And I'm on mobile now but I'm sure they were awarded for some things having to do with the Iraq War.
If presidents commit crimes, that's highly notable (and a big deal).
The Obama presidency wasn't completely scandal-free, but there wasn't much opportunity for Pulitzer level investigative reporting against him specifically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_articles_about_the_Depart...
It's more about a press corps that let Obama get away with things they would have never given somebody like Trump a pass for.
For example, look at the press reaction to Obama refusing to prosecute CIA torture vs. Trump nominating one of the career officials Obama previously gave a pass to to head up the CIA.
Likewise, I doubt we would give Trump a pass for attempting to move due process free prisons like Gitmo onto American soil.
> 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...
>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.
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.
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.
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?
Watergate investigation of President Nixon in 1973: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/washington-post
If you expand the scope of "investigation against a president" to include the actions of his administration, then you'll find more examples:
1987 National Reporting Award for the Miami Herald's reporting on Iran-Contra (Bob Woodward of the WaPo was also a finalist on the same topic in this category) [2]
2011 Editorial Writing to the WSJ for its editorials challenging Obamacare [3]
2014 Public Service Award to The Guardian and the WaPo for the Snowden revelations [4]
[0] https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/photo-staff-0
[1] https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/maureen-dowd
[2] https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staff-21