Except that, well, he wasn't, was he? And neither was Armitage. Poindexter's conviction was overturned on the grounds that the prosecutors had violated his 5'th Amendment rights. I don't know about you, but I find the thought that the 5'th Amendment still has some meaning to be somewhat comforting, regardless of whether we think Poindexter was actually guilty or not.
The Constitution, and the protections it affords, are, after all, how we insure that the innocent are not completely railroaded by the government. If that means that one guilty man walks so that 100 innocent men are freed, so be it.
As for the rest of your list, I don't really see its relevance. It strikes me as nothing more an attempt at guilt-by-association for Poindexter and Armitage. Neither the Constitution nor the laws of this country consider that to be adequate grounds for demonstrating wrongdoing by someone....
Oooh, sorry.
I'm sure they're both squeaky clean despite the morass of corruption in which they were immersed and for which they had a certain authority.
Thanks for the correction on Poindexter, though. I guess I assumed too much (or too little, I'm not sure) where the chutzpah of the GOP was concerned.