The People vs. Barack Obama

In a courtroom, a prosecutor's primary weapon is the defendant's own words. The most effective case is built by meticulously arranging a person's public statements, promises, and philosophies into a coherent narrative that reveals an undeniable contradiction between word and deed. This method simply holds a mirror up to a public record, allowing the inconsistencies to speak for themselves. The goal is to present a case so grounded in the defendant's own logic that the verdict feels less like a judgment imposed from the outside and more like an inevitable conclusion reached from within the defendant's own framework.

This prosecutorial approach is precisely the one Ben Shapiro, a Harvard Law School graduate and syndicated columnist, adopted when he felt a growing disconnect between the lofty rhetoric of the Obama administration and its practical policy outcomes. He saw what he believed was a constitutional case waiting to be made in the court of public opinion. Shapiro methodically gathered President Obama's speeches, writings, and policy statements, treating them as exhibits in a grand political trial. The result was "The People vs. Barack Obama," a book structured as a legal indictment, arguing that the president's actions had systematically violated the public trust and the foundational principles he claimed to champion.

Module 1: The Weaponization of Government Agencies

Shapiro's first major charge is that the Obama administration turned federal agencies into tools for political warfare. He argues this was a systematic effort to reward allies and punish opponents.

The most explosive example he presents is the IRS targeting scandal. The IRS was used to systematically target and suppress conservative political groups. This was confirmed by the Treasury Inspector General. The IRS created "Be on the Look Out" lists. These lists flagged groups with names containing "Tea Party" or "Patriot" for extra scrutiny. Hundreds of applications for tax-exempt status were delayed, sometimes for years. This effectively choked off their ability to fundraise and organize during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

The administration initially blamed "low-level" employees in a Cincinnati office. But Shapiro, citing internal emails and testimony, argues the rot went much higher. The head of the Exempt Organizations unit, Lois Lerner, was directly involved. She emailed colleagues that the "Tea Party Matter" was "very dangerous" and needed to be handled in Washington. Later, she publicly apologized before invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in front of Congress.

But it gets more interesting. Shapiro details how the administration created a permissive climate for this behavior. President Obama and Democratic senators publicly pressured the IRS to scrutinize conservative nonprofits. In a 2010 speech, Obama personally named and criticized conservative groups. He accused them of being political fronts. Following this, several Democratic senators sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner urging an investigation into these exact types of groups. The message from the top was clear. These organizations were enemies. The bureaucracy responded accordingly. Shapiro argues this was a coordinated political attack using the tax code as a weapon.

Module 2: The Benghazi Attack and Cover-Up

Now, let's turn to foreign policy and national security. The 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, is a cornerstone of Shapiro's indictment. He lays out a case with two distinct phases. First, the negligence that made the attack possible. Second, the cover-up that followed.

He begins by establishing the context. The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was a high-risk post. There were over 50 violent incidents against Western targets in the year before the attack. Despite this, security at the Benghazi mission was deliberately kept inadequate due to political sensitivities. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team sent multiple, urgent requests for more security. They were repeatedly denied by the State Department in Washington. Officials cited concerns about "normalization" and not wanting to appear too militarized to the new Libyan government. Instead, security was outsourced to a local militia with known sympathies to al-Qaeda. Shapiro argues this was a reckless disregard for American lives.

Then, the attack happened on September 11, 2012. Four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Stevens. Here's where the second part of the charge comes in. The administration engaged in a coordinated cover-up, blaming a YouTube video to protect its political narrative. In the middle of a presidential election, the White House was selling a story. The story was that al-Qaeda was "on the run." A pre-planned terrorist attack didn't fit that narrative.

So, a new story was created. Administration officials, from the White House Press Secretary to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, went public. They claimed the attack was a spontaneous protest sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video. Shapiro presents evidence that they knew this was false. Internal emails show the State Department and White House editing CIA talking points. They systematically removed references to terrorism, al-Qaeda, and prior security warnings. Whistleblowers who challenged the narrative, like Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks, testified they were sidelined and intimidated. The book portrays this as a deliberate campaign of misinformation to win an election.