Donald Trump accuses Barack Obama of ‘treason' over 2016 election claims
At Tuesday's Oval Office meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr, Trump accused Obama, a longtime rival, of helming a criminal conspiracy.
' The leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack Hussein Obama,' Trump told the media.
' He's guilty. This was treason. This was every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined, even in other countries.'
President Trump has a history of spreading election-related falsehoods, including by denying his own defeat in the 2020 race.
But since taking office for a second term, he has sought to settle scores over his victory in the 2016 presidential contest, which raised questions about Russia's alleged attempts to influence the outcome.
In 2016, in the waning days of Obama's second term, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) concluded that Russia had attempted to sway the results in Trump's favour. Obama responded to the allegations by expelling Russian diplomats and slapping sanctions on the country.
An intelligence community assessment in 2017 later offered details into the Russian influence campaign.
But in 2019, a special counsel's report found there was not enough evidence to support the claim that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia. It did, however, once again underscore the government's assertion that Russia had interfered in the election 'in sweeping and systematic fashion'.
Trump, however, has described such probes as politicised attacks designed to undermine his authority.
In Tuesday's appearance, Trump cited recent claims from his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, to assert wrongdoing on the part of the Obama administration.
'They caught President Obama absolutely cold,' Trump said. 'They tried to rig the election, and they got caught, and there should be very severe consequences for that.'
Tulsi Gabbard renews Obama attacks
Trump's latest remarks about what he calls the 'Russia hoax' come just days after Gabbard released a press release about the subject on July 18.
In the statement, Gabbard's office asserts she 'revealed overwhelming evidence' that 'President Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicised intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump'.
Gabbard followed that release up with a series of social media posts, some indicating she had pressed the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal charges against Obama. She has called the scrutiny on the 2016 election a 'treasonous conspiracy'.
'Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American people,' Gabbard wrote.
'No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,' she continued. 'We are turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral.'
However, the veracity of Gabbard's report has been widely questioned. Critics have pointed out that she appears to confuse different conclusions.
Gabbard, for instance, has highlighted internal government documents from the 2016 election period that indicate Russia was not using cyberattacks to alter the overall vote count.
But the published 2017 intelligence report did not assert that Russia was attempting to hack the election. Instead, it highlighted ways that Russia tried to influence public sentiment through disinformation.
Russia's campaign included online propaganda, the dissemination of hacked data, and targeted messaging about individuals and entities involved in the election.
Other investigations related to the matter, including a separate Department of Justice inspector general report and a Republican-led Senate investigation, all supported that Russia did indeed seek to influence the 2016 election.
Backlash against Gabbard's statements
But Gabbard's argument that the scrutiny over the 2016 election was criminal has prompted uproar, particularly from the Democratic Party.
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia even questioned whether Gabbard should remain in her role as director of national intelligence.
'It is sadly not surprising that DNI Gabbard, who promised to depoliticize the intelligence community, is once again weaponizing her position to amplify the president's election conspiracy theories,' he wrote on social media.
Obama himself released a statement through his office, calling Gabbard's claims 'bizarre'.
'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' it said.
Some critics have speculated that Trump may be using the years-old question of Russian election interference to distract from his current political woes: He recently faced backlash from members of his base over his handling of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Still, President Trump has doubled down on Gabbard's assertions, even reposting a video generated by artificial intelligence (AI) on Monday showing Obama being handcuffed in the Oval Office, while the song YMCA played.
' This is, like, proof – irrefutable proof – that Obama was seditious, that Obama was trying to lead a coup,' Trump said on Tuesday. 'Obama headed it up.'
