[danso]

Gina Haspel, the current CIA chief, joined the CIA in 1985 and was not proposed for a permanent leadership position during Obama's time. Obama made a compromise in 2009 to not rock the boat when he entered the office. You expect people to treat this kind of "pardon" as no different than appointing someone to CIA chief? As Dexter Filkins put it: [0]

> When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.’s interrogation programs, not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past, as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision. After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-new-c-i-a-deput...

[GeekyBear]

If Obama had been willing to live up to America's treaty obligations to prosecute torture, there is very little doubt that Haspel would have been one of the people who landed in prison.

>Haspel oversaw a secret “black site” in Thailand, at which prisoners were waterboarded and subjected to other severe forms of abuse. Haspel later participated in the destruction of the CIA’s videotapes of some of its torture sessions.

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/15/washington-breaks-out-th...

However, more to the point, the press reaction to Obama refusing to prosecute those who ordered or carried out torture mostly came down to expressions of disappointment.

If Trump had refused to prosecute Bush officials for their crimes, he would not have gotten a pass.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> If Trump had refused to prosecute Bush officials for their crimes, he would not have gotten a pass.

That's not the right analogy though. The question is how the press would have reacted to his decision not to prosecute Obama officials. And given their reaction to his threats to do so ("lock her up" &c), my guess is that they would take it as a sign of maturity if he said, "Look, we're not in the business of trying to throw our political opponents in jail for minor crimes, because this would look like tyranny."

Which is not to say that Haspel's crimes were minor. But I do want to make it clear that it's very different to refuse to prosecute people from "the other team" vs. to give your own team a pass.

[GeekyBear]

It honestly had very little to do with which team we are discussing, as Obama also refused to do so much as fire the CIA officials under his own administration who were caught red handed spying on Congress while Congress was writing their torture report, much less prosecute them for doing it.

James Clapper lied under oath while testifying before Congress about NSA spying, and he suffered no consequences.

We have previously seen baseball players prosecuted for for the relatively trivial offense of lying to Congress about their personal steroid use.

Obama gave our intelligence agencies a free reign to break the law however they liked, without consequence, and I sincerely doubt the press would give somebody like Trump a free pass if his officials were caught pulling the same crap.

[yostrovs]

It's too late. Obama has been canonized into sainthood long ago. Comparisons are always inadequate, his role in scandals (which apparently don't exist) is always far removed. Louis Lerner is as far up the chain as anyone wanted to dig into the IRS scandal that didn't exist and that didn't lead to a stolen election. The double standard is transparently obvious. The faithful just don't acknowledge it.

[danso]

> If Trump had refused to prosecute Bush officials for their crimes, he would not have gotten a pass.

Since Trump has not made any moves to prosecute Bush officials -- and in the case of Gina Haspel, is actually promoting them -- can you come up with an example based in reality?