Better in their words…

A C&C Special Edition: Trump —in the Oval Office— accuses Obama of a capital offense. Wait till you understand the full scope of what this really means. Childers

I almost cannot believe I am alive to see what is happening in the USA.  mrossol

Source: BENEDICT OBAMA ☙ Wednesday, July 23, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS

WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY

🔥🔥🔥

After resisting like a teenager dodging dirty dishes, corporate media is finally —finally— being unwillingly dragged into reporting on the rapidly developing RussiaGate scandal. But, true to form, it started by raising shields for the Democrats. Yesterday, the Washington Post published a masterpiece of understatement headlined, “Obama’s office: Trump administration’s treason claims are a ‘distraction.’”

A distraction? Allegations of treason are a distraction? Please, stop. I’m laughing so hard it hurts. Is that really the best they could come up with? Spoiler: the story never explains what Trump is supposedly distracting from, or says who is supposedly being distracted. It’s just a handwave, a magic word meant to stop questions instead of answer them.

But what WaPo missed, intentionally or because it’s blinded by TDS, was that the moment itself literally changed the course of history. Let me unpack it for you.

Yesterday, seated in the Oval Office beside a visibly stunned Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. —who thought he was attending a trade deal announcement and suddenly looked like he’d accidentally wandered into a political nuclear test— President Trump said the slowly boiling truth out loud.

He accused Barack Obama of treason. On camera. In front of foreign heads of state and his top cabinet!

Here’s the clip. You’re going to love it, but just wait till I explain the rest:

CLIP: President Trump makes history by accusing former President Obama of treason (1:40).

With Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sitting stone-faced beside him, Trump didn’t hedge, tease, or suggest. He boldly declared, “They have him stone cold. And it was President Obama. Barack Hussein Obama, he’s guilty. It’s not a question. This was treason.”

Even for Trump, it was a Rubicon moment— one that shattered a hundred years of presidential restraint. You’d think WaPo might start there. Or maybe lean into the “revenge!” theme they themselves built during the election. But no. For them, it was just another day of Trump being Trump.

Let’s be clear: A sitting U.S. president just accused a former U.S. president of treason— by name, citing evidence in hand, in the Oval Office, on camera.

That has no precedent. Not Nixon. Not Clinton. Not even the long, bitter rivalry between Adams and Jefferson ever reached that level.

This wasn’t Trump being theatrical. This was Trump kicking down the fourth wall of the American political mythos. How do you like THAT, b—tches?

It is impossible to believe Trump would’ve made that bold claim —so stark, so direct, so public— without knowing there’s a formal DOJ investigation already underway. Trump understands defamation law better than most lawyers. You don’t accuse a former president of treason in front of the entire world unless you have proof; maybe even something close to prosecutable evidence.

And that’s not exaggeration. Based on the strength of Trump’s words, and the solemnity of the venue, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn a grand jury is already hearing evidence.

Still not grasping the weight of what just happened? Then let me try to add some historical context.

🔥 On January 10, 49 B.C., with a chill wind curling off the river and the twilight sky bruising into dusk, Julius Caesar reined in his horse at the banks of the Rubicon— a shallow stream no wider than a city street, but deeper than destiny. By Roman law, no general could lead an army across it and enter Italy without surrendering command. Behind him lay legality; ahead, civil war.

Caesar’s enemies in the Senate had marked him for execution if he returned under arms. His ashen-faced officers held their breath. Then, with a half-smile and the immortal murmur “alea iacta est” —the die is cast— he spurred forward, crimson cloak snapping in the wind, and led his legion across the water. Rome —and human history— changed forever.

Fifteen centuries later, in 1519, Hernán Cortés stood on the shores of Veracruz with the weight of empire on his shoulders and mutiny at his back. His men, anxious and outnumbered in a hostile land, muttered about retreat. Cortés’s answer seared itself into history: he ordered the ships burned. Smoke coiled into the Mexican sky as their only way home crackled into ash.

There would be no turning back— only forward, into the unknown heart of the pagan Aztec empire. With one uncompromising act, Cortés transformed conquest into necessity and welded his army’s fate to the success of Empire.

🔥 What made Trump’s moment yesterday so Rubicon-like wasn’t the accusation itself. It was the irreversible commitment it represented. You don’t accuse a former president of treason —on camera, in the Oval Office, claiming you have the proof— and later shrug it off as political theater. Sorry, never mind!

There’s no walking this back. No “whoops; just asking questions” lifeline. Trump has cast the dice, and now the Fates are spinning up their thread—measuring, cutting, and preparing for the reckoning to come.

If Trump is wrong, or if he fails to follow through, the blowback won’t just be political injury; it will be existential. His credibility will implode, his presidency will stall, and his enemies will seize the narrative: that he recklessly smeared a predecessor for meaningless revenge.

Like Caesar defying the Roman Senate, or Cortés crushing any hope of retreat, Trump has demanded a showdown. It’s not a political strategy. It is High Noon in Washington. Either Obama faces justice, or Trump’s presidency is buried beneath the weight of his own words.

It’s Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves. It’s that simple.

But there’s more.

🔥 Here’s something extremely curious, even conspicuous.

Mere hours after Trump sued the Wall Street Journal for falsely claiming he sent Jeffrey Epstein a birthday cartoon, Barack Obama’s office responded to Trump’s Oval Office treason accusation by calling it… a “distraction.”

Not defamation. Not libel. Not even baseless. Just a distraction.

“Distraction” is a bizarre word to choose when a sitting president has just accused you of the most serious crime in the Constitution, on camera, from the Oval Office, with foreign heads of state watching and evidence allegedly in hand.

