Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes

split

Since this article (by human nature) will just continue to get longer, I propose to separate the state section into a separate article which could then belong to its on appropriate set of categories. I propose to do this on Dec 10, 2010. Any questions or comments? Thanks Hmains (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.Richrakh (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Just one question: will we need to change the title to reflect the new inclusion criteria? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ugly possible names: List of American state politicians convicted of crimes and List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Better ideas welcomed. Hmains (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Convicted state politicians is short and sweet, but it's sure to be changed. How about Convicted state politicans of America? I hate the addition of the word LIST. It's unecessary and awkward. By the way, can we rename this one Convicted federal politicans of America?Richrakh (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The people are 'American' but the country is the 'United States', so this suggestion would not be correct. A parent here named Category:Lists of United States politicians is actually misnamed; it should be Category:Lists of American politicians which would also then match its siblings. Hmains (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I now propose List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes and List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Why: It is a WP:LIST#List naming and lists get named as such, leaving room for articles on this subject that are not lists; they are 'American', the notation for United States people; 'state and local' to cover that whole area below national; 'federal' is the notation for the US national (central) government. Of course, whatever I might create now can be changed by other editors later Hmains (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally I prefer to have names that don't start with List of when the majority of the article's prose rather than just bare links, but policy seems to support the ones you've gone with so it should be OK. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

convicted where?

The inclusion criteria states that the conviction must be in a court of law. We also have House of Representatives impeachments sometimes resulting in convictions by the US Senate. I removed some of the impeachment convictions as not being a 'court of law', but I stopped to asked whether the inclusion criteria should instead be changed to include 'impeachment convictions by the US Senate'. Hmains (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In these cases, I believe the senate IS a court of law as specified by the Constitution.Richrakh (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe Richrakh is correct. Though the senate chambers are not a court, per se, the ability to impeach and convict on the senate floor makes that chamber a court. This is specified in the highest law document in the land, the Constitution. William J Bean (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Politicians"

A significant fraction of the entries are not politicians, being connected to a political scandal does not make you a politican. Fawn Hall was not a politican. Neither was Richard Secord. Either needs retitling or a significant clean-out. Hairhorn (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For some entries this is true, but not a significant fraction. See politician first. Next copy the offending entry to List of federal political scandals in the United States; many will have some sort of entry there already. Then delete the non-politician names from this article. I have done some. Others can help also. This will be helpful improvement editing. Hmains (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How are you defining "not politicians"? I looked up politician and got this; "A politician or political leader (from Greek "polis") is an individual who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making." That would certainly include Scooter Libby. Richrakh (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I also looked up functionary, as you call them. Which led to official which gave the following; "A government official or functionary is an official who is involved in public administration or government, through either election, appointment, selection, or employment." The terms "appointment...or employment" would include everyone that you have removed, including Fawn Hall. Richrakh (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But a functionary isn't a politician. That would be a pointlessly broad definition of politician that would cover every civil servant, every judge, every police officer.... Hairhorn (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, none of the cabinet positions or department heads are elected either. If you leave those out, (I see you have already removed appointed federal judges), the list becomes, in my opinion, way too small. It would only include the president, the vice president and congressmen. I think we should include the administrations' appointees, their staffs and advisors and THEIR staffs and advisors. I see the 5 actual burglers from Watergate have been left out, since they were just help hired by Liddy who was working for Haldeman who was working for Nixon. Unlike Fawn Hall, who worked immediately for North who was one of the designers of Iran-Contra. Richrakh (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the title of the entry then, since we're now talking about anyone who works in government. It's perverse to call a secretary a "federal politician". Hairhorn (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Perverse? Hall destroyed so many US papers the shredder jammed. On her OWN (not North's) initiative she subverted an FBI investigation and stole NSA documents and then later testified that "sometimes you have to go above the law." Sure sounds like a politician to me...Richrakh (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. And if we say "anyone ever connected with the government" we would have thousands of entries. We need to stick to a real definition if this article is to survive.Collect (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Just the quilty ones. Richrakh (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Using the definition from politician - "an individual who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making" - a secretary certainly wouldn't qualify. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes she would. As the court found (and she admitted), by stealing documents and subverting the FBI, she WAS "...involved in influencing public policy and decision making." She was NOT working as a mere secretary at that time. Richrakh (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Any more than a soldier who is found guilty of murder in a war is a "politician" - and clearly such acts involved "public policy." Let's stick to the rational requirement that the person be one with defined policy-making status, and who is appointed "at the pleasure of the President" under the Constitution or is elected to Federal political office. Collect (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm disheartened to see a potentially valuable resource get mired in petty bickering. There is an easy solution to this. I propose the following: 1. This article be renamed "American Political Figures Convicted of Felonies". 2. That it be divided into "Elected" for senators, governors, congressmen, presidents, "Military" for high-ranking officers and chiefs of staff, "Appointed" for cabinet members, et al., "Judicial" for members of the bench as well as aides and clerks, and possible a category for "others" for anyone who doesn't fit into the above categories. Within these headings, figures may be listed chronologically with a brief statement about their status and background. A discussion about where Executive branch employees go would be welcome. But this way we avoid the semantics of who is a "politician". Thank you for considering. Eli Geminder (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC) (note: This is the only edit ever made by this person on Wikipedia and may be so weighed) Collect (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Libby?

