[300winmag]

actually, in terms of indictments/convictions of members of an administration, Ronald Reagan's counts as the most corrupt of the last century. U.S. Grant's as the most corrupt ever. if you're interested in facts. Clinton's administration may have been greatly "investigated", but that means little, as none of the investigations turned up proof of actual indictable crimes, and in the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty.

Except for independent prosecutors (a screw-up on klinton's part), klinton's regime was investigated and prosecuted by klinton's own inJustice Department. Janet Reno proclaimed the unique doctrine of "no prosecution unless absolute proof of guilt". We also had a lot of "cases under federal investigation" that went on forever.

Reagan and his people were often charged in the media with "the hint of the appearance of impropriety". The democRATS of that era treated that as the equivalence of a felony conviction. The most solid stuff was things like $100 cufflinks and vague accusations of insider trading.

Stuff like that was nickel-dime for the klintons. Instead, we heard about heavy-duty felonies like perjury, obstruction of justice, bribery, and treason. And that was just the stuff that couldn't be suppressed by a corrupt and cooperative media and justice system.

[chicago charlie]

probably the most solid under Ronald Reagan was Wedtech. there were a lot of convictions of members of the administration on that one. the most sordid, as was proved on Sept.11 was Iran/Contra- we caught a pretty good case of blowback on that one. we may have heard about felonies under Klintoon, but the fact remains that in the United States, without proof, crimes don't exist. And I wouldn't have itany other way. would you?