Skip to comments.The most corrupt Administration in US history??
Posted on 12/24/2005 8:25:27 PM PST by GodfearingTexan
Please forgive me, but I need some assistance. I had lunch recently with a close family member who insisted that President Bush is leading the most corrupt admin in history. I countered that it wasn't, that in fact Clinton had easily a more corrupt admin and had more people indicted than any other. He replied, no, that was Nixon. I honestly just don't have time to research all of this, and I know that there are people on here that either know the answer off the top of their heads or can tell me exactly where I can look it up.
Check out http://FreedomKeys.com/slimeball.htm and its links.
Arguing would be useless, so do not waste your breath on it. As was written about 160 years ago about somewhat different situation, "one should have eaten a lot of beans before talking to [you]" - in this case, to that family member. As even Aristotle knew, rhetorical means need to be appropriate to the interlocutor and the subject.
Incorrect. Although the term was not used perhaps, the Democratic-Republican congressional caucus was very clear during the campaign that Jefferson was their candidate for President and Burr for Vice-President. That fits my definition of a ticket.
The runner-up for President became Vice-President.
Absolutely correct, in the original intent of the Founders. Which was a defect changed by the 12th Amendment, as it caused major problems in both the 1796 and 1800 elections. The original system was based on the assumption that "factions" would not develop in the country. With the rise of the party system, the original system was doomed.
As a Texan you should KNOW beyond any doubt the most corrupt president was LBJ.
As the ringleader of the JFK assassination along with J. Edgar Hoover in the coverup, the problems from that corruption carry over to today.
LBJ didn't just arrange for JFK to be killed, he was killing others long before Dallas (such as Henry Marshall who was about to bring the whole curtain down on LBJ's corruption).
I contend that the coverup of the 90's involving terrorism in the United States (see Oklahoma City's terrorist bombing by Iraqi soldier/defectors) used the JFK assassination as a guide. Witnesses say one thing, the government investigation says something totally different. Bill Clinton wasn't particularily good in the lies, he just understood the requirements to be successful.
It's very easy to pull this off when you have the power: LOOK the press right in the eyes and lie, dare them to cross you.
It's worked every time in the last 42 years. We have LBJ to thank, but Bill CLinton went to the same well many times. Look how many people died on 9/11 because Clinton did not take care of business in 1995 (or you could argue the first WTC bombing).
I imagine we all have family members who are reality challenged. You show great courage in admitting it. :^)
Do you feel the need to respond to this person? Challenge them to spend one hour reading any of the materials posted here. Include not only Clinton archives but also background material on Iraq.
Suggest that it will not be possible to talk with them about these matters until they have developed an informed opinion.
Do your homework. Don't be so lazy as to assume that you know the truth when you are doing little more than your liberal family member. Study and research. Know why you believe and learn the facts. Become informed.
Webster Hubbell Jim McDougal Susan McDougal Gov. Jim Guy Tucker Stephen Smith David Hale Eugene Fitzhugh Charles Matthews Robert W. Palmer Chris Wade Neal T. Ainley Larry Kuca William J. Marks, Sr. John Latham John Haley Michael Brown (Ron Brown's son) Eugene Lum Nora Lum Johnny Chung Tyson Foods Sun Diamond Growers Richard Douglas James Lake Ron Blackley Smith Barney Crop Growers Corporation Brook Keith Mitchell Sr. Five M Farming Enterprises John J. Hemmingson Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr. Municipal Healthcare Cooperative Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet Linda Jones Patsy Jo Wooten Allen Wooten Roger Clinton Dan Lasater Bill McCuen Dan Harmon Roger Tamraz (Lebanon by default) Peter Lee Harold Worden William McCord (head of Lasater & Co.) Jack Williams, Tyson lobbyist Archie Schaefer, Tyson spokesman Mark Cambiano (plea bargain: drop drug money to DNC for guilty plea on bank crime) The Robert Mondavi Corporation Richard Douglas - additional count of lying to FBI IBM East Europe/Asia Ltd. (export of computers to a top-secret Russian nuclear weapons lab) Johnnie Chung
The Alamo Girl website is absolutely awesome - it is the definitive list of Clinton crimes:
Hey, you're going to meet morons all the time who are ashamed of themselves and cannot accept their own stupidity. Really, who could? All the Democrats can do at this point to try to resurrect their self-esteem and self worth is fantasize that Bush is as bad as Clinton and point fingers in every direction except at themselves.