How is G. Gordon Libby an American Federal politician? He has not run for federal office, nor been appointed to political office. Collect (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean G. Gordon Liddy (or perhaps Scooter Libby). Neither are politicians, as far as I'm concerned, I have already removed Libby once. Hairhorn (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gordon this time as well as Scooter. Seems that many non-politicians keep getting re-added. Including Scooter (again) Collect (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Liddy ran for both Distric Attorney and Congress as a Republican. Unless he changed his mind somewhere, that makes him a Republican AND a politician. Richrakh (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bill Clinton?

If I understand correctly, contempt of court in a civil case in the US is not a criminal matter, so I'm not clear on why there's an entry for Clinton. Hairhorn (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Contempt" may be either civil or criminal. The "crime" was giving "intentionally false" testimony under oath. Collect (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

... and my point was that this does not appear to be a criminal conviction, so doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in this list. Hairhorn (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The act of giving "intentionally false" testimony is a crime per se. Just like signing a false affidavit in a civil action is a "crime." Collect (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly was he convicted of? The article on contempt of court describes it as a court order, which would appear not to meet the definition given at conviction. On a loosely related topic, the source for Clinton being held in contempt of court is broken. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The list criteria call for criminal convictions in a court of law, not crimes "per se". Hairhorn (talk)

Convictions by a judge are, indeed, "convictions in a court of law" and (as they are subject to appeal) just as much 'convictions" as any other. The "intentionally false" testimony is not simple "contempt of court" (which can be as simple as talking back to a judge), nor did the judge say it was just "contempt of court". BTW, WP "definitions" are not actually relaible sources :). "Criminal contempt" involves the obstruction of justice, such as threatening a judge or witness or disobeying an order to produce evidence. Criminal contempt occurs when the contemnor actually interferes with the ability of the court to function properly - for example, by yelling at the judge. This is also called direct contempt because it occurs directly in front of the judge. A criminal contemnor may be fined, jailed or both as punishment for his act. [6] It is the nature of the act which defines it as civil or criminal, not the court in which the act takes place. Collect (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So it's open to interpretation. Fair enough. Let's go back to first principles. Do any reliable sources actually describe it as a conviction? Google would suggest not (I tried several other variations too). Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The AR Supreme Court seems to agree with the Arkansas Bar that he broke rules, but is a suspension and fine from the Arkansas Bar the same as a conviction in a criminal court? Richrakh (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Clinton was not *convicted* of a crime. Alzarian16 points out that no reliable sources say that he was. FurrySings (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Watergate additions

I have a hard time buying Egil Krogh, G. Gordon Liddy et al as "politicians". Hairhorn (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we went through this before, so it’s probably wise to use a standard definition chosen by somebody else.

