Once Trump gets rid of Obama's hacks in the justice department we can move forward. Investigations are still underway. Obama's corrupt men are probably smashing hard drives with sledgehammers right now as they clear out.
Yea, if we only knew what has been going on behind closed doors since the election, we would be horrified. Although we did find out what went on behind Hillary's closed doors, at least some of it with the hammered phones and wiped hard drives, not to mention the IRS missing hard drives and emails.
I sure hope this administration isn't as corrupt as the last one.
I sure hope this administration isn't as corrupt as the last one.
Well since the Obama administration was one of the cleanest we've ever had I'm sure you meant that your hope is that the Trump administration will not be as corrupt as the Reagan or Nixon fiascos. Right?
Criminal Activities by Presidential Administration Administration
Overall, Richard Nixon’s administration had the most criminal indictments and convictions . Wikipedia’s list enumerates 13 specific individuals who were convicted and imprisoned over Watergate alone, but notes that a total of 69 officials were indicted for the scandal and 48 were either convicted or pleaded guilty. (Nixon himself is not included; after his resignation, President Gerald Ford gave him a blanket pardon, sparing him from any potential indictments. However, his first vice president, Spiro Agnew, is included for indictments unrelated to Watergate.)
The Reagan Administration is next with 26 indictments and 16 convictions (including guilty pleas), followed by the George W. Bush Administration with 16 indictments, all ending in convictions or guilty pleas. The Nixon Administration had at least 15 people serve at least some time in prison for their crimes, while Bush 43’s administration had at least 9 and the Reagan Administration had at least 8. (Scooter Libby’s sentence is included here even though Bush pardoned him in 2007 before he was sent to jail, since the pardon did not expunge the crime and the pardon itself is a political act, not a judicial determination. But others whose convictions were later overturned—like Oliver North’s and John Poindexter’s—are included under indictments but not convictions since it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to second-guess the courts’ reasoning for overturning those convictions.)
Also note that none of those indictments/convictions (except for the Nixon administration) were issued during the presidents terms in office, but after they had left office.
Lets see if the same holds true for the Obama Administration.
It is WAY TO EARLY to make any determination of criminality over the last administrations actions.
Also note that none of those indictments/convictions (except for the Nixon administration) were issued during the presidents terms in office, but after they had left office.
Wait. What?
None of the Iran-Contra, Savings and Loan scandal, the HUD scandal, etc.... indictments were generated prior to Reagan leaving office?
Not sure that's correct.
The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.
Tell ya what I'm going to do AH, since your link is short on accurate dates I'm going to do the research on all the scandals during the Reagan administration, who went down for what and when...
It's been a few decades and I believe I'm correct but I may not be. (memory being a bit on the old side) so I will dig up what I can and find out.
Post it here for ya.
Deal?
And one more thing, I certainly hope your not pegging the S&L scandal entirely on Reagan's doorstep, cause in that you would be wrong. The Federal auditors peg the start of the problems leading to that crisis began way back in the 60's during LBJ's administration. That will take most of the convictions out of the Reagan total. Reagan wasn't responsible for the S&L crisis, he didn't help it and in fact made it worse, (I said he had his faults) but he wasn't responsible for it.
Tell ya what I'm going to do AH, since your link is short on accurate dates I'm going to do the research on all the scandals during the Reagan administration, who went down for what and when...
Thanks.
And one more thing, I certainly hope your not pegging the S&L scandal entirely on Reagan's doorstep, cause in that you would be wrong.
You're right of course, the S&L scandal wasn't all Reagan, but some of the indictments that came down during his time were due to that fiasco and his policies did have a direct impact on the problem.
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion in taxpayer dollars.[28] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments which used this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of whom were operating more or less as banks, thus requiring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies, ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date, the savings and loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which further increased the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.
I think the first graft was showing indictments directly related to Reagan's action, ( 26 indictments and 16 convictions (including guilty pleas) , while the one with the, ( was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.) , info takes into account all of the more general scandals in the Reagan administration.
Similar to properly gigging the Obama administration IF there had been any indictable offenses for things like the Fast & Furious program or the IRS affair or Benghazi.
All things that happened on Obama's watch and were DEEPLY & THOROUGHLY investigated by a hostile congress who came to the conclusion that there was nothing indictable to be found, unlike what happened during the Reagan years.