George Bush moved into the White House five years ago and thoroughly disinfected the place (and, presumably, changed the carpets) and he has since run the most ethical administration in my memory (which goes back to Nixon).
The Democrats are utterly appalled. It is impossible for them to not see the difference between Clinton and Bush, no matter how much they shut their eyes real tight, cover their ears, and shake their heads while chanting, "Lalalalalalalalalalala...."
I wouldn't worry about it - - just keep smiling.
"Only a fool argues with a fool." - - Chinese proverb.
Sort of off topic, but since you're speaking about liberals sicking the IRS onto people..Let's not forget about Sen. Chuck Schumers opposition research underlings recently caught with "the opposition's" credit reports! What do you suppose they were they gonna do with that, eh? Definite liberal pattern here!
Nixon's only "corruption" was covering up the break-in. But .. Nixon didn't plan it and he didn't authorize it. He was embarrassed by it and tried to cover it up. He should have just fired them all and exposed the whole mess.
If that's your interpretation of "corruption" - you're way off.
Bush? Clinton? Nixon?
Apparently your friend thinks history only began on the day he was born.
Has he ever heard of U.S. Grant?
A common malady among liberals and RINOs.
One of my favorite phrases from that group is: GITMO is far worse than Auschwitz, or Bush = Hitler.
I may not remember what I had for lunch two days ago, but my teenage kids and nieces/nephews no longer invite me to play in their trivia games...unless it's to play on their team.
Thanks for the post. Don't think that book is on my shelf with all the other Nixon books.
I think Vietnam would have worked out much differently if Nixon hadn't messed up with Watergate.
Plus, perhaps it's in the book, but I look at Vietnam as an important chess-piece in taking on the USSR which lead to detente, etc. Rather than the "Domino Theory" that got us into the war, it turned out to not be just a domino piece, but a pawn that Nixon used to back the king into a corner.
It's too bad that after Nixon was gone, America decided the pawn was expendable.
This sort of statement is typical lib tripe. Beyond not ever being able to produce any evidence (outside of DU talking points), when challenged with facts and the truth, they eventually will call you a nasty name and terminate the conversation.
I love bursting dumb-ass lib bubbles!!! :-)
Your cousin is merely parroting the latest talking points drivel from the DNC and its stooge Big Media. If they told your cousin that Bush and his other admin members were aliens from the planet Zongo, your cousin would probably believe that.
Hold on now. Liddy got caught, kept his mouth shut and did his time. He is far from contemptible, but he is a character.
liberals will say Nixon. Conservatives will say Clinton. This is due to the distain for both. What does it matter?
Nice family...Thank God I am not part of it even though I would have been on the conservative side. I am glad that my family loves everyone regardless of differences of opinion. Hope you family comes to the realization that family is more important than politics even though your sibling was wrong to be liberal. LOL.
That is assuming of course the MSM wait a full day which is no sure bet on its own.
We have to presume the klintoon admin, was like the "holiest of holies" in non-corruption.
All of them in his admin should be in federal prison. Including klintoon and the black pant suit babe- beast.
I term his(TP-Slick's) service as "The Eight Years of the Reign of Terror in America.
In closing, have a "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year."
As I See It,
The initial question did not concern Nixon's foreign policy initiatives led by Dr. Kissinger. The issue concerns the corrupt state of mind of the group around him and the hubris that infected their belief that they were the modern untouchables. Their CREP organization is the outstanding example of their sinister mode of operation.
I welcome correction, but I think specifically, Clinton approved the sale of missle guidance software and the supercomputers to run it. This after taking campaign contributions from the Chinese military.
In fact Nixon was probably one of the least corrupt. I have come to dislike Bush very much because of his underhanded support of gun control and active failure to secure our borders, but he is almost totally uncorrupt.
If forced to name the most corrupt, it would be a tossup between LBJ and Clinton. Both were just about totally crooked.
The biggest scandal of the Clinton Admin IMHO was the 1996 Gore Airline Security Commission which recommended security measures that could have prevented 9/11. The commission's report was shelved after the airlines stuffed $700K into the DNC coffers.
Of course the RINOs on the 9/11 Commission allowed the debate to be framed from January 2001 onward. They better get the Barrett report released in full!
