11 indicted senators so far in history. Republicans win 9:2

This is the article, some one sent to me in email published on time.com, I have tried to Analyze it

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1827969_1827972_1827968,00.html

11 indicted senators so far in the history of US senate. Republicans win 9:2 !!!!!!!!!

The misconception
First you should understand the difference between indictment and Felony. General misconception about indict-ion is that its criminal proceedings, but not very many people actually understands what it is. here is some verbiage from Wikipedia.

Indictment: In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: /ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ (in-DITE-mint)) is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense. In those jurisdictions which retain the concept of a felony, the serious criminal offense would be a felony; those jurisdictions which have abolished the concept of a felony often substitute instead the concept of an indictable offence, i.e. an offence which requires an indictment.
Traditionally an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause. Most common law jurisdictions (except for much of the United States) have abolished grand juries.


Facts in Article
In this article out of 11 - only 3 were actually proved guilty and sentenced of some nature with 2:1 republican : Democrat. But neither here or there...let us talk about ratio of indictment vs. guilty its 9:2 22% for Republican while 2:1 or say 50% for Democrat - much lower for republican.

Because anyone can go and register complain against anyone and that's indictment - its like accusation. it doesn't need any proof. What matters are is the authenticity of the complain.

In other words, in my analysis, Democrats keep spending national time and money on making scoop without any base just to make working republicans' life hell. that later after spending considerable humiliation and efforts just to prove themselves not guilty. isn't it, like what Obama supporters complains about people asking Obama to prove he is US born or if he is not Muslim. in some sense Obama is indicted for those charges and now he has to prove he is not.

Why at this time?
The trend... This article just came out, hours after just after Democrat Edward's Affair. I have many times mentioned in discussion with friends, the typical democratic strategy, the democrat trend i say, is to show others are bad too, and even use half truth to highlight how bad the other side is, when question mark comes to one of them

The counter argument
These are big politicians we are talking about, they will use their power / money / and other resources to find out way to prove they are innocent and will get acquitted (Not guilty verdict)

And since you brought this topic
Here are some other fact you all should know: Only Two U.S. Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and both were Democrats. We are talking Presidents now, not mear senators... Both were acquitted at trial later. - Will the counter argument hold true for them too?