Where’s the angry denial? The threats of legal action? The righteous fury? You’d expect Obama’s office —following Trump’s example, a perfect setup— to unload both barrels, to drop the full weight of prestige, moral clarity, and legal firepower. But nope. Instead, we got Obama spokesweasel Patrick Rodenbush blinking in the sunlight and muttering something about a distraction.

How oddly underwhelming.

And … what about the media? In a normal political reality, this would be a constitutional earthquake. Instead, corporate media is treating the story like an unflattering wardrobe malfunction— awkward, barely publishable, and not worth looking at too closely.

Trump accused a former U.S. president of treason —a capital offense— and they went with Obama’s distraction. They even headlined it. Where are the emergency panels? Where are the breathless editorials about Trump’s Hitler-like authoritarianism?

Where are the calls for Trump to be impeached for abuse of authority? Why aren’t they opportuning this to wind up a whole new scandal cycle?

I’ll suggest the answer is they have fallen into a trap of their own making. Consider this Scott Adams clip from yesterday:

CLIP: Scott Adams says Democrats punched first (3:11).

Thanks to the Democrats’ relentless prosecution of Trump, Scott is all the way onside:

For most of my adult life, I would have said, “No, no, you don’t want to go prosecuting the last administration.” Because once you start doing that, everybody’s going to be trying to prosecute the last administration. Except that’s what the Democrats did to Trump when he was out of office. They went after him. And to which I say, well, they took the gloves off. They changed the rules. So, I believe that they have given Trump a free punch.

I’ll take whatever blowback. I’ll accept the high risk of a civil war. Yeah. We can’t live in a country where you can just make up a hoax, and put somebody in jail, and take ’em out of a race. Nope.

After impeachment hoaxes, censorship regimes, politicized prosecutions, gag orders, SWAT raids, and the very real possibility that a former president could be convicted before an election while the man who helped orchestrate the original fraud paddleboards around Martha’s Vineyard?

Now, you have rational pundits calmly saying, “Yeah. I’ll risk civil war. Because not prosecuting this is worse.”

I’ll disagree with Scott on that one point. He thinks a civil war would be likelywere Obama arrested. But … there was no civil war when Trump was arrested.

🔥 I am not nearly bold enough to predict an Obama arrest. It seems unthinkable. But is it, really? It wouldn’t be historic if Obama were arrested, since they arrested Trump. An Obama conviction wouldn’t even be historic, since they criminally convicted Trump of mislabeling check stubs or something.

Think about this, hard. Trump and his allies have already been indicted, tried, and in some cases convicted for the exact same core crime now facing Barack Obama. Trump’s conviction in New York —though dressed up as a salacious, absurdly large-chested “business records” case— was explicitly framed by prosecutors as part of an election interference scheme.

Jack Smith’s federal case centered on election interference through obstruction and conspiracy. The Fulton County indictments in Georgia? Election interference. And Trump’s so-called “co-conspirators”—several of whom have already pleaded guilty in the “Fake Electors” case—were all charged with conspiracy to interfere with the outcome of a presidential election.

In short, the legal system has already established that election interference is a jailable offense for former presidents and their teams. The precedent is not a law school hypothetical. It’s already case law.

In other words, and this was Scott’s point, there’s already complete precedent.

So really … what would actually be unthinkable or unprecedented about an Obama arrest for conspiracy to interfere with a presidential election? Just that he’s a Democrat, who enjoys a higher tier of justice? That excuse won’t stick the landing— and the media knows it.

Democrats and their captive media moron told us literally one million times:

• “No one is above the law!”
• “Not even a president.”
• “Especially not a former president.”
• “The rule of law must be upheld.”
• “If we don’t prosecute, it sends the wrong message.”

If Obama gets arrested, the media’s goose is cooked. The Democrats, too. If they try to downplay Obama’s misdeeds as misguided but well-intended national security errors, they just make Trump look even more over-prosecuted for his ‘pornstar hush money’ convictions.

They built the gallows. They tied the rope. Now they are realizing they are standing on the trapdoor.

Will there be an arrest? Dunno. But maybe the better question is: why wouldn’t there be an arrest?

Goodness gracious. What a news cycle.

📈📈📈

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran this eye-popping headline, “S&P 500 Hits New Record on Trade Deals.” In other words, tariffs work.

Denial is a river in Egypt, and it runs right through the Wall Street Journal’s editorial offices. The article announced another euphoric all-time record market day without even a passing head bob to its apocryphal predictions of financial doom from President Trump’s tariff policies.

“The S&P 500 ticked up to a new high after President Trump announced trade deals with the Philippines and Indonesia,” the Journal cheerfully reported. The closest it got to any sense of self-awareness was a single sentence: “Stocks have repeatedly hit record highs in recent days despite an array of concerns.”

Yes, but whose array of concerns?

The good news didn’t stop the paper from trying to break up the party. It couldn’t find anyone to quote who was happy about the news. Instead, it quoted only the CEO of TastyTrade (whatever that is), who called it all just toogood: “It reminds me of the old adage that, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. There are too many potential structural issues,” CEO Eeyore Sheridan brayed.

It is simply spectacular how, everywhere Mr. TastyTrader looks, he finds opportunities for improvement.

Too many potential issues. The mind reels thinking of everything that couldgo wrong. You can read about them all right in the Wall Street Journal.

Have a terrific Wednesday! You’d better get back here tomorrow morning; we have a lot of essential news and commentary to catch up. Momentous things are happening.

Share