Talk:Scandals of the Ronald Reagan administration

Why not in Ronald Reagan article?
A better suggestion: This ought to be in the Ronald Reagan article. It was shunted over here because some people objected to this much criticism appearing in an article about Ronald Reagan, but this would make a nice section in the Reagan article or perhaps the Reagan administration article. Griot 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No; we've discussed this heavily at Talk:Ronald Reagan. A list of every single indictment is not appropriate for the article on Ronald Reagan; a mention of the scandals is already mentioned. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm the editor that shunted the section over to it's own article. So my opinion on it staying is predictable. This article has quickly taken on a life of its own.  I added the North and Watts pics. Rjensen categorised the different types of convictions and the timeframes. I think this page does the job of expanding on the scandals without putting too much emphasis on said scandals, on the main Ronald Reagan page.
 * 06:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I believe this should remain outside the Reagan article purely to keep the Reagan article from ballooning to an even greater length. I do feel that more information could be provided in this article, however, and I think I'm going to add a "see also" section connecting the article to the scandals it describes. -- Fearfulsymmetry 05:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article is rather messy and disorganized in its current state. Any objections to adding a cleanup tag to it? -- Fearfulsymmetry 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it took less work than I thought to organize. I'll keep adding things when I get the chance. -- Fearfulsymmetry 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up
I hadn't looked at this article since it was moved over here. RJenson inserted some blatantly false information which I've straightened out. He removed several people from the list of staff which were, in point of fact, administration staffers. He also moved Rita Lavelle to a category saying that her conviction had been overturned which is also wrong. In addition, he inserted his repeatedly debunked delusion that several people were convicted for crimes that took place after they left office. What he is referring to is the Deaver/Nofziger convictions for lobbying - however, these are still corruption convictions that relate directly to their positon at the White House. When you work for the federal government, laws govern how quickly you can begin lobbying after you leave office. Breaking the laws is considered a crime against your office because NOT lobbying for the appropriate time period it is part of the terms of the administration job. Had Nofziger/Deaver not worked for the administration, or had they waited the appropriate period of time after leaving office before they began lobbying, they would not committed a crime. Where people had their convictions overturned, I noted it and explained why.

Your obedient servant, Smokingmaenad 02:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the lead paragraph that you deleted, with some reversions. The lead section is extremely important, and as you didn't put in an edit summary or comment on why the lead was inappropriate, I reinserted it. However, I also removed the sentence that you disputed (In many of the instances the person was found innocent by the courts, or the activities happened after they left government service, or they were never employed by the Reagan administration.) so we can discuss it here and then merged in the paragraph that you added (the quote) with the rest of the lead. A direct quote is not necessary; in general, we don't use exact quotes from books unless they add significantly to the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to discuss. It is a completely false statement with no truth to it whatsoever. It is a lie - nothing more, nothing less. 100% of the convictions are for crimes against the office in which the person served. The two people he is referring to are Deaver and Nofziger. Both were convicted of breaking a federal law that prohibited them from lobbying within a year of leaving office. Here's a reference to that:


 * http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14203713.htm
 * In what he described later as the lowest point of his life, Mr. Nofziger was convicted of three felony counts of illegal lobbying for the Wedtech and two other firms under a law prohibiting former high government officials from lobbying ex-colleagues for a year on matters of direct and substantial interest to their former agencies.


 * And here's Judge Robert's advising the Reagan administration on Deaver's problems - note that once again, we're up against the one year time limit. If Deaver's crimes were unrelated to his job at the White House, the White House would not be seeking legal counsel on the subject:


 * http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a0ewGCIUvzLw&refer=us
 * Roberts also recommended that Reagan ``distance himself from a controversy over whether Deaver violated ethics laws by becoming a lobbyist.


 * Reagan should ``avoid any expression of approval of Mr. Deaver's activities, Roberts wrote in an April 7, 1986, memo as Congress was beginning an investigation of Deaver and a reported $18 million offer to buy Deaver's year-old lobbying firm.