The Free Dictionary says -

1. a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.

b. One who holds or seeks a political office.

2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: "Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process" (John F. Kennedy).

3. One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government.[7]

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says -

1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession b: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons[8]

Wikipedia says -

A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Greek "polis") is someone who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, inheritance, coup d'état, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, divine right, or other means. Politics is not limited to governance through public office. Political offices may also be held in corporations, and other entities that are governed by self-defined political processes.[9]

Yes, it's a very broad definition, but then I didn't come up with it. I was surprised as well to see none of them mention being elected. Krogh and Liddy, were both (directly involved or engaged) with either the president, his staff or their policies, so I’d say they qualify. But I’ve never seen anything that says the actual burglers, Gonzales, Barker, Martinez and Sturgis were anything other than burglers, so I did NOT include them as politicians, though they probably should be included, just because people always ask why they're not. Richrakh (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We have been through this before, but there has never been a consensus to include unelected officials or minor functionaries in this list. Putting a party designation like (R) after Liddy shows just how silly this is. Hairhorn (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So this is about party affiliation and NOT about the definition of politician? Make up your mind. And seriously, are you suggesting that Liddy is a Democrat? Now who's being silly? He's proud to be a Republican and ran for Congress as one.Richrakh (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this list is for people convicted of crimes committed while in public office, what office did Liddy hold? None. Ditto Herbert Porter, who didn't even work in the White House. Now, if you want to argue that Liddy et al worked in government, and are therefore a politicians, then we go down a road where E. Howard Hunt is a politician, Fawn Hall is a politician, every police officer and soldier are politicians. This view was already raised and dismissed in the previous discussion above. Hairhorn (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No. This is NOT a list for people convicted of crimes committed while in public office. This is a list of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Liddy was a member of the Committee to Re-elect the President and an aide to John Ehrlichman and a burgler for the president and involved in influencing public policy as defined by Wikipedia. That makes him a politician. Richrakh (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see it, your use of "office" is just as problematic. Aides to advisors are politicians? How far down the chain are you willing to go? It's even worse with Porter, who only ever worked for CREEP, but that wasn't part of government, it was a wing of the Republican campaign. Hairhorn (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't come up with the definitions. Richrakh (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at the previous discussion ("Politicians", above). Hairhorn (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia's guidelines, Wikipedia:Notability Richrakh (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? Notability isn't the issue, pretty much everyone in here is notable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It speaks to the point that YOU raised that every soldier or policeman could be considered a politician, which might be technically true, but not many of them would be Notable. Richrakh (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you've missed the point then, which is that being employed by the state doesn't make you a "politician". Hairhorn (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

removing "while in office"

Changing "convicted of crimes while in office" to "convicted of crimes while working as politicians" changes the inclusion criteria considerably; the list is supposed to be about people convicted of crimes they committed while they held a position in government; "working as a politician" is far more vague and can include e.g. private citizens running for office, or people formerly in office who still take on occasional advisory roles (such as ex-presidents). Hairhorn (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Just trying to help. Do you doubt that Liddy was "in office" during Watergate? Or, as you say, that he "held a position in government." What's the difference between "in office" and "held a position"? And for your info, everyone who runs for office IS a private citizen. Richrakh (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Herbert L. Porter

Herbert L. Porter was promoted from his post on the White House staff to the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), as Director of Scheduling Whether it was Nixon, Mitchell or Magruder who actually selected him doesn't matter. They are all politicians.

