A Potentially Historic Legal Development
A new report from investigative journalist John Solomon is making waves in Washington, D.C., suggesting that former President Barack Obama may soon be compelled to testify before a federal grand jury in connection with the long-running “Russiagate” controversy. The claim centers on whether actions taken during his final days in office could now come under intense legal scrutiny.
If accurate, this would mark one of the most significant moments in modern American political history—placing a former president in the position of having to answer questions under oath before a grand jury.
Why the Fifth Amendment May Not Apply
According to Solomon’s remarks on Real America’s Voice, Obama’s presidential immunity—normally a broad legal protection for former presidents—could actually prevent him from invoking the Fifth Amendment in this case. Solomon says that while immunity shields a president from prosecution for actions taken in office, it also removes the ability to remain silent when compelled to testify about those same actions.
In other words, Obama could be legally required to speak under oath. And if he were to misrepresent or conceal facts while testifying as a private citizen, Solomon warns that his immunity could be “revoked immediately,” potentially opening the door to criminal charges.
The January 5, 2017 Meeting at the Center of the Controversy
At the heart of this development is a now-infamous White House meeting that took place on January 5, 2017, just two weeks before President Trump took office.
Present at the meeting were Obama, then–Vice President Joe Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and other senior officials. According to Solomon, it was during this meeting—after the FBI had reportedly closed its investigation into incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn—that the idea was floated to re-interview Flynn, hoping to catch him in a misstatement that could lead to charges.
Former FBI Director Comey himself has admitted to orchestrating aspects of that approach, and subsequent legal filings have documented elements of the strategy used against Flynn.
A Potential ‘Trap’ for Obama?
Solomon described the situation as deeply ironic:
“Barack Obama is now about to face a potentially similar situation—one he unfairly created for Mike Flynn.”
The suggestion is that, just as Flynn was allegedly drawn into an interview designed to create legal jeopardy, Obama could now face the same risk—being called to testify under oath, where any false statement could have serious consequences.
Political Reactions and Partisan Tensions
The report has intensified already high partisan tensions over the origins of the Russia investigation. Former President Trump quickly seized on Solomon’s reporting, telling reporters from the Oval Office:
“Look, he’s guilty. It’s not a question… This was treason.”
Meanwhile, Democrats are urging Obama to avoid public comment. Some Democratic strategists, including Eddie Vale, have suggested that Republican focus on “Russiagate” is a distraction from other political liabilities, including the fallout over recently released Epstein-related documents.
Tulsi Gabbard’s Document Release
Adding fuel to the fire, former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard recently appeared at a White House briefing to unveil documents she claims prove that the Obama administration fabricated aspects of the Russia election interference narrative in 2016.
Gabbard’s actions have been praised by conservative commentators and sharply criticized by Democratic insiders, who view them as politically motivated.
The Legal Landscape Ahead
While Solomon’s reporting has not been confirmed by the Department of Justice, it underscores a significant constitutional question: can a former president be forced to testify about official acts without the protections traditionally afforded to private citizens?
Legal scholars are divided. Some believe that presidential immunity would still shield Obama from most risks, while others agree with Solomon’s interpretation that immunity removes the Fifth Amendment shield in such cases.
Implications for the Presidency
If Obama is indeed compelled to testify, it could set a precedent affecting all future presidents. The idea that a former commander-in-chief might be required to publicly account for official actions under oath—and potentially lose immunity for lying—would fundamentally alter the post-presidency landscape.
For now, the political world is watching closely to see whether these reported developments translate into formal legal action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSUFeGz7k-g