Experts have long speculated that Trump may use a second term as president to settle political scores and seek retaliation against his foes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Brazil Supreme Court orders house arrest of former president Bolsonaro
Brazil's Supreme Court has issued a house arrest order for former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is standing trial for allegedly plotting a coup. The decision, issued on Monday, comes a day after protests in support of the former far-right president were held across Brazil. Bolsonaro is accused of seeking to overturn the 2022 election, won by his left-wing opponent, current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The order was issued by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is facing sanctions by the administration of United States President Donald Trump for overseeing the case against Bolsonaro. Moraes said Bolsonaro had violated precautionary measures imposed by the court restricting the former president's social media use and political messaging. The prosecution accuses Bolsonaro of leading an armed criminal organisation, attempting to stage a coup and attempting a violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, aggravated damage and deterioration of listed heritage. A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years. The former president's supporters stormed and ransacked the National Congress and other state institutions in January 2023 to reject Lula's victory. After his defeat weeks earlier, Bolsonaro had declined to publicly concede his loss. Bolsonaro forcefully rejects the allegations against him, describing his prosecution as a witch-hunt. Moraes said in his decision on Monday that the former president was posting content on the social media channels of his three lawmaker sons. The judge added that Bolsonaro has spread messages with 'a clear content of encouragement and instigation to attacks against the Supreme Court and a blatant support for foreign intervention in the Brazilian Judiciary'. In July, Moraes froze the assets of Bolsonaro's son, Eduardo, on suspicion that the funds are being used to lobby the Trump administration against the Brazilian government. Eduardo lashed out against Moraes, accusing him of acting like a dictator. 'If he thinks this will make me stop, I make it clear: I will not be intimidated, and I will not be silenced. I prepared myself for this moment,' the former president's son said in a social media post last month. 'This is just another demonstration of abuse of power and confirms everything I have been denouncing in Washington and to authorities worldwide.' The ruling will keep Boslonaro under ankle monitoring and allow only his relatives and lawyers to visit him. All mobile phones from his home will also be seized. The prosecution of Boslonaro is causing a diplomatic rift between Brazil and the US. Last month, Trump imposed a 50 percent tariffs on Brazil, directly tying the tariffs to the trial of his fellow right-wing politicians. Then last week, the US administration imposed sanctions against Moraes, which Lula rebuked as 'unacceptable'. 'The Brazilian government stands in solidarity with [Moraes], who is the target of sanctions motivated by the actions of Brazilian politicians who betray our country and our people in defence of their own interests,' Lula said, referring to Bolsonaro.
Qatar Tribune
6 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Swiss luxury watchmakers slip after Trump tariff blow
Agencies Shares in Swiss luxury watchmakers, including Richemont and Swatch, were volatile in early trade on Monday, underscoring the challenge the industry faces after U.S. President Donald Trump imposed a steep 39% tariff on Switzerland. The sector, which exported watches worth 26 billion Swiss francs ($32.79 billion) in 2024, is already under pressure from a stronger franc and falling global demand. Watch exports are on track to hit their lowest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. 'The impact of the U.S. tariffs, if they stay at 39%, could be devastating for numerous brands in Switzerland,' said Jean-Philippe Bertschy, an analyst at Vontobel. Shares in Richemont and Swatch were both down around 1% at 09:06 a.m. GMT, paring back losses after earlier falling as much as 3.4% and 5%, respectively. Bertschy linked the move to hopes of Switzerland still getting a better deal as the tariffs are effective as of August 7. Swatch Group CEO Nick Hayek, meanwhile, called on Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter to meet Trump. A separate report by Reuters said Switzerland's government would hold an extraordinary cabinet meeting on Monday to discuss its response to tariffs, which threaten to inflict heavy damage to its luxury goods industry. The duties are scheduled to go into effect on Thursday, giving Switzerland a small window to strike a better deal. Switzerland was left stunned on Friday after Trump hit the country with one of the highest tariffs in his global trade reset, with industry associations warning that tens of thousands of jobs were at risk. President Keller-Sutter told Reuters on Friday that Switzerland had given U.S. goods virtually free access to its market, and Swiss companies had made very important direct investments in the U.S. 'The president (Trump) is really focused on the trade deficit, because he thinks that this is a loss for the United States, that every year with Swiss exports, the United States loses, well, 38.5 billion (francs),' she told Reuters. 'Tariffs can change at any moment due to the unpredictability of the Trump administration,' said Georges Mari, co-owner of Zurich-based investment firm Rossier, Mari & Associates, which holds shares in Swatch, adding that it is 'impossible to make a serious forecast.' Monday was the first day of trading following the U.S. tariff announcement, as markets were closed on Friday for the Swiss National Day holiday. Stocks and the Swiss franc both tumbled in response to heavy levies. An index of Swiss blue-chip stocks hit its lowest level since mid-April on Monday, as shares in banks, luxury retailers, and pharma companies dropped. The SMI index was last down 0.6% on the day, compared with a 0.6% rise in the regional STOXX 600 index. The Swiss franc was the worst-performing major currency against the dollar, which was last up 0.7% at 0.809 francs, not far off Friday's one-month highs.
Qatar Tribune
6 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Legal challenge to Trump's tariffs likely headed to Supreme Court
Agencies A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
