Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Obama and hillary are guilty in messing with trump to keep him from becoming president
Executive Summary
The core claim — that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of conspiring to “mess with” Donald Trump to stop him becoming president — is not supported by the weight of official investigations and public statements: major fact-checks and government reports contradict a coordinated coup or treason allegation. At the same time, newly declassified material in a Durham appendix raises questions about actions by the Clinton campaign and the FBI’s handling of intelligence in 2016, producing competing narratives that require careful distinction between proven misconduct, contested intelligence, and partisan interpretation [1] [2] [3].
1. What supporters of the claim actually allege — the accusation unpacked and stated plainly
Supporters of the claim assert a coordinated effort by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton to manipulate intelligence, weaponize law enforcement, and engineer a false narrative tying Donald Trump to Russia so that Trump would be prevented from assuming or retaining the presidency. This allegation collapses several distinct assertions into one: that Obama personally directed wrongdoing; that Hillary Clinton orchestrated falsehoods; and that the intelligence community and federal law enforcement acted in concert to obstruct Trump. The evidence invoked by proponents typically includes an Obama-era intelligence assessment on Russian interference, public statements by political figures claiming manipulation, and selective documents cited from later reviews; yet those pieces of material are presented as a single, unified plot rather than separate events requiring individual scrutiny [1] [3].
2. The mainstream fact-finding record: why major reports reject a “coup” or treason narrative
Multiple post‑2016 official inquiries and comprehensive reviews found evidence Russia intervened in 2016 but did not flip votes or perform a successful coup, and they did not substantiate claims that Obama tried to prevent Trump from taking office. Recent fact-checking synthesizes those findings and concludes that attacks describing Obama or Clinton as committing treason or orchestrating a coup are false and misleading. These reviews emphasize that intelligence assessments about Russian activity were about foreign interference, not a domestic scheme to block an election outcome, and they identify legal and evidentiary limits to prosecuting officials based on current public materials [1] [2]. The Obama office has publicly denied such allegations and called them “outrageous” and politically motivated, framing them as distraction from other issues [2].
3. What the newly declassified Durham appendix says — an alternate thread that complicates the picture
A newly declassified appendix to the Durham report describes intelligence suggesting the Clinton campaign may have sought to tie Trump falsely to Russia, and it criticizes the FBI for not adequately investigating that lead. The appendix alleges that some intelligence indicated the Trump‑Russia narrative could have originated from Clinton campaign sources or been the product of disinformation, and it contends the FBI used problematic material — including the Steele dossier — in surveillance applications. Those findings, however, rest on analysis, translations, and documents whose authenticity and context remain contested, meaning the appendix points to institutional missteps and possible disparate treatment rather than conclusively proving a high‑level political conspiracy by Obama or Clinton to prevent Trump’s presidency [3]. The document reframes the debate from a binary “coup/no coup” to a more nuanced question of investigative rigor and partisan influence.
4. How to reconcile contradictory findings and what remains unresolved
Reconciling the mainstream fact-check conclusions with the Durham appendix requires separating two different types of claims: one about foreign interference and intelligence assessments, and another about possible political campaign tactics and investigative failures. The first category — that Russian actors interfered — is supported by bipartisan investigations and is not equivalent to an allegation that Obama or Clinton committed treason. The second category — that Clinton campaign actors may have pushed misleading narratives and that the FBI could have inadequately vetted sources — is what the Durham appendix highlights, and it raises legitimate questions about process and accountability without automatically proving a coordinated plot to stop Trump from taking office [1] [3]. These distinctions matter because conflating investigatory flaws with criminal conspiracy leads to false equivalence and politicized conclusions [2].
5. What this means for public debate, legal accountability, and partisan narratives going forward
The evidence landscape shows no validated proof that Obama and Hillary orchestrated a coup or committed treason to prevent Trump’s presidency, while simultaneously documenting procedural failures and contested campaign conduct that warrant scrutiny. Different actors and outlets emphasize parts of this record to support partisan narratives: defenders of Trump point to the Durham appendix as vindication, while critics of that view cite comprehensive bipartisan and special‑counsel findings rejecting broad conspiracy claims. Moving forward, accountability discussions must hinge on corroborated facts and legal standards rather than rhetorical assertions; investigations that establish clear chains of evidence and intent would change the picture, but the material currently public supports corrective oversight and institutional reform more than it does a criminal conspiracy finding [1] [2] [3].