Former President Barack Obama could be entering new legal territory as ongoing discussions about the origins of the “Russiagate” investigation resurface. Journalist John Solomon recently stated on Real America’s Voice that recent developments may lead to Obama being asked to testify before a grand jury — a scenario that would be unprecedented for a former U.S. president.
According to Solomon’s analysis, while former presidents enjoy legal protections for actions taken in office, those protections do not completely shield them from testifying in later investigations once they return to private life. He noted that if a former president is compelled to testify under oath, any false or misleading statements could open the door to legal risk.
“President Obama can now be summoned before a grand jury,” Solomon said during the interview. “He cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment because he has immunity from prosecution. He will be required to testify under oath. And if he misrepresents or lies about his conduct as president, that immunity evaporates the moment the falsehood is spoken.”
Legal experts stress that this is not an accusation but rather a legal opinion on how immunity operates if a former official is called to testify. No subpoena has been issued at this time, and there is no confirmation that Obama will in fact be summoned.
The renewed scrutiny relates to a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting, which has been cited in court filings and media reports as pivotal in shaping the early stages of the investigation into then–incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Former FBI Director James Comey has publicly acknowledged the agency’s aggressive approach to interviewing Flynn, which later resulted in charges of making false statements. Flynn was later pardoned.
Solomon argued that, if called to testify, Obama could face a legal scenario similar to the one Flynn experienced. “The irony here is extraordinary,” Solomon said, referencing the 2017 meeting. However, other legal scholars caution that the circumstances of a former president testifying are unique and have no direct precedent.
Supporters of former President Donald Trump view this possibility as overdue accountability for what they believe was a politically motivated investigation during the early days of his administration. Critics counter that such speculation extends partisan disputes over events that took place nearly a decade ago.
At present, there is no evidence that a grand jury subpoena has been issued or that Obama will testify. Still, the discussion reflects the continuing impact of the Russiagate controversy on American politics. Legal experts note that compelling a former president to testify under oath — and holding them accountable for any misstatements — could create a new standard for presidential accountability.
If Obama were to testify truthfully, his official actions as president would likely remain protected under existing immunity doctrines. However, any attempt to misstate facts could, as Solomon suggests, potentially create new legal challenges.
This ongoing debate underscores how the legacy of major political investigations continues to shape public discourse and raises broader questions about the boundaries of presidential immunity in the United States.