My comments were off-the-cuff and not quite right but the source was a History Book Club review of "The Failure of the Founding Fathers"
"...Jefferson and Burr tied, and havoc resulted. Ackerman tells this story with full attention to the multiple legal dimensions. One of the insanities of the 1787 Constitution is that electoral college deadlocks were to be broken on a one-state/one vote basis by the lame-duck Congress, which in this instance meant a Congress dominated by electorally-repudiated Federalists. Jefferson, who as Vice-President was also President of the Senate, had the task of counting the electoral votes, and Ackerman demonstrates that he played fast and loose with regard to Georgia's votes, which failed to meet the formal requirements set out by the Constitution. Had they not been counted, the House - meaning the lame-duck Federalists - would have been able to choose among the top five candidates instead of only Jefferson and Burr, who because of the Georgia votes, had gained a majority of the electoral votes. Moreover, at least some Federalists were tempted to pass a new succession-in-office act that would have resulted in John Marshall's becoming president if the House proved unable to break the tie. (In the event it took 26 votes before Federalist Rep. Bayard of Delaware in effect threw in the towel). One factor discouraging any such scheme was the threat of mobilization of state militias by Jeffersonian governors, who were fully prepared to march on the new capital in Washington should the Federalists try to steal the election."
The facts of the 1824 election are well-known
Here's an article on His Fraudulency.
And here's an article on His Fraudulency II, as his knowledgeable detractors refer to our current President.
Correction. 26 votes was a typo. It took 36 votes.
I don't believe this is entirely correct. The Constitution calls for the President of the Senate to open the ballots, which are then counted, presumably by the entire Senate, not just by its President.
Do you know what the problem with Georgia's vote was? I've read quite a bit about this period and don't recall anything about this.
I would assume there would have been a huge outcry had the President of the Senate arbitrarily rejected the vote of a state because in his sole opinion it failed to meet the Constitution's requirements.
Interestingly, of the 16 states in the Union at the time, 11 chose their electors either partly or entirely by vote of the state legislature.
Harding was going to be my answer as well. The Teapot Dome scandal was huge at the time. Though I think Harding had less to do with it than Wilson did. Harding had the misfortune of being in office when Fall leased the land to Mammoth.
Post of the week...well done!
amazing how ignorant some here are.
[ I honestly just don't have time to research all of this, and I know that there are people on here that either know the answer off the top of their heads or can tell me exactly where I can look it up. ]
http://www.alamo-girl.com/ <- click HERE...
For starters, if this friend of yours is truly a liberal deep down to their toes, no matter what FACTS you throw at them, they will move the goalposts at the end of each conversation, neigh, at the end of each of your sentences, to continue to live in denial. No matter what you show or tell them, they will not believe you. You will not be able to reason with them, no matter what. They are incapable of rational thought. In other words, you're totally wasting your time, LOL!
But, if you want impeachment facts about Johnson, Nixon & Clinton, to use that as a measuring tool for corruption, click below. (And I agree; Nixon was a schmuck!)
Your friend also won't believe this, but President Bush will go down in history as one of our best leaders, ever. There's so much mud slung when someone's in office, you really do need the leveling of historical perspective to know what's true in the long run. ;)
Here's the Wikipedia take. Ackerman appararently thinks Jefferson was a little more devious but I haven't read the book.
In any case, "corrupt" is probably the wrong word to describe the situation.
It looks more to me like Jeff refused to allow a technicality to disrupt the country and thwart the will of the people.
I certainly wouldn't call that corrupt.
Simply smoking work. Cheers to DougSC.
Simply smoking work. Cheers to DougSC.
Nor would I.
But what you dismiss as a technicality others would call the fundamental law of the land. And...is the "will of the people" expressed by counting the popular or the electoral college vote? By the popular vote or by the Congress acting in accord with Consitutional mandate?
post #3 nails it. There's no point.
Since 11 of the 16 states in 1800 chose their electors by vote of the state legislature rather than of the people, there wasn't really a "popular vote" of the people in that year.
I cannot imagine that the Founders meant the clear intent of a state's vote to be voided because of a minor paperwork error. It wasn't like there were two sets of electoral votes that needed to be chosen between as in some later elections.
Certainly not the most corrupt.
However, there are 3 more years to go...............