House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, said that former President Barack Obama might be asked to testify under oath about newly released documents. These documents claim that Obama and some of his top officials were part of a serious plot during the 2016 election, which they say involved hiding important information from the public.
These claims came after Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, made a large number of government documents public. She says these papers show that intelligence officials held back or twisted details about whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election. She has now asked the Department of Justice to look into whether any laws were broken.
This development has made political tensions worse. Some Republicans are now pushing harder for investigations and demanding accountability. They believe people in power back then may have misled the public and used their positions for political gain.
In an interview, Speaker Johnson said he supports doing whatever it takes to uncover the full truth, including calling in big political names like Obama to testify. He said it’s important to look into these matters fairly and without bias. When asked if questioning a former president would be complicated, Johnson said no—if Obama was involved, he should be held responsible.
Tulsi Gabbard also said that anyone involved in what she calls a conspiracy should be fully investigated, no matter how powerful they are. She believes the public deserves justice, especially former President Trump and his supporters. She has turned all the documents over to the Justice Department.
At this time, the Justice Department hasn’t said if it plans to bring charges or question Obama or others. They confirmed they received Gabbard’s referral, but they haven’t commented further.
Gabbard’s documents name several high-profile officials from Obama’s administration, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey. She believes they may have taken part in covering up or manipulating the truth about Russia’s involvement in the election.
However, some legal experts say these accusations don’t have a solid legal foundation. They point out that earlier investigations, like the one led by John Durham, didn’t find enough evidence to charge anyone with serious crimes. Also, the time limit for bringing charges may have already passed. One former federal prosecutor said if Trump really wanted action, he could have pushed for it during his first term.
At the same time, Trump is facing growing criticism from some of his own supporters over how his administration handled the Jeffrey Epstein case. Trump once suggested he’d release Epstein-related documents but later memos from the DOJ and FBI claimed there was no “client list” and no new charges were coming. This has frustrated many of his followers, with figures like Steve Bannon warning that the issue could hurt Trump’s chances in future elections.
In defense of these investigations, Speaker Johnson said that the public was lied to during the Russia probe. He believes this harmed not just Trump but trust in American institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department.
Not everyone agrees with this approach. Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, said the Senate already did a deep investigation and confirmed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to help Trump. He said these conclusions were agreed upon by both Republicans and Democrats.
Other legal voices also argue that what Gabbard and Johnson are saying isn’t backed by real evidence. They say trying to sway public opinion isn’t the same as proving someone broke the law. And under current Supreme Court rulings, prosecuting a former president is very difficult.
A White House spokesperson said the current administration is committed to finding the truth and holding anyone accountable if laws were broken.
As of now, it’s unclear what the Department of Justice will do next. Investigations may continue in Congress, and Republicans may push for more hearings and subpoenas as they examine the newly released information.
