Barack Obama speaks on Night 2 of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2024.

With all the evidence, from documents from his own presidency and advisers, coming out now against Barack Obama over the grand conspiracy that was launched during his presidency against then-President-elect Donald Trump, trying to undermine his agenda, the Democrat still is likely to skate.

That’s according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who has not only advised Congress on the Constitution but represented members in court on those issues.

He’s a widely respected professor at George Washington University, as well as a popular commentator for several outlets on legal and constitutional questions.

The evidence available so far shows that it is likely Obama and his henchmen, James Clapper, James Comey and John Brennan, as well as others, suppressed information that Russia didn’t impact the 2016 American elections, then rewrote some of the intel community’s evaluations to suggest a link between Trump and Russia.

Of course the American media obsessed over those unsubstantiated claims for years then.

Turley wrote, “I disagree with the use of the charge of treason being thrown around with this release. Based on this evidence, it would be hard to make a criminal case against Obama, let alone the specific charge of treason.

“However, there are good-faith allegations raised about prior congressional testimony of key players in the Obama administration. There may be viable criminal allegations ranging from perjury to obstruction to making false statements to federal investigators,” he warned.

“It is too early to gauge the basis for possible criminal charges. However, the release of this new evidence is both historically and legally significant. There is now a legitimate concern over a conspiracy to create this false narrative to undermine the incoming administration. It proved successful in derailing the first Trump administration. By the time the allegations were debunked, much of the first term had been exhausted. That is worthy of investigation and the public has a right to expect transparency on these long withheld documents.”

He pointed to those who may be considered co-conspirators.

“The silence of the legacy media is hardly surprising, given the key role the media played in spreading these false claims. Most media outlets find themselves in an uncomfortable position, having fostered an alleged conspiracy for years. Most reporters are not keen on making a case against themselves in spreading of these false claims.”

He explained what happened:

Consider this story: An outgoing president and his top officials are told that there is no evidence of Russian collusion or influence in the national election. The White House then moved to suppress the intelligence assessment and reverse the conclusions, while false claims were leaked to the press.

That is not just a major but a Pulitzer-level story, right?

Apparently not. The legacy media has largely ignored the declassified evidence and possible criminal referral on the Obama administration seeding the Russian collusion narrative just before the first Trump Administration.

It supports allegations in the real Russian conspiracy: the conspiracy to create a false Russian collusion scandal to undermine the election and administration of Donald Trump in 2016.

He noted, “Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard suggested last week that intelligence was ‘manufactured and politicized’ despite countervailing conclusions from American intelligence that there was no collusion or influence on the election.”

It follows other scandalous confirmations:

“We previously learned that the Clinton campaign spent millions to create the infamous Steele dossier and then hid their role from the public. Attorney Marc Elias, the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign, pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted but acquitted in a criminal trial.) During the campaign, reporters asked about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. When journalists discovered after the election that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as ‘legal fees’ among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie, they met with nothing but shrugs from the Clinton staff,” he charged.

Further, “Not only did Clinton reportedly spent over $10 million on the report, but Obama was briefed that she was going to create a Russian collusion narrative as part of her campaign,” he said.

“Aware of that Clinton effort, these new documents suggest that Obama and his aides actively sought to affirm the allegations just before Trump’s inauguration. The FBI then ramped up its own efforts despite also being told that the Steele dossier was unreliable and contradicted.”

‘Outrageous’: Obama’s office fires back at Trump’s ‘bizarre allegations’ of ‘treason’

‘Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader’: Trump goes on ‘absolute warpath’ for ‘treasonous’ actions against him

DOJ confirms receipt of Tulsi Gabbard’s criminal referral on Barack Obama administration

WATCH: Trump posts ‘most epic’ video showing Obama arrested, frogmarched by FBI into prison

‘Justice is coming’: Expert warns high-level Dems who schemed to undermine President Trump

Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is currently a news editor for the WND News Center, and also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Read more of Bob Unruh's articles here.