AH, This is too big an issue to limit to just the Reagan administration.
And yes the appraisal of the action of the administration during the Obama years will continue. there are those that are going to call for just moving on and those that call for hides on the wall.
It is expected during an administration that any investigation into it's activities in any manner will be objected to and obstructed. It's part of the office. All investigations into any improprieties will be heavily blocked and impeded by any administration. Much of the indictments of the Reagan scandals came after he and his administration left office. (during the Bush administration of which he created his own scandal with his pardons)
Lets see if the same conclusions come forth when Obama has been out of office for a while.
As far as national political scandals go, NO administration since the creation of this government has been scandal less
YES there have been administration scandals even in the George Washington Administration.
So trying to say that one administration is more scandalous than any other is actually a false partisan dichotomy.
Here's the listing of US federal political scandals since the beginning...
It's scope and organization is as follows (remembering that Wiki is not the greatest primary source)
The article is organized by presidential terms and then divided into scandals of the federal Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Members of both parties are listed under the term of the president in office at the time the scandal took place. Persons were either elected or appointed.
Scandal is defined as "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety." In politics scandals are kept separate from 'controversies,' (which implies two differing points of view) and 'unpopularity.' Many decisions are controversial, many decisions are unpopular—that alone does not make them scandals.
The criterion for inclusion is whether an activity was, or appeared to be, illegal. Breaking the law is a scandal. Misunderstandings, breaches of ethics, unproven crimes or cover-ups may or may not result in inclusion depending on the standing of the accuser, the amount of publicity generated, and the seriousness of the crime, if any. The finding of a court with jurisdiction is the sole method used to determine a violation of law.
Scandals are classified as major or minor, as defined by the public itself and the media's desire to feed that particular frenzy. Thus, small but salacious scandals, such as Larry Craig's (Republican from Idaho) arrest for lewd behavior can eclipse more serious scandals such as suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in time of war.
Not included in this article are pervasive systemic scandals, such as the role of money in normal politics, which may purchase access and influence. Neither are 'revolving door' stories, which is the practice of hiring government officials to promote or lobby for companies they were recently paid to regulate. Though some rules now apply, to a great extent this is legal.
Politicians are those who make their living primarily in politics, their staffs and appointees. By definition, political scandals involve politicians. Private citizens should be included only when they are closely linked to elected or appointed politicians such as party officials. Kenneth Lay of Enron is a good example of such a citizen. This list also does not include crimes that occur outside the politician's tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.
Senators and Congressmen who are rebuked, admonished, condemned, suspended, found in contempt, found to have acted improperly, used poor judgement or were reprimanded by Congress are not included unless the scandal is exceptional or leads to expulsion. However, Presidents who were impeached, but not convicted, are included.
It's an extensive list and shows one thing, NO administration of this government is clear of scandal since the beginnings of this nation. One might ask why?
Because the President is but one man, he cannot possibly control the actions of everyone involved in his administration. And, people are people some are honest and some aren't, some have integrity and some don't, some presidents have to take responsibility for the actions of their appointees and some don't.
Look at Grant's administration, most call it the most corrupt of all presidential administrations, but Grant was never directly connected to any of it. But he paid a huge cost for it.
That's how I'm going to leave this one. Your going to have your opinion of course just as biased as is mine.
The truth is we are never going to really know the actual truth of any of this. The ones in the list above at least have a basis of truth cause they resulted in legal actions and consequences. So there has to be some truth behind them.
No one is innocent and pure in government, a truth I learn a long time ago..... (including me)
No one is innocent and pure in government, a truth I learn a long time ago..... (including me)
I don't expect innocence or purity from people whether they are inside or outside of government. But I do insist on honesty and integrity from those I pay and I won't take less.
Well since the Obama administration was one of the cleanest we've ever had I'm sure you meant that your hope is that the Trump administration will not be as corrupt as the Reagan or Nixon fiascos. Right?
