Barack Obama’s Fingerprints Are All Over It [WATCH]

John Solomon argued that Hillary Clinton created the Russia collusion narrative and that Barack Obama later became complicit by allowing the investigation to continue despite having information that, according to Solomon, should have caused him to intervene.

During an exchange with Miranda Devine, the discussion centered on whether the events surrounding the Russia investigation were directed by a central figure or emerged from a broader group acting with similar political objectives.

“Who do you think was was there a sort of a grand planner or some a puppeteer, or were these people was it more of a hive mind?” Devine asked.

Solomon responded by placing responsibility first on Clinton, claiming she was responsible for creating and advancing the Russia collusion narrative.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

“It is very clear that Hillary Clinton invented the Russia collusion thing and then carried it out,” Solomon said.

He then turned to Obama, arguing that the former president had the authority and information necessary to bring the matter to an end but chose not to do so.

“It’s very clear that Barack Obama was in a position to stop it,” Solomon said.

According to Solomon, Obama possessed firsthand information indicating that the Russia investigation was based on what Solomon characterized as a political ruse.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“He had firsthand knowledge that this was a ruse. His own CIA director told him that, and he let it go on,” Solomon said.

Solomon argued that Obama’s role went beyond simply failing to intervene. He claimed that after the election, Obama became actively involved in actions that helped continue the broader effort.

“And then after the election, he engaged in the ruse by changing the intelligence community assessment and then concocting in a meeting in his own Oval Office a way to go get Mike Flynn and make him look like he was Russian dirty when he wasn’t,” Solomon said.

That allegation formed the core of Solomon’s argument. He said the story cannot be fully examined without addressing Obama’s conduct directly.

“You can’t tell this story without saying there is complicity by Barack Obama based on what’s in the public evidence,” Solomon said.

Solomon also criticized the fact that Obama has not been compelled to answer questions under oath about what he knew and when he knew it.

“And no one has ever hauled him before a grand jury or a congressional committee yet to ask him, ‘What did you know, Mr. President? When did you know it?” Solomon said.

He argued that obtaining sworn testimony from Obama would be important not only for political accountability, but also for establishing a complete historical record of what happened.

“I think, for history’s sake, we’re owed an answer from Barack Obama under oath because he clearly was in a position to stop it,” Solomon said.

Solomon’s contention is that Obama faced a critical choice after learning information that allegedly called the investigation into question. Rather than shutting down the process, Solomon claims Obama allowed it to continue and then took actions that furthered it.

“And instead of stopping it, he furthered it, and he fanned it, and the people under his command were major players,” Solomon said.

WATCH:

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.