
He will pull the HRC defense.....i am too sick to sit for an interview. Thus he will not ever sit down and be grilled over his actiona in the WH. But I'm sure Q has a backup plan in case that happens.
And was devilishly brilliant mind thought up the concept of Presidential immunity existing to protect the executive branch’s ability to govern effectively without fear of partisan retribution or distracting litigation?
Bull shit - MAYBE what he did as POTUS gives him immunity (not if it's treason) but all the shit that was done after he left office can not be immunized.
catch 22's are a motherfucker.
Not fond of the messenger here (Najadi) for myriad reasons, but I have zero reasons to not trust Solomon and a boatload of ones to trust him.
This could be a very significant development given Solomon being targeted early by the white hats to dispense key pieces of information to the public.
Or it might be a bit of a nothing burger. But it's difficult to believe that this isn't important given that Solomon is stepping away from what I assume is a very demanding life for four months to assist in this project.
What's protecting Obama are the millions of rabidly insane liberals who would immediately riot and burn everything in sight if he were ever arrested. I know there is a plan on how to deal with these people. I don't think they would ever listen to reason or objectively look at any evidence presented to them. Obama will go down. But how they do it without mass violence I have no idea.
Isn't that Soloman clip from back when the immunity ruling was made? I don't think it is current.
More evidence Pascal Najadi is a grifter paytriot.....
I don't get this claim. Presidential immunity is just a shield against getting prosecuted for official acts as president. It doesn't cancel the 5th Amendment or force Obama to testify without pleading the 5th. Immunity from prosecution isn't the same as elimination of self incrimination risk.
He can still say "I don't recall" or plead the 5th if it risks other crimes. Lying under oath is perjury, but it doesn't magically strip his immunity for old official stuff.
The same rule protects all ex-presidents, including Obama. Why is it a special "trap" for him but not Trump?
I'm pretty sure this is just a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling.
Because Obama was directly involved in extremely shifty stuff. Trump wasn't. Treasonous actions, by Obama. The trap is, the facts are out there, and provable.
To be NOT trapped by the facts, you need to bury the facts, or make it so that no one can bring them to light.
"They never thought she would lose" pertains.
Once they lost, they fell into jeopardy. No choice but to cheat, lie, commit crimes in order to save their skins.
They win? Its over. Facts buried. History written by 'the victors'.
They lose? They can squirm but the facts and evidence then become a real tangible liability.
That's the real trap here. But Obama? If he is called to testify, in a trial case, its not something he can simply dodge.
re: pleading the fifth: not certain, but it hinges on an ability to 'incriminate' oneself. That is, cause oneself to be liable for a crime. Apparently a court can compel a person to testify if they cannot incriminate themselves (and hence use the fifth).
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that Solomon knows what he's talking about here. To really grasp the situation, one needs to have specific legal knowledge, not simply a layman's view of what law is or should be.
That's actually the part I'm questioning.
The 5th Amendment isn't limited to crimes you're guaranteed to be prosecuted for. It's protection against being compelled to provide potentially incriminating testimony.
Even if Obama has immunity for some official acts, that doesn't automatically eliminate every possible source of criminal exposure arising from his answers.
More importantly, if this theory is correct, wouldn't it apply equally to every former president, including Trump? I'm still not seeing what makes this a special legal trap unique to Obama rather than a general consequence of presidential immunity.
Its not unique to Obama. But Obama is in a unique situation (as far as I can see).
That's kind of my point, though.
"Obama is in a unique situation" is different from "Obama can't plead the 5th."
Even if Obama is sitting on a mountain of damaging facts, that doesn't automatically eliminate his 5th Amendment rights.
The question isn't whether Obama has problems. The question is why presidential immunity would prevent him from pleading the 5th in the first place. I'm still not seeing the legal mechanism for that.
I dug around using grok, and thought the explanation sensible. I did not look at the specific references, but it appears there is legal precedent that immunity from prosecution for a crime means the person cannot incriminate themselves. (Incriminate meaning exposing oneself to a criminal charge.) Meaning that person cannot plead the 5th, because the 5th is an option that can be chosen when one might actually incriminate oneself.
To me the logic seems pretty clear. However, some further investigation may clear up the matter for you. Depending on how much you want to make your opinion or conclusions based in fact. "I don't get it" is completely valid, but its not really evidence that means what you are not getting is wrong (or incorrect).
Fwiw, I don't think that Solomon is just going to be shooting off his mouth without any basis. He's too credible a source.
From what I looked at, I'm satisfied, but we're all different.
I'm not asking whether Obama did anything wrong.
I'm not asking whether Solomon is credible.
I'm not asking whether Obama is in a uniquely bad position if evidence exists.
I'm asking for the legal mechanism that supposedly prevents him from invoking the 5th Amendment.
The claim in the OP isn't "Obama is vulnerable." The claim is "Obama cannot plead the 5th because he has presidential immunity."
Those are two different claims.
Presidential immunity protects certain official acts from prosecution. The 5th protects against compelled self-incrimination.
What's the legal authority that says presidential immunity automatically eliminates 5th Amendment protection?
If that principle exists, it shouldn't be unique to Obama. It would apply to every former president, including Trump.
So far I've seen arguments about Obama's alleged conduct, Solomon's credibility, and why Obama might be in trouble if facts come out. I haven't seen the actual precedent or legal reasoning that gets from "presidential immunity exists" to "Obama cannot plead the 5th."
That's the part I'm still trying to understand.
I'm curious why you didn't bother to look at the legal precedent that you say Grok provided, since I specifically asked about what laws would make this work.
This is the point where your own research becomes important.
I've tried to help your understanding by presenting my own understanding, reasoning or logic, but ultimately, one has to find out for one's self. indeed, unless one researches for oneself, can you every truly be confident in (your) conclusions?
The information that comes across your screen should really be the departure point for investigation, not the conclusion of your investigation. Myself, I frequently check the information in posts here, dig around, until I'm satisfied that I understand the information or that its incorrect, or bogus.
I'll wrap up with a few points:
I agree. But did anyone say its unique to Obama? If so you should address this query to them (ask them why they think so).
I think you are missing a key element here. It has nothing to do with 'presidential' immunity. The legal principle being referenced here is that immunity from prosecution precludes the ability to plead the 5th. Where that immunity is derived is irrelevant. Its the case for anyone, a president, a regular citizen, or anyone under jurisdiction of the US legal system.
OK. So try instead to ask if legal immunity precludes a person's ability to plead the 5th. Forget Obama, forget Presidential.
You know, you can do your own research and investigation. Try asking Grok. Engaging with AI is a very effective way of learning how to refine your questions to get the answers you want.
Because the reason I investigate and research is to satisfy my own threshold for conviction. As I already said, to me it makes sense, and when I dug into this, the information I found made sense to me and I felt satisfied I can accept Solomon's statements.
If you are not satisfied with your own understanding or with the information being presented to you, you NEED to do your own investigations.
Generally speaking, on this board, most of us try to share useful information, reasoning, understanding, but ultimately, each person has to choose: do I investigate and/or research (research is really just investigation) to satisfy my own questions, or do I simply want to accept what other people tell me because I'm not really that bothered about whether I have the facts or not.
I'm not making the claim here. Solomon is. How you approach the claim is really your choice, but don't rely on me to solve this for you.
The internet is the greatest material information resource ever available to humanity. Now, with dozens of AI functions out there, its easier more than ever to investigate. Learning how to use that tool, however, is important.
That's about as far as I'm going to take it.
good luck
I would not trust a guy with that name to tell the truth so I withhold my judgement