Legally, there seems to be very little difference between "exonerated" and being found "not guilty." The first is used, apparently, in Senate 'investigations' of thier 'own.' Sen. McCain, once he realized that what he said in the private meetings would become public, became very guarded. And yet he was a part of it from the beginning. He must have known from the start what it was all about.

His 'trial' was held by the Senate, rather than an 'impartial' jury and he's a revered senior Senator. When things got too hot for him. he paid back what he'd recieved in cash. There's no way he can pay back what he got in the vacations to the Bahamas. And there's no way he can say, as far as I'm concerned, that he didn't take bribes from criminals and/or lobbyists.

Poor judgment on economic matters is a good thing to have in a man, who wishes to be elected president during an economic crises, isn't it? Oh wait a moment, that isn't a good thing is it...

Interesting...Stone tells us the opinions Obama express on control or individual rights some ten years ago do not matter because they are in the past. The leftists here supported that stance. Now, we are supposed to assign some special significance to an act of poor judgement by McCain that took place some 20 years ago. Curious and curiouser....

Deregulation only works IF the parties (in this case our banks) governs itself with a well guding moral compass. Fat cats like Keating...AND his bunch only weaken free enterprise.

Someone, in another thread - and I think it were Ray - mentioned the Democrat's deregulation policies of the 90's. OK, so what is wrong with this? Nothing, as long as these guys are not crooks. I have said this before, Paulson should resign himself from his position, as he comes from this group of Wall St. "self regulators". The wolf is guarding the hen house folks, HELP!

Indeed! And you notice how it's always "John McCain and the Keating 5" "John McCain and the Keating 5" "JOHN McCAIN and the Keating 5." Makes you wonder if anyone else was involved besides a guy named "Keating" and guy named "McCain."

Could the reason for that be that John McCain was the only Republican in the group? So for the benefit of the rabid, John McCain was "exonerated." That means, to the satisfaction of those investigating the case, he didn't do it. Sort of like the "Duke University rape case." The accused weren't just found "not guilty." They were exonerated. That means the State came to the conclusion that they had been falsely accused of something THEY DIDN'T DO! Now, was the Lacrosse team party ill-advised? Most likely. Was it an "error in judgment?" Most likely. But there is a difference between a lapse in judgment and commission of illegality.

But the way, of the "Keating 5" one other of the "5" was also exonerated. Doesn't matter who, though, since John McCain is the only one who's guilty of being a Republican, right?