Whoa, hold up a second. Six said the Obama administration was corrupt. You then assumed that corruption is only defined as an indictment and declared Obama squeaky clean. But corruption can be defined as a misuse of power and, if we do that, I note that Eric Holder is the only cabinet member in history to ever have been held in contempt of congress for refusing to cooperate in an investigation that could have led to criminal charges. Hillary may be the only former cabinet head to have ever been investigated by the FBI for violations of the espionage act. Then there's Benghazi where Obama and Hillary lied (in my opinion) about the cause of a terrorist attack (claiming it was spontaneous rather than planned) just to preserve Obama's campaign narrative. And Hillary operating a pay for play operation out of the state department, in conjunction with her foundation, is an outrageous conflict of interest even if it's not a crime. And I don't recall another president who's executive actions have been struck down as many times as Obama's on the grounds that he exceeded his constitutional authority.
To me, the main reason Comey gave a press conference to lay out his reasoning for not indicting Hillary was to avoid having his view that she did nothing criminal confused with a view that she did nothing wrong. He thought she clearly did something wrong and her actions would have likely gotten anybody else fired but it did not rise to the level of a criminal act (even though she destroyed evidence). So let's be clear here, just because somebody isn't indicted does not mean they're squeaky clean . . . it could just mean they're clever.
Moving on means that we should all move on, and get to the business of a renewed nation. It's clearer that the unfaltering partisan Dems have more of a job to do, but the rest of us also need to move on in a few ways. This is one of them.
There's probably enough there to give her a handful of trouble for at least a couple of years, but at what cost? This would hamper our already extremely steep road to reconciling as a nation.
Hillary was so rotten a candidate that she had to cheat in order to beat a doddering old unknown socialist and then lost to a narcissistic ignoramus in the greatest come from behind victory of all time. All while picking out the White House drapes. Perhaps this harridan's fall from so great a height into the trash can is punishment enough. Just put the lid on the can, roll her to the curb for pickup, and call it a day.
Ever since Obama a) failed to prosecute Bush for his alleged crimes and b) failed to prosecute a single corporate CEO or head responsible for the 2008 economic disaster, I've become in favor of completely revamping the present justice system to a venue outside the control of either the congress or president, to fully investigate and prosecute and crimes which may involve partisan involvement.
Once Trump gets rid of Obama's hacks in the justice department we can move forward. Investigations are still underway. Obama's corrupt men are probably smashing hard drives with sledgehammers right now as they clear out.
Yea, if we only knew what has been going on behind closed doors since the election, we would be horrified. Although we did find out what went on behind Hillary's closed doors, at least some of it with the hammered phones and wiped hard drives, not to mention the IRS missing hard drives and emails.
I sure hope this administration isn't as corrupt as the last one.
I sure hope this administration isn't as corrupt as the last one.
Well since the Obama administration was one of the cleanest we've ever had I'm sure you meant that your hope is that the Trump administration will not be as corrupt as the Reagan or Nixon fiascos. Right?
Criminal Activities by Presidential Administration Administration
Overall, Richard Nixon’s administration had the most criminal indictments and convictions . Wikipedia’s list enumerates 13 specific individuals who were convicted and imprisoned over Watergate alone, but notes that a total of 69 officials were indicted for the scandal and 48 were either convicted or pleaded guilty. (Nixon himself is not included; after his resignation, President Gerald Ford gave him a blanket pardon, sparing him from any potential indictments. However, his first vice president, Spiro Agnew, is included for indictments unrelated to Watergate.)
The Reagan Administration is next with 26 indictments and 16 convictions (including guilty pleas), followed by the George W. Bush Administration with 16 indictments, all ending in convictions or guilty pleas. The Nixon Administration had at least 15 people serve at least some time in prison for their crimes, while Bush 43’s administration had at least 9 and the Reagan Administration had at least 8. (Scooter Libby’s sentence is included here even though Bush pardoned him in 2007 before he was sent to jail, since the pardon did not expunge the crime and the pardon itself is a political act, not a judicial determination. But others whose convictions were later overturned—like Oliver North’s and John Poindexter’s—are included under indictments but not convictions since it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to second-guess the courts’ reasoning for overturning those convictions.)
All we can say is we will see won't we.
Also note that none of those indictments/convictions (except for the Nixon administration) were issued during the presidents terms in office, but after they had left office.
Lets see if the same holds true for the Obama Administration.
It is WAY TO EARLY to make any determination of criminality over the last administrations actions.
Also note that none of those indictments/convictions (except for the Nixon administration) were issued during the presidents terms in office, but after they had left office.
Wait. What?
None of the Iran-Contra, Savings and Loan scandal, the HUD scandal, etc.... indictments were generated prior to Reagan leaving office?
Not sure that's correct.
