This may sound like a told-you-so post, but that is not it's intent. The intent of this post is to point out the Benghazi scandal that is bubbling up now was deliberately tamped down long enough for Obama to get through the election and to question whether the press, now suspicious of the president's narrative, was deliberately complicit at the time of the election.
Remember this? Candy Crowley, worst moderator ever, is seen below giving president Obama a free pass on his interpretation of how events unfolded post-Benghazi. In fact a free pass is too small a description of what she did. She enabled a cover-up and helped mislead the American public on what now is turning into a scandal of possibly mammoth proportions.
She'll never moderate again. Forget presidential debates, she's not fit to moderate a PTA meeting. But the real problem is the damage she caused to the country by allowing and enabling this facade. Innocent dupe misled by the Obama administration's talking points, or partisan hack trying to get Obama re-elected? The motive doesn't matter the results would have been the same regardless of why the debate moderator Crowley sided with the president, impartially in the CNN presidential debate.
Should Benghazi turn into another Watergate-scale scandal, Crowley would rightly be regarded as a hack journalist with purely partisan intent. What will likely happen is that she will continue to be employed by CNN with nary a whisper of ineptitude on her part. That's because the problem she exhibited in the debate is endemic to CNN. It's core to their thinking.