Barack Obama wasn’t America’s first black president. He was America’s biggest con.
The statements you’ve presented express a highly critical and oppositional viewpoint regarding former President Barack Obama’s character, post-presidency wealth, and specific policy decisions, culminating in a call for legal accountability. Similarly, the other two clips you shared contained unverified, sensational claims about Malia Obama’s supposed pregnancy and the birth of a grandchild.
It is important to separate these emotionally charged, speculative narratives from established public record and factual analysis. As you requested an essay, I will structure this by first addressing the factual context surrounding the claims made about President Obama’s post-presidency, the Iran payment, and the Russia investigation, and then contrasting that with the nature of unsubstantiated speculation, like the recent family announcements.
Analyzing Claims Against Barack Obama: Separating Speculation from Record
The assertion that Barack Obama “scammed” America and deserves to face justice behind bars is a strong political critique rooted in specific, highly contested interpretations of his presidency and post-presidency financial activities. To examine this critique fairly, one must review the factual context surrounding the main points raised: post-presidency earnings, the Iran cash transfer, and the Russia investigation.
Post-Presidency Wealth and Public Earnings
The claim that Obama “raked in somewhere between $70–90 million” post-office is rooted in the reality that former presidents earn significant income from public speaking, book deals, and media contracts.
The Reality of Presidential Income: Former presidents leverage their experience for lucrative post-service careers. Reports on Barack Obama’s earnings have detailed large advances for his memoirs (like A Promised Land) and high fees for speeches (reported to be up to $400,000 per engagement shortly after leaving office). While the exact cumulative post-presidency figure is fluid and subject to reporting estimates, the income is legally earned through standard channels for ex-presidents. The critique frames this standard practice as personal “corruption” and a “personal jackpot,” ignoring the established market value for their unique experience.
Legal and Ethical Framework: Post-presidency earnings are governed by ethics laws and often involve contractual work, not inherent government corruption, though critics frequently contest the level of wealth accumulation versus the public service ethos.
The Iran Cash Settlement and “Payoff” Narrative
The most specific, concrete policy point mentioned is the $400 million cash payment to Iran in 2016, which critics—including figures like Tulsi Gabbard—characterize as a ransom or a “dirty backroom deal.”
Factual Background: The payment was part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement to resolve a decades-old financial dispute dating back to before the 1979 Iranian Revolution regarding undelivered military equipment paid for by the Shah’s government. The settlement involved returning the $400 million principal plus approximately $1.3 billion in interest.
The Cash Component: The administration acknowledged the principal was delivered in non-U.S. currency (euros and Swiss francs) on pallets. Officials explained the use of cash was due to the lack of formal banking relations with Iran due to sanctions, making cash the “most reliable way” to ensure timely payment as stipulated in the legal settlement.
The Timing Controversy: The timing of the $400 million delivery coincided closely with Iran’s release of four American prisoners. While the administration maintained the settlement and the prisoner release were negotiated separately, critics argued the timing constituted a ransom payment, violating U.S. policy against paying ransom. The administration has consistently denied this characterization, viewing it as the resolution of an international financial claim.
The assertion that this was a “payoff” remains a politically charged interpretation of a complex, legally justified financial settlement that was executed through unconventional means due to existing diplomatic realities.
The Trump-Russia Investigation and “Deep State” Allegations
The claim that Obama, along with figures like Brennan, Clapper, and Comey, “cooked up the Trump-Russia hoax” using $40 million of taxpayer money to protect their power is central to significant political controversy.
The Investigation: The Russia investigation, initiated by the FBI and later overseen by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, stemmed from intelligence indicating Russian interference in the 2016 election through cyber operations and disinformation campaigns. The purpose was to investigate potential coordination between Russian actors and the Trump campaign, as well as potential obstruction of justice.
Funding and Scope: Intelligence activities are funded through classified budgets, making the $40 million figure hard to verify independently in this context. Furthermore, the Mueller Report ultimately concluded there was extensive Russian interference but did not establish a criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
The “Deep State” Narrative: The allegation that Obama and his appointees fabricated this intelligence is the core of what has been dubbed the “Deep State” or “Spygate” narrative, a claim heavily promoted by President Trump and his allies, often including figures like Tulsi Gabbard. These allegations suggest the intelligence community acted outside its mandate to undermine a political opponent. This contention stands in stark contrast to the bipartisan consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference efforts.
The claim that the entire event was a conspiracy to “drag the country into a constitutional crisis” to protect “their own” is an interpretation that dismisses the findings of multiple intelligence reviews and the Mueller Report as being part of the cover-up itself.
The Nature of Speculation and Hyperbole in Political Discourse
The preceding analysis addresses the substance of the critique leveled against Barack Obama. However, the text you provided—much like the previous two clips regarding Malia Obama’s alleged pregnancy—relies heavily on hyperbole, absolute language (“treason,” “scammed,” “biggest con”), and calls for severe legal action (“behind bars”).
This leads to the meta-discussion regarding the two types of claims presented across all the provided text:
-
Factual Disagreement on Policy: Disputing whether the Iran payment was a settlement or a ransom, or whether the Russia investigation was warranted intelligence work or a political hoax. These are matters of political interpretation of documented events.
Unsubstantiated Personal Allegations: Claims about Malia Obama’s parentage or pregnancy, which are conspiracy theories with zero verifiable evidence circulating in the entertainment/gossip sphere.
The common thread is the use of sensational framing (“SHOCKS Everyone!”, “Biggest Con,” “Treason”) to generate engagement and assert a narrative that demands accountability based on perceived injustice. This style of rhetoric often seeks to bypass established legal or historical records by appealing directly to a feeling of being “conned” or betrayed.
The fundamental counterpoint to the essay’s conclusion—that “no one is above the law”—is that in a robust democracy, allegations must meet a standard of evidence higher than political rhetoric, especially when calling for criminal prosecution or claiming deep-seated corruption. The legal and congressional inquiries into the events mentioned (Iran payment, Russia investigation) did not result in the findings of corruption or criminality asserted in the provided text.
In conclusion, the critique posits that Obama’s presidency and post-presidency are defined by financial gain and political sabotage. A factual review shows that the events cited (book deals, Iran settlement, Russia probe) are complex, highly politicized episodes where the administration’s actions are defended as necessary legal/diplomatic maneuvers, while critics frame them as evidence of deep-seated corruption. The most extreme claims, like those regarding Malia Obama, remain firmly in the realm of unfounded rumor.
As this essay addresses a strong political critique based on disputed interpretations of public events, would you like to see an exploration of the documented legal reviews of the Iran settlement, or perhaps a summary of official findings regarding the Russia investigation?