 * Even if Deaver broke no laws, ``a sizeable portion of the public nonetheless regards the sheer lucrativeness of his trip through the revolving door as at least distasteful, Roberts wrote. Deaver was later convicted of lying to Congress and a grand jury investigating whether his lobbying of former associates in the White House violated ethics laws.


 * Further, not a single person on that page was later found "not guilty" - three convictions were overturned on technical grounds only. North and Poindexter's convictions were overturned because the judge the ruled the prosecution relied to heavily on their immunized testimonies. Nofziger's was overturned because it could not proved to the court's satisfaction that he understood he was breaking the law - so again, he was not found "not guilty". He was determined to be guilty (as were Poindexter and North) but released from the conviction on a technicality. That's why they're included. There are many more people who were convicted, but as they were not a part of the administration, they were not included in the page.


 * Now, all of the other convictions are documented. Will you please remove that blatantly dishonest paragragh? I document everything I insert - the RJenson has been wrong on every count, and I have proved him wrong with mainstream sources in every disagreement.


 * Your obedient servant,
 * Smokingmaenad 03:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Smokingmaenad, please stop removing the lead section - a lead section should adequately summarize the article (always in an unbiased manner, of course). What do you disagree with about the lead? I've also tagged the disputed sentence - I think that's the one you're contesting - with fact. In addition, I've also removed some of the language that you reinserted, such as "in express defiance of Congress and in like defiance of the Boland Amendment" and "coveted". Both use extremely connotative words and insert bias into the article; please don't re-insert them. Finally, I've also tagged the article with POV because the whole article still seems to be biased - the wording of some of the sections, along with the lists of every single conviction, still makes the article seem biased. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I told you in the first paragragh what I objected to - the paragragh is historically inaccurate. This is not true:


 * "In many of the instances the person was found innocent by the courts, or the activities happened after they left government service, or they were never employed by the Reagan administration. [citation needed]"


 * There is no citation, as I have pointed out before, because nothing in that sentence is accurate. No one was found innocent by courts - three convictions were overturned solely on technicals grounds and my article noted that, and explained why the convictions were overturned. Further, NOT A SINGLE PERSON on this page was convicted for crimes after they left government service except the lobbyists, and the reason for their conviction is that when you work for the White House, you are contractually obligated to not begin lobbying for a year after they leave the government. That is the law, and that is the law both Nofziger and Deaver broke. That's why they were convicted. Nofziger later had his conviction overturned because the prosecution did not prove to an appeals courts satisfaction that he knew was breaking the law - they held that he did, in point of fact, break the law but that the prosecutors needed to show that he fully understood what the requirements were.


 * Every single listed conviction on this page is verified by a link to a mainstream source. Why are you tolerating RJenson lies? He can't back up what he's saying. I would think that the fact that everything I've added, I've verified and that RJenson has been proved wrong in every single conflict would have an impact on you.


 * I showed up. I told you why I did what I did. Can you please take the time to explain what you have against my assessment. Have you read the page? Have you looked at the links?


 * Your obedient servant,
 * Smokingmaenad 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you only disputing that one sentence? In that case, I'll remove it because it has no source now so you two can discuss it. Why did you remove the entire lead section, then? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sentence is completely false. And there's no reason for the summary of the individual scandals at the top - that's what the page is for. The top paragragh should simply acknowledge the level of corruption, and allow the reader to cruise through the paragraphs to get the basic information. What is the purpose of doing that when it's simply a badly written repeat of the following paragraphs?


 * Your obedient servant,
 * Smokingmaenad 17:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:LEAD for more information on the lead section; it should summarize the article and cover all the major points. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, FlCelloGuy, I realized i didn't answer a few of your questions.

Yes, Superfund grants were coveted. I actually worked on the California end of it so it's something I know more than a little about. People's homes lost their value overnight because of toxic wastes and because of that, many of them could not afford to move away. Their children were getting sick - cancer, all sorts of stuff, it was bad news. Superfund grants allowed a neighborhood to clean itself up, and that allowed people to sell their homes, and move away. It was a very big deal.