Creep was organized by Nixon and was NOT part of the standard Republican Party. Attorney General John Mitchell, was tapped to serve as campaign director of the Citizens Committee to Re-Elect the President, headed by acting director Jeb Magruder, who began planning to run a national campaign independently of the Republican National Committee. (emphasis mine) Richrakh (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is silly. The list is for people who committed crimes while in public office, working at CREEP was not a public office. It's moot whether it was sanctioned by the party or not, it was not part of government. The way to preserve this page is to tighten up the inclusion criteria, not include everyone who remotely looks like a politician. Hairhorn (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What part of the definition of 'politician' don't you understand? Richrakh (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What part of "while in office" is difficult to understand? A person, no matter what his position before or afterwards, who is not convicted of something "while in office" is not by definition approriate for this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, now. Stay focused. YOU said Creep was part of the Republican party. You were wrong. It was organized by Nixon and run by Mitchell, therefore it was part of the government. And Porter was "in office" at the time. Richrakh (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

CREEP was part of the campaign to re-elect Nixon. So it should be obvious that is wasn't part of government, elections simply do not work that way. Not everything Nixon touched was a work of the state. Hairhorn (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You two still at it? The definition of politician is by Wikipedia and the one that should be used. Inclusion here includes elected officials, their appointees, their staff and others as necessary as determined by notability. Been that way for years. You do not get to change the rules, just because it is not obvious to you. You want to write another article? Go ahead. Birdshot9 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

..."and others as necessary as determined by notability"... eh? Where did you find this? Scads of people are notable yet magically not politicians. You'll also find there are more than two of us "at it" . Hairhorn (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Hairhorn here. Allowing people connected to politics who didn't actually hold a public office onto the list broadens its scope a little too much for me given how long it is already, and would lead to loads of arguments about how far we can reasonably stretch the definition of what a politician is. Far better (in my opinion at least) to have a well-defined guide for inclusion, even if it is arguably a little narrow, and "others as necessary as determined by notability" is too open-ended to achieve that. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO that's too narrow. It's the Al Capone defense - who technically, didn't do nuthin'. He was just an honest businessman. Associates, aides and appointees of appointees who are all acting politically, (we're not talking about G-12s here), are necessary. Under Hairhorn's definition AG John Mitchell was not a politician and Liddy was not notable. And since Nixon was not convicted, the entire Watergate scandal goes away. Who is notable? All 69 who were convicted. Listing the top dozen or so, including Porter, does not seem too extreme. Logjam42 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As with other contrary arguments, this one strikes me as silly. Who ever argued Liddy wasn't notable or that Watergate should be ignored? You're arguing against a position no one holds. (The White House denied even the existence of the room that The Plumbers worked out of, it seems specious to argue that Liddy somehow held "public office"). And Nixon was never convicted? Yeah, because he was never charged with anything, I have already removed Nixon from the list once (as well as Clinton). Again, we have been through this before, and excluded hangers-on and clear non-politicians such as Fawn Hall, because failing to do so makes the inclusion criteria impossibly broad. Hairhorn (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What's silly is someone who can't figure out what a 'politician' is after it's been defined three times.Birdshot9 (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't help your case. I dispute that Liddy and many others met any sort of reasonable criterion for "politician" or "holding public office" at the time of their crimes. Indeed, given the current usage on the page, there is no clear reason to exclude E. Howard Hunt, since the justification for Liddy is that he worked for the White House (ie, for The Plumbers). Similarly, James W. McCord, Jr., Frank Sturgis et al worked for CREEP, just like Magruder and Porter. Magruder and Porter worked at the White House before CREEP, but so what? McCord worked at the CIA. Throw as many dictionary definitions around as you like, the inclusion criteria, as currently applied on the page, are murky as hell. Hairhorn (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you put McCord in? He's clearly not a politician, that's why I mention him as an example of how the list is expanding beyond recognition. Hairhorn (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

References

"convicted of crimes while holding office in the federal government"

"... convicted of crimes while holding office in the federal government." This wording is ambiguous; presumably the intention is to list people who where convicted of crimes they committed while in office, the actual date of conviction seems less significant.

