This study examined the narratives around political crime are constructed through the media's framing of U.S. law-enforcement records related to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Guided by Framing Theory and Political Communication Theory, the research offered insights into how media organisations choose, highlight, and contextualise information to create political meanings. A qualitative research design was employed, utilising qualitative content and framing analysis. The analysis focused on sixty select reports from four Nigerian media outlets. It studied various elements such as headlines, sources, terminology, dominant frames, tone, and the contextual presentation of the records. The findings revealed that the prevailing frames revolved around themes of criminality and allegations, accountability and transparency, political persecution, presidential legitimacy, and reputational defense. The analysis also indicated that these records morphed into competing political narratives, with some reports stressing public accountability and scrutiny, while others highlighted political victimisation, denial, and the need for reputational protection. Additionally, the study found that the choice of sources and the language used by journalists significantly influenced how audiences interpreted the records. It concludes that media framing can profoundly affect the political significance attributed to law-enforcement information, contributing to conflicting narratives regarding presidential credibility and legitimacy. It suggests the need for stronger verification processes, balanced sourcing, contextual reporting, and a clearer distinction between allegations, investigative records, and established judicial findings in politically sensitive reporting.