The outrage around Iran/Contra was that the administration acted against Congressional measures approved with a genuinely bi-partisan majority.

Here's what Walsh has to say in his executive summary: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm
 * The Operational Conspiracy


 * The operational conspiracy was the basis for Count One of the 23-count indictment returned by the Grand Jury March 16, 1988, against Poindexter, North, Secord, and Hakim. It charged the four with conspiracy to defraud the United States by deceitfully:


 * (1) supporting military operations in Nicaragua in defiance of congressional controls;

The Boland Amendment was attached to a defense bill which Reagan signed, and which had passed the House unanimously. There are claims that it was sufficiently vague, and that it interfered the president's authority - that's why the actions were in "likely" defiance, but the statement can honestly go no further than that. Read the Wiki entry. It's good.

Your obedient servant, Smokingmaenad 20:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the fact is that "in express defiance" is simply too biased and too loaded language to include. The article already states that the actions were "illegal"; that summarizes the scandal enough - there's a link to the main article. Regarding "coveted" - there's simply no need to insert that in. Tell the facts, no more, no less. "Coveted" is still an unnecessary (and opinionated) adjective. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename?
I've got it... Reagan Screw-Ups. That'll be the name. Its far more biased than the current "Reagan Scandals" page. What do these people want the page to be named? "Days that Reagan wasn't the all supreme being that we make him out to be"? Ridiculousness. I think we ought to have a scandals page for each president of the United States, and then correlate them all on to one massive page called "United States Presidential Scandals" MUCH better idea.

Actually, there is such an article, it's called, Political scandals of the United States Richrakh ````

Listen, "guy who wants to mislead people about Ronald Reagan." Reagan's actions were in direct defiance of Congress, which had earlier taken action specifically prohibiting further involvement. Reagan did defy Congress, in violation of the constituion, and Reagan's administration was the most corrupt administartion ever. You think that bias means ignorance, and it is you who clearly display your bias by continually ignoring the facts as pointed out by "smoking" guy. YOUR MARKING THE PAGE AS CONTROVERSIAL IS THE REAL LIE. It may be controversial to career liars like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who want to deify Reagan. Why don't you simply verify the facts??? Their available for anyone who cares about the truth. Reagan's actions were treasonous, and if he hadn't either been, or pretended to be, senile at the end of his term, he would have (and could have) been easily impeached. P.S. not all conservatives are as stupid as Ann Coulter, who claims that Reagan "singlehandedly" won the Cold War. The reason so many conservatives accept the non-fact that Reagan won the Cold War is because hacks like you continue to spew the nonsense. It's truly a conservative thing, SEE: Death Panels and Socialism. Come on, open a book, take to a computer, actually read some of the indisputable, historical record. Reagan was a lazy, ill informed, crook--and there are lots of other horrific things that he and his administration did that aren't in your so called "article." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.224.51 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
>resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials

Can we break this up into different numbers for accuracy? It seems misleading as is. Presumably everyone who was indicted or convicted was first investigated, and everyone convicted was first indicted, but presumably not *everyone* who was investigated was indicted, so it's confusing. Should read more like: 138 administration officials were investigated, and of those X were indicted and X were later convicted.

People (like me) interested in how many people were *indicted* under Reagan might be tempted to quote this as a total of 138 people actually indicted, and it's not clear if that's true.

May also be nice to see some numbers for how many plead guilty vs went to trial, etc.

Memophage (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Worst President?
Eh, Reagan had his faults, but even I think that line is a bit odious. Bush is CERTAINLY worse than Reagan is. Reagan he started the drain on the economy with his spending, tripling the National Debit! Bush is adding his record now

This subtopic is ridiculous. I don't think wikipedia should be used to make the OPINION that Reagan was the worst president ever. Especially having your only source be a long paragraph from Rolling Stones. I think this should be deleted.