The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.
Tell ya what I'm going to do AH, since your link is short on accurate dates I'm going to do the research on all the scandals during the Reagan administration, who went down for what and when...
It's been a few decades and I believe I'm correct but I may not be. (memory being a bit on the old side) so I will dig up what I can and find out.
Post it here for ya.
Deal?
And one more thing, I certainly hope your not pegging the S&L scandal entirely on Reagan's doorstep, cause in that you would be wrong. The Federal auditors peg the start of the problems leading to that crisis began way back in the 60's during LBJ's administration. That will take most of the convictions out of the Reagan total. Reagan wasn't responsible for the S&L crisis, he didn't help it and in fact made it worse, (I said he had his faults) but he wasn't responsible for it.
Tell ya what I'm going to do AH, since your link is short on accurate dates I'm going to do the research on all the scandals during the Reagan administration, who went down for what and when...
Thanks.
And one more thing, I certainly hope your not pegging the S&L scandal entirely on Reagan's doorstep, cause in that you would be wrong.
You're right of course, the S&L scandal wasn't all Reagan, but some of the indictments that came down during his time were due to that fiasco and his policies did have a direct impact on the problem.
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion in taxpayer dollars.[28] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments which used this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of whom were operating more or less as banks, thus requiring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies, ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date, the savings and loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which further increased the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.
I think the first graft was showing indictments directly related to Reagan's action, ( 26 indictments and 16 convictions (including guilty pleas) , while the one with the, ( was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.) , info takes into account all of the more general scandals in the Reagan administration.
Similar to properly gigging the Obama administration IF there had been any indictable offenses for things like the Fast & Furious program or the IRS affair or Benghazi.
All things that happened on Obama's watch and were DEEPLY & THOROUGHLY investigated by a hostile congress who came to the conclusion that there was nothing indictable to be found, unlike what happened during the Reagan years.
AH, This is too big an issue to limit to just the Reagan administration.
And yes the appraisal of the action of the administration during the Obama years will continue. there are those that are going to call for just moving on and those that call for hides on the wall.
It is expected during an administration that any investigation into it's activities in any manner will be objected to and obstructed. It's part of the office. All investigations into any improprieties will be heavily blocked and impeded by any administration. Much of the indictments of the Reagan scandals came after he and his administration left office. (during the Bush administration of which he created his own scandal with his pardons)
Lets see if the same conclusions come forth when Obama has been out of office for a while.
As far as national political scandals go, NO administration since the creation of this government has been scandal less
YES there have been administration scandals even in the George Washington Administration.
So trying to say that one administration is more scandalous than any other is actually a false partisan dichotomy.
Here's the listing of US federal political scandals since the beginning...
List of federal political scandals of the United States 1777-2016
It's scope and organization is as follows (remembering that Wiki is not the greatest primary source)
The article is organized by presidential terms and then divided into scandals of the federal Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Members of both parties are listed under the term of the president in office at the time the scandal took place. Persons were either elected or appointed.
Scandal is defined as "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety." In politics scandals are kept separate from 'controversies,' (which implies two differing points of view) and 'unpopularity.' Many decisions are controversial, many decisions are unpopular—that alone does not make them scandals.
The criterion for inclusion is whether an activity was, or appeared to be, illegal. Breaking the law is a scandal. Misunderstandings, breaches of ethics, unproven crimes or cover-ups may or may not result in inclusion depending on the standing of the accuser, the amount of publicity generated, and the seriousness of the crime, if any. The finding of a court with jurisdiction is the sole method used to determine a violation of law.
Scandals are classified as major or minor, as defined by the public itself and the media's desire to feed that particular frenzy. Thus, small but salacious scandals, such as Larry Craig's (Republican from Idaho) arrest for lewd behavior can eclipse more serious scandals such as suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in time of war.
Not included in this article are pervasive systemic scandals, such as the role of money in normal politics, which may purchase access and influence. Neither are 'revolving door' stories, which is the practice of hiring government officials to promote or lobby for companies they were recently paid to regulate. Though some rules now apply, to a great extent this is legal.
Politicians are those who make their living primarily in politics, their staffs and appointees. By definition, political scandals involve politicians. Private citizens should be included only when they are closely linked to elected or appointed politicians such as party officials. Kenneth Lay of Enron is a good example of such a citizen. This list also does not include crimes that occur outside the politician's tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.
