It appears to be trying to say "no one prosecuted the CIA torturers (and the Obama administration should have)." Implying not that his administration was behind it, but that his administration failed to do anything about it after the fact. Which may or may not be a fair point.

Do you have some deeper point you're trying to get at? This sounds like a total nitpick, and I'm not sure where you're getting your erroneous corrections from.

The illegal wire-tapping was a matter known to the public before Obama's time and there was a case brought by the EFF during the Bush years. The CIA torture comment most likely refers to the fact that a Senate report on CIA abuses was published during Obama's tenure and led to no punishment that I'm aware of.

It is plain as day the current language in the comment is implying Obama was behind it. A clarification to that is pretty far from a nitpick.

Polarizing much? When you get to "or the CIA torturers" back up and find the verb. It's just poor sentence structure.

I can see your argument that it's ambiguous, but the wrong reading is the most natural one to me. Clarification is justified.

Just another data point: I read it same as the parent, that the original text was referring to the fact that the Obama administration didn't prosecute the torturers (regardless of when it occurred).

It seemed obvious to me that the point being made was that neither party seems to care to hold wrongdoers in government accountable for their actions.