Yes, the scientific method, and the current data point is the relevant one. Those other data points you mention are certainly worthy of discussion, but I think any in-depth examination of them will ultimately support my point of view. As you say, Reagan wasn't impeached.

At any rate, I'll accept your invitation to look at these other data points. I shall start with the Bay of Pigs and work forward from there, so please watch for these posts in the near future.

In the meantime, I'll stick to the issue at hand, and repeat: Clinton was innocent of all allegations in the Whitewater affair. He did not profit from the S&L scam and was not involved in it, except as victim.

To set the record straight, for his part in the Silverado scam, Neil Bush got a slap on the wrist (the most lenient possible penalty) from federal regulators, and none of the kind of media attention focused on the innocent President Clinton, for a real estate deal in which the Clintons lost money.

Madison Guaranty was a $70 million failure. Silverado S&L went down to the tune of a $1 billion, maybe more. Considerations of scale alone would dictate that the latter would warrant far more media attention than the former, perhaps 10x as much, but oddly, the reverse was the case.

So try to change the subject all you like, I'm not letting go of this point until you or one of your fellow liberal-bias-theory supporters explain why an allegedly liberal press would skewer an innocent liberal president while turning a blind eye to serious allegations of misconduct by highly placed Republicans.

This is not just bias. Whitewater amounts to nothing less than a perversion of truth and justice. The American public was not only gypped, it was hoodwinked.

sp