Senators and Congressmen who are rebuked, admonished, condemned, suspended, found in contempt, found to have acted improperly, used poor judgement or were reprimanded by Congress are not included unless the scandal is exceptional or leads to expulsion. However, Presidents who were impeached, but not convicted, are included.
It's an extensive list and shows one thing, NO administration of this government is clear of scandal since the beginnings of this nation. One might ask why?
Because the President is but one man, he cannot possibly control the actions of everyone involved in his administration. And, people are people some are honest and some aren't, some have integrity and some don't, some presidents have to take responsibility for the actions of their appointees and some don't.
Look at Grant's administration, most call it the most corrupt of all presidential administrations, but Grant was never directly connected to any of it. But he paid a huge cost for it.
That's how I'm going to leave this one. Your going to have your opinion of course just as biased as is mine.
The truth is we are never going to really know the actual truth of any of this. The ones in the list above at least have a basis of truth cause they resulted in legal actions and consequences. So there has to be some truth behind them.
No one is innocent and pure in government, a truth I learn a long time ago..... (including me)
No one is innocent and pure in government, a truth I learn a long time ago..... (including me)
I don't expect innocence or purity from people whether they are inside or outside of government. But I do insist on honesty and integrity from those I pay and I won't take less.
Well since the Obama administration was one of the cleanest we've ever had I'm sure you meant that your hope is that the Trump administration will not be as corrupt as the Reagan or Nixon fiascos. Right?
Whoa, hold up a second. Six said the Obama administration was corrupt. You then assumed that corruption is only defined as an indictment and declared Obama squeaky clean. But corruption can be defined as a misuse of power and, if we do that, I note that Eric Holder is the only cabinet member in history to ever have been held in contempt of congress for refusing to cooperate in an investigation that could have led to criminal charges. Hillary may be the only former cabinet head to have ever been investigated by the FBI for violations of the espionage act. Then there's Benghazi where Obama and Hillary lied (in my opinion) about the cause of a terrorist attack (claiming it was spontaneous rather than planned) just to preserve Obama's campaign narrative. And Hillary operating a pay for play operation out of the state department, in conjunction with her foundation, is an outrageous conflict of interest even if it's not a crime. And I don't recall another president who's executive actions have been struck down as many times as Obama's on the grounds that he exceeded his constitutional authority.
To me, the main reason Comey gave a press conference to lay out his reasoning for not indicting Hillary was to avoid having his view that she did nothing criminal confused with a view that she did nothing wrong. He thought she clearly did something wrong and her actions would have likely gotten anybody else fired but it did not rise to the level of a criminal act (even though she destroyed evidence). So let's be clear here, just because somebody isn't indicted does not mean they're squeaky clean . . . it could just mean they're clever.
I sure hope this administration isn't as corrupt as the last one.
A start would be deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes instead of releasing them back on the street like Obama did.
Michelle looks a little like Trump with that bulldog mouth beside the girl singing.
Just think we could have had a celebrity singing instead of a poor little unknown girl from nowhere.
Sorry, BF. We disagree on this one.
Moving on means that we should all move on, and get to the business of a renewed nation. It's clearer that the unfaltering partisan Dems have more of a job to do, but the rest of us also need to move on in a few ways. This is one of them.
There's probably enough there to give her a handful of trouble for at least a couple of years, but at what cost? This would hamper our already extremely steep road to reconciling as a nation.
I vote pass.
I agree with you Jon. If we checked out all our reps, I think that a quarter of them would need to be locked up.
Jonathan while I'd like to see her locked up, you are right that's it's time to move on.
Deuteronomy 32:35
Romans 12:19
Hillary was so rotten a candidate that she had to cheat in order to beat a doddering old unknown socialist and then lost to a narcissistic ignoramus in the greatest come from behind victory of all time. All while picking out the White House drapes. Perhaps this harridan's fall from so great a height into the trash can is punishment enough. Just put the lid on the can, roll her to the curb for pickup, and call it a day.
Ever since Obama a) failed to prosecute Bush for his alleged crimes and b) failed to prosecute a single corporate CEO or head responsible for the 2008 economic disaster, I've become in favor of completely revamping the present justice system to a venue outside the control of either the congress or president, to fully investigate and prosecute and crimes which may involve partisan involvement.