The criminal referral of President Obama to the Department of Justice, and the creation of a DOJ “Strike Force” to address the matter, raises the real possibility that the 47th president could turn to a special counsel — a kind of prosecutor that hounded him for years — to lead the case against the 44th president.

Mr. Obama is being accused — albeit he’s not yet indicted — of concocting a false narrative that Russia sought to aid President Trump’s 2016 campaign. The drumbeat toward prosecution is growing. The director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, accused Mr. Obama of a “treasonous conspiracy” for concocting evidence of Russian aid to the Trump campaign.

“After what they did to me, and whether it’s right or wrong, it’s time to go after people,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this week. “Obama’s been caught directly.”

Attorney General Bondi’s “Strike Force” was created to  “investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice,” according to the announcement of its inception. Now two Republican senators — John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham — are urging Mr. Trump to appoint a special counsel to investigate Mr. Obama and his national security aides for “the extent to which they manipulated the U.S. national security apparatus for a political outcome.”

The two lawmakers — Mr. Cornyn is facing a tough primary challenge from the right in March — add that “the entire Russia collusion hoax was created by the Obama Administration to subvert the will of the American people.” Mr. Obama’s office fired back with what it characterized as a rare response, writing that “these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”

Ms. Gabbard, though, accuses the former president and his camarilla of working “to subvert the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump in that election in November of 2016.” Ms. Gabbard, a former Democrat, explained that she is “leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice” but that she reckons that Mr. Obama is guilty of “treasonous conspiracy against the American people.”

Ms. Gabbard  offered a caveat on that claim, though, with the acknowledgment, “I am not an attorney.” The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, adds that Mr. Obama “went to great and nefarious lengths to try to sow discord among the public and sabotage his successor.”

A criminal referral is not itself an indictment, and the ultimate charging decision rests with Ms. Bondi — and possibly the president at whose pleasure she serves. Mr. Obama joins two other prominent Democrats — Senator Schiff and New York’s attorney general, Letitia James — in being referred to the DOJ for prosecution. All three maintain their innocence.

A fourth Democrat, Congresswoman LaMonica McIver, has been criminally charged by the acting assistant United States attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba, with assault and  forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers during a protest outside a New Jersey immigrant detention center. 

The issue of Russian interference in the 2016 election has already been studied by two special counsels. After Attorney General Sessions recused himself early in Mr. Trump’s first term, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who did not recommend that Mr. Trump be charged but found that Russian interference was “sweeping and systematic.” 

Mr. Mueller generated some 37 indictments, many of which — as is customary in special prosecution — were for unrelated offenses. No one was charged with collusion or conspiracy.

In October 2020 Attorney General Barr appointed Special Counsel John Durham to examine the origins of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, which had come under increasing scrutiny. After four years, Mr. Durham concluded that not “every injustice or transgression amounts to a criminal offense.” He brought criminal cases against three people, and lost two cases at trial. Mr. Durham found that the FBI’s assessment of intelligence was characterized by a “lack of analytical rigor.”

The interregnum between Mr. Trump’s two terms was marred by the activity of a special counsel. Attorney General Garland appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith two days before Mr. Trump announced his intention to retake the White House. Mr. Smith, who was trying war crimes at the Hague before being chosen by Mr. Garland, moved swiftly, charging Mr. Trump with election interference and for the storage of secret documents at Mar-a-Lago. Had Mr. Trump been convicted, he could have faced prison.

Neither of those cases ever made it to opening statements. Judge Aileen Cannon in South Florida ruled that Mr. Smith was unlawfully appointed, and the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States repudiated Mr. Smith’s position that Mr. Trump was not entitled to any kind of presidential immunity. After Mr. Trump won re-election,  the DOJ decided that there was a “categorical” ban against prosecuting a sitting president. 

Mr. Smith in his final report insisted that he could have convicted Mr. Trump at trial “but for” the results of the 2024 presidential election. Mr. Trump called Mr. Smith “deranged” and argued that he should “be thrown out of the country.” The president has also signed an executive order sanctioning Mr. Smith’s personal attorney, Peter Koski of Covington & Burling. 

A “Weaponization Working Group” has been convened to probe Mr. Smith’s investigations, and justice department staff seconded to his team have been fired. Mr. Smith has been silent since he resigned days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration. 

The special counsel regulations mandate that such a bespoke prosecutor be appointed if “the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department.” A special counsel shall be “a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience.”