Carlin quote
Can we please get rid of the George Carlin quote from his 1988 album What Am I Doing in New Jersey? It's no longer "timely", and since the second paragraph of this article is lifted almost verbatim from his performance, it's not encyclopedic, either. Tony Myers 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How reliable, or intelligent for that matter, is a quote from a famous comedian??? Can someone find another source...? ~ACC 18:22, 19 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.142.206 (talk)

A good many (perhaps most comedians) are far more intelligent than Reagan himself. As for such a quote being "timely," it's supposed to be timely for the period (get it, Reagan's "era") No wonder Wikipedia is absolutely unreliable--any bonehead can write anything they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.224.51 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Found one. 71.181.35.159 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
I for one think this article could use a complete rewrite. There weren't very many scandals, but they should be told in a clean format and follow Wikipedia's rules, something this article fails to do. Happyme22 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not follow the MOS when it comes to headings, paragraph format, photo captions, etc.
 * It is mostly a bulleted list with section breaks thrown in
 * It does not accuratley describe the scandals of the Reagan Administration
 * I agree. This is next on our clean-up list, Hap. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see something about the tax cut/deficit issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.181.19 (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, precisely what re you referring to? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Savings & loan crisis ???
It is obvious that deregulating the taxes caused the Savings & loan crisis, however, is that a scandal or just an economic blunder? Reagan can take the blame for the crisis, however, deregulating is not a crime in itself. Did anyone from the Reagan administration go to jail for this crisis or was charged with any illegal activities? That would be a scandal. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not "obvious" that deregulation or taxes caused the crisis, the roots of the problem were in the high inflationary period of the late 70s and early 80s, exasperated by extremely high interest and mortgage rates. Those two factors killed a lot of the S&Ls (fewer people could afford to purchase homes or take out loans for cars, college, etc.), or at least put them on shaky ground even before Reagan came onto the scene. The S&L crisis is just that, a crisis and not a scandal. The reason it is sometimes referred to as a scandal is there were scandals within the crisis itself. A fine example is the Keating Five. Also there some banks that were caught defrauding the FDIC and FSLIC, but nothing too major.--FrankieG123 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Debategate
Surprised to see no mention of "Debategate". I've added it. 24.102.247.69 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

silence in the beggining of AIDS epidemic
we should read about Reagan`s silence and indiference for the need for funding for AIDS reserchs

I only made it as far as Iran/Contra ...
But two things struck me immediately:

Infoplease.com is not a particularly compelling citation.

And this is rife with construction and bias issues: "Presidents Reagan was instrumental in turning Nicaragua into a Democratic society and giving the people liberty." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.129.14 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The use of the word 'Scandal' There is an article for Reagan Administration Scandals (which is fine) but not one for Obama Administration Scandals(which would fill multiple pages). The most I have found are Obama Administration 'Controversies'. Incredible bias on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.137.141 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

== Why was the Wedtech scandal left out? ==

The only mention was "Lyn Nofziger Reagan's Press Secretary was convicted on charges of illegal lobbying after leaving government service in Wedtech scandal. His conviction was later overturned.[19]" Lenbrazil (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reagan administration scandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421212207/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_5.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109194354/http://govwin.com/anthonycritelli_blog/this-day-in-govcon-history/131183 to http://govwin.com/anthonycritelli_blog/this-day-in-govcon-history/131183
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106133854/http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2001/nav01214.txt to http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2001/nav01214.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Contra war?
Should that be added? The USA was funding and arming the Contras, providing them booklets directing them on how to commit assassination, and bombed oil facilities and mined the harbor - an act which saw it condemned for the 'unlawful use of force for political gain' in the International Court of Justice. The other actions surely violated the Neutrality Act and potentially murder and conspiracy laws. This were what prompted the Boland Amendment, which then led to Iran-Contra whereby a small portion of the arms sale profits were siphoned off to the Contra operation now run by the NSC instead of the CIA. LamontCranston (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)