Further, there are some candidates that may be included or excluded depending on your reading of the line in question.

This is another area where the inclusion criteria need tightening up. Hairhorn (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Crimes committed when?

Should this list be of politicians convicted of crimes committed while in office (but perhaps convicted later), or of politicians convicted while in office (but maybe for crimes committed before they took office), or should it include both? Whichever way, it should be made clear in the lead. FurrySings (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See removing "while in office" above. The policy has always been to include only those politicians who commited crimes while in office, such as rape, perjury, etc, but it sometimes takes years for them to be prosecuted, so they are technically 'out of office' when found guilty. Crimes committed by candidates are included since they are both notable and running for office as politicians. Not included are politicians who have ended their public life and gone on as private citizens to commit crimes unrelated to politics. Do you have a suggestion for rewording? Richrakh (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest changing "... convicted of crimes while holding office ..." to "... convicted of crimes committed while holding office ..." FurrySings (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree with that suggestion, as it states the inclusion criteria much more accurately than the current wording with no risk of expanding the domain of the list. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable.Logjam42 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This probably excludes Otto Kerner, Jr. from the list, then. Andrew J. Hinshaw is also questionable. Agnew also fails to meet the criteria, even though he's a classic example of a politician who had to resign because of criminal charges. The same probably applies to John Mitchell. Hairhorn (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. How about "convicted of crimes that were either committed or prosecuted while holding office ...". FurrySings (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

re-adding clear non-politicians

Adding them again requires following WP:CONSENSUS which they do not currently have. And all entries must conform with WP:BLP for living persons. Lastly, Wikipedia has this really funny principle that material in articles should actually fall into the topic of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sarcasm. The last bastion of the bankrupt. Do either of you have a better definition of 'politician' from a Reliable Source or not? Richrakh (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that entries are being added with respect for any particular definition; and interpretations (even of terms like "public office" and "while in office") appear to vary widely, so throwing definitions around doesn't appear to help much. Suggest tightening up the criteria more explicitly, by e.g. allowing only elected officials and senior members of cabinet. Hairhorn (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words. No, you do not have a better definition. Your solution is to gut the article. Chosing a definition and sticking to it is exactly what this article needs. Listing only elected officials as you suggest is an entirely different list which would eliminate not only the most defining political criminal actions of the last 50 years, but exclude most of the executive branch and the judicial branch as well. Richrakh (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Grossly overstating my objections to listing non-employees who are not office-holders is not actually doing much here. I do object to over-inclusion of non-employees who were not office-holders as not meeting the clear stated intent of the list. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC coming up. Collect (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe you put McCord in; that's just laughable. Hairhorn (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe he was left out. The judge who sentenced him didn't think it was laughable. McCord was one of the first men convicted in the Watergate criminal trial; on eight counts of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping. Richrakh (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What's laughable is that you'd call a for-hire wiretapper a "politician", a term the judge no doubt failed to use. Hairhorn (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

My read of the discussion (once uniting all of the comments by User:Richrakh and socks), is No consensus. I understand the goal here was that you all want some sort of resolution on this. So to offer a suggestion for a "way forward", I think, from reading the discussion, the problem here hasn't been so much defining politician, but rather defining what "while holding office" means in terms of inclusion in this list (is being a chef, an "office" in the executive branch? is being a political appointee?), and further whether being an office holder should continue to be criteria for inclusion in this list. These questions should be able to be answered (or at least discussed) in a followup RfC. - jc37 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

This list is stated to be:

This list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes committed while holding office in the federal government.

The issue is whether "holding office" includes people who were not employed by the federal government at all, and who were not elected in any way to any such office. 11:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC) 18:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(manually changed timestamp to extend discussion in light of extensive sock edits. See Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_Rfcs)

comments

• I submit that "holding office in the federal government" can not properly be applied to people who are part of a "re-election committee," who are not employed by the federal government, and hold no political office in the federal government. Collect (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I submit that the people involved were employed by Richard Nixon. See Committee to Re-Elect the President. Creep was a "fundraising organization of United States President Richard Nixon's administration." and therefore should be considered part of the Executive Branch and were therefore involved in " influencing public policy and decision making " as defined by Wikipedia (see above) and therefore are politicians who should be included. Richrakh (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, whether an article entitled List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes should include those who WERE employed by the federal govenment, but not directly elected. Richrakh (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comment - you assert that people employed by a political campaign are paid by the federal government? Collect (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• The term 'politician' in this context is supposed to be very broad. And yes, crooks hired by the POTUS to do work the POTUS wants done, are acting as politicians. It doesn't really matter what their title was, what organization they were placed in or who signed their paychecks.Sitsat (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiretappers are politicians? Seriously? (There has never been a suggestion that Nixon "hired" the plumbers, by the way). This is another "anyone who works for government is a politician" view, which we've already seen is a non-starter. Hairhorn (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This section is for others comments. We already know your opinions. Richrakh (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia definition of 'politician' listed above is the best I've seen. Why not use it? The list is not too long. Ovr'apint (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The dispute, as you can read on this page, is largely over how to apply the definitions, and not on which particular definition to use. Even relatively simple things like "public office" and "while in office" have come under dispute. Hairhorn (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• The list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes while holding office in the federal government. Politicians who held an office in a federal government agency qualify, people who didn't, or who aren't politicians, don't qualify. See List of United States federal agencies. FurrySings (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I hold that persons not appointed or elected to the federal government, but rather hired by, do not apply for the term "politician", and as such should be removed. Grammarxxx (talk) 8:28. August 1, 2012 (UTC)

• This article is fine the way it is. Splitting hairs only leads to more hairs. Are appointees appointed(?) or "hired by" the federal government? Who signs their paychecks? Who cares? I believe the pres is not even allowed to pay for his own cooks. If they work as politicians they are politicians. See definition above.Birdshot9 (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (blocked as Richrakh sock)[10] Collect (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"The way it is" is constantly in flux. "If they work as politicians they are politicians" doesn't help much figuring out who is and who isn't. I would agree though that, in the American context, ignoring all appointees is probably a mistake: Hilary Clinton strikes me as a politician holding public office, even though she doesn't currently hold an elected post. In parliamentary democracies the distinction is usually clearer. Hairhorn (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• So now you are interested in definitions?" Only you seem to be having a hard time. Please refer to Political crime. And Public Administration which says "many unelected public servants can be considered to be public administrators." Also see Committee for the Re-Election of the President which unequivocally states that CREEP was "a fundraising organization of the United States President Richard Nixon's administration." It was not a part of the Republican Party as you state above. And since it was created by Nixon, I'd say every last one of them was working as, for, and because of politicians. The article should stand. Logjam42 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)(blocked as Richrakh sock)[11] Collect (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Don't confuse crimes committed by politicians with political crimes. Not every political group or political activity involves a politician. Consider a group of homemakers who organize and lobby their Congressional representative to seek to have a nuclear plant closed. That would be a political activity performed by non-politicians. For the purposes of the list in this article, only individuals who were elected or appointed to (or sought to be elected or appointed to) Federal offices should be included. Federal offices would include offices entrusted by law with the authority to conduct the business of the government, regardless of whether the officeholders were paid (although in practically all cases the officeholders would be entitled to payment as public employees). The Committee to Re-Elect the President, even if it had some members who may have at some points in their careers been politicians, and even if the members of the Committee were selected by the President, was not a branch of any Federal agency. The members of the Committee, in their capacity as members of the Committee, were not authorized by law to conduct the business of the government (irrespective of what Nixon or his aides may have led them to believe). So inclusion of members of the Committee solely on the basis of their having been members of the Committee would be inappropriate. Dezastru (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A point of clarification: for Americans, all Federal elected officials are politicians. Political appointees may or may not be politicians (that's a harder call). Dezastru (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If the homemakers were appointed by the president and were working for his administration they certainly would be politicians. See Powers of the President of the United States which states, "The President must also appoint his staff of aides, advisers, and assistants. These individuals are political appointments and are not subject to review by the Senate. All members of the staff serve "at the pleasure of the President."." Logjam42 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)(blocked as Richrakh sock)[12] Collect (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Neatly absurd -- even the chef at the White Hiyse is "appointed" and is not a "politician" by any standard I ever heard of. People who are hired to perform tasks are not, generally, "politicians" - the idea of a "politician" is that they have received some public office on the basis of political support given by them or on the basis of their own political campaign. By your standards, garbage collectors in Chicago who got jobs through the patronage system were "politicians" and that is an absurd conclusion. Collect (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Why won't you accept Wikipedia's definitions? You don't get to make up your own. Neither do I. And a Chicago garbage man OR a homemaker is a politician if they are involved in influencing public policy and decision making. Particularly if they are appointed by the President.Richrakh (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You are giving the definition an overly broad reading in this particular case. There are many technical specialists, for example, who are appointed to make policy for and conduct the affairs of branches of agencies of the Federal government but who are not generally considered politicians as that term is used in common parlance. Dezastru (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"If the homemakers were appointed by the president and were working for his administration they certainly would be politicians." Only if the appointments were made under the president's constitutional capacity to make appointments to government offices, and only if the work for his administration that the appointees were doing involved making policy for and conducting the business of the government. Someone's having been selected by Nixon (Nixon as a citizen seeking office, not as an officeholder conducting the business of the government) to assist him in a campaign for office does not make that person a government employee. And Collect is right. Not every government worker, even if appointed under the authority of the president or a legislator, is a politician. Is the Chaplain of the House of Representatives a politician by virtue of being appointed to a government office by the Congress and doing work for the Congress? Dezastru (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richrakh, which has significant impact on the balance of opinion in this discussion. All of the "anyone connected to government is a politician" opinions turn out to be from the same person (ie Richrakh and sock accounts Birdshot9, Logjam42, Sitsat and Ovr'apint) If someone feels like striking through all the sock comments please go ahead, but there are lots. Hairhorn (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• RfC comment: the name implies that the list is composed of politicians; thus, any person that is explicitly named "politician" in the context of American federal politics in reliable sources is entitled to be mentioned on this list, once [s]he is convicted of crime[s]. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty with that argument, which does seem reasonable on first consideration, is that per WP:SAL, the inclusion criteria stated in the lead take precedence over the terms used in the title, which of course is necessarily terser. The lead currently defines politicians, for the purposes of the list, as individuals who hold or have held Federal office:

This list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government.... The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.

And those terms have not really changed from the initial version of the article, posted 2 years ago, which read:

Convicted politicians are those either elected or appointed to federal positions who have actually been convicted in a court of law of a crime.... Also not included are crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.

So on that basis, description of an individual as a politician in a reliable source would not be sufficient for inclusion in the list, if that individual has not held Federal office. This is admittedly a narrower definition of politician than occurs in common parlance, as most would consider a party boss who has never personally run for or held any office to nevertheless be a politician, even though such a person would not meet this list's definition of politician. Dezastru (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misread WP:SAL. It states that lead should specify criteria, not that there is some order of precedence. In fact I get it as the criteria in lead should be used unless they are in conflict with title. Still, the very core of the problem is that lead mismatches the title, and either the list should be moved to a title that won't contradict the lead, or the lead should be rewritten. As all of the links to this list use its name, the proper action is rewriting the lead.

Effectively, the lead should be rewritten in either case, as certain points are unclear:

1. who qualifies for "politician" (eg. does this require involvement in politics, or holding office implies the status);
2. what crimes warrant inclusion to the list (Chicken theft? HIV transmission?);
3. what country is this list about (people outside US tend to think that America is a common name for two continents with total of 35 countries there).

And all of this should be resolved. Among all possibilities I would support moving this list to appropriate title to reflect that it includes only people holding US government-paid offices and specifying in the lead that to be included a person should be holding US government-paid office and be convicted of crime[s] directly related to his/her office duties. But unless all of this is in place, I see no possibility to answer on the RfC question differently from what I stated in my initial comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline seems pretty clear:

The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.

If the argument is that there are significant cases of federal politicians convicted of crimes who are being left out because they do not meet the the list definition of having held office, then by all means, the inclusion criteria should be expanded or a separate article should be started to include those cases. But that's a different argument than saying that the lede needs to be changed because as it is currently written it conflicts with the title.

With regard to your other points, any crimes that have resulted in conviction are fair game; and I don't think there is any confusion as to which meaning of "American" is at play in the context of this list. (If many editors disagree and find use of "American" here problematic, then I would suggest making an explicit reference to United States of America in the lede while leaving "American" in the title.) Dezastru (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Non-politicians

Should be excised from this list - there was discussion a while back, and the list is replete with people who are not politicians entirely. Collect (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you made a wholesale removal of many republicans from the list. But you neglected to remove any democrats. Some of the names you removed are pretty clearly politicians. Exactly what is your reasoning for these removals? FurrySings (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the talk page for context (eg: many of the people removed were associated with Watergate, thus largely Republican). There was an agressive sockpuppet campaign of adding clear non-politicians, and that's largely who's been removed. Hairhorn (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems with removing the clear non-politicians from the list. But these were political appointees holding office in the federal government. As I understand it, that is the criteria to be met. If we don't include such people, and include only those who were elected to federal office, the list should be trimmed by more than half. FurrySings (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Party affiliation for appointees

Placing party affiliation on appointees (such as assistants, the head of the FDA, etc) completely misunderstands what party affiliation is. Party affiliation is for elected officials, and it shows which party they represent. It is not about who you vote for, who your employer is, or even if you are a registered Democrat or Republican voter. Thus Mark Zachares should not have an (R)... voting Republican or even working for a Republican doesn't get you party affiliation.. this is just an unquestioned assumption on someone's part. If you think it isn't, ask yourself what party affiliation you would give to Robert Gates, who was Defense Secretary under Democrat and Republican presidents.

Many appointees shouldn't be here in the first place. This all looks sadly like the slow creep of non-politicians that we've had before. Indeed, Lester Crawford, whose party affiliation I removed, was previously removed as a non-politician but has somehow crept back. Hairhorn (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems we have a disagreement over what this list should cover. My understanding was that it includes political appointees (directly appointed by the elected administration) to office in the federal government (e.g. heads of departments, ambassadors, etc), as well as those who have been elected to office in the federal government (congressmen, etc). If consensus is to include only the second group, we should be consistent with it across the board. But that would mean removing more than half of the people listed on this page. FurrySings (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If half of them aren't politicians, half should go; most of them were previously removed anyhow. A title such as "Principal Deputy Undersecretary" is a classic sign of a civil servant, not a politician. Hairhorn (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

List of American federal officials convicted of crimes

Is it time to start a list named per this section to handle all the non-political federal officials who are convicted of crimes? Hmains (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be ginormous if you included everyone who has had federal any title over the years. And most of them are not notable per WP guidelines, making the list pretty much useless -- sorta like having a list of jaywalkers in New York City <g>. Collect (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it; you want to list everyone ever convicted of a crime who was a government employee? Hairhorn (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you refer to Hmains' post. Collect (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course... sorry if the indentation doesn't make it clear. Hairhorn (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• 'officials' are not every government employee. They are the significant people who administer the government, run departments and agencies, and so on. And the crimes are crimes of their employment