I see you aren't challenging my statement about the "facts". Again, your side just refuses to do battle.
As to why Bush and company did nothing about all those crimes after Bush became President, ask yourself why Obama isn't going after Bush, given all the crimes your side claims he committed? Perhaps because Obama doesn't want to hold accomplishing his agenda hostage to the d[e]visiveness that would result if he did? The same logic applied to Bush ... in fact, he told the American public he was going to "move on" even before he was elected. And Obama even has more control of Congress and the support of the mainstream media than Bush did. The mainstream media, as high as they regard their idol Clinton, would have attacked Bush no end had he gone after the "gates". Even so, I think he should have investigated and prosecuted because if he had, we might not have Obama and so many Clinton administration members in power right now. The fact is that I've addressed this complaint of yours many times on this forum in those threads I mentioned. And each and every time your side in the debate has simply ignored what I said or ran.
)
)
