In 2005, when the Democrats were holding up qualified judicial nominees via the filibuster in the Senate despite the fact the GOP had the White House and the majority in the upper chamber, the party of the left — in particular, a newly minted senator from Illinois named Barack Obama — spoke passionately in the defense of the 60-vote hurdle for judicial nominees.
“The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster — if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate — then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,” he said.
“I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber. But we need to rise above the ‘ends justify the means’ mentality because we’re here to answer to the people — all of the people — not just the ones that are wearing our particular party label.”
Sen. Barack Obama in 2005 vigorously defending the filibuster, which he now decries as a “Jim Crow relic:” pic.twitter.com/ha6OrW2vzK
— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) March 25, 2021
In November 2013, facing similar filibusters from the Republicans on then-President Obama’s radical judicial nominees, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — ignoring what they’d said just a few short years ago — “changed the rules and put an end to democratic debate” and did away with the filibuster to get the nominees through.
Not only did that backfire when the GOP took control of the Senate in 2014 and mostly stopped considering new nominees, the lack of a judicial filibuster led to three Supreme Court justices being appointed by Donald Trump. Whoops.
You’d think that maybe they would have learned, but no: In 2021, the Democrats went through with a fruitless impeachment trial against Donald Trump even though he’d already left office because he’d been accused as being the instigator in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, which were then being described as worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
He wasn’t convicted, of course, but the precedent was set: We could impeach former President Millard Fillmore if we wanted to. (And we probably should, because anyone named “Millard” is just asking for it on general principles.)
Should Barack Obama be impeached, even if he won’t be convicted?
That’s a bit of a problem now that new documents being declassified by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence indicate that, in the last days of the Obama administration, efforts to hobble the incoming administration through a Russiagate hoax they knew to be anti-factual were undertaken by top administration officials, with some evidence that, in this case, Barack Obama was “The Big Guy” in this grift.
Well, as one of Trump’s former impeachment lawyers, David Schoen, pointed out during a Sunday appearance on Newsmax, that means an impeachment of Obama is on the table — and, if convicted, his immunity from prosecution could be stripped.
“President Trump is right when he said the immunity decision would help President Obama,” Schoen said. “But you know what it doesn’t help him with? Impeachment.”
🚨NEW: Trump’s Former Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen says Obama could get *IMPEACHED* over Russiagate — stripping his immunity under SCOTUS ruling🚨
“President Trump is right when he said the immunity decision would help President Obama. But you know what it doesn’t help him… pic.twitter.com/HRlM3kOzq0
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) July 27, 2025
“According to the Democratic Party and the House managers in the second impeachment trial, a former president — once out of office — is still subject to impeachment,” he said.
“As I predicted at the time, this would come back — they would rue the day — because President Obama could be impeached if this evidence really says what it says.
“And that could also step over the immunity — because under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, the Democrats argued [impeachment] bars one from holding further office, and the language itself says you’re still subject to criminal prosecution — or indictment,” he added.
Now, this is only if you’re convicted, naturally:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
You need 67 votes in the Senate for that, and you have a better chance of getting all the little children in the world to clap their hands simultaneously than getting that unless something particularly heinous emerges. (And I’m not just talking Nixon smoking-gun tape stuff in 2025 Washington, I’m talking video of Obama saying, “Yeah, and I had Ted Cruz’s dad framed for killing JFK. True story. I uploaded all the pertinent evidence to my Google Drive if you don’t believe me. The password is ‘ClowardPiven4Eva1984forLyFe!’, in case you ever need it. So don’t worry, I’ve got this Russia stuff down pat, baby. Now, where’s that special baggie from the Choom Gang? Don’t tell me Joe let Hunter in the Oval Office again …”)
That being said, why not? The Democrats have been trying to choke up the House of Representatives with meaningless nonsense; all the GOP needs is a majority vote to impeach. Goose, gander, etc. And with an impeachment comes a trial, and with a trial comes the ability to present evidence and to have to answer for it under oath, if one wants to emerge clean.
Harry Reid’s volte-face on the judicial filibuster — including the views once allegedly held by Barack Obama, then abandoned when they burdened Obama — brought us Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Post-administrative impeachment may bring us … well, let’s put it this way: We may be on the precipice of the playing out of a popularly acronymed two-part process, the second half of which is usually described as “finding out.” Have fun, Dems! Don’t say you didn’t see this coming, since you already did — 12 years ago, and you didn’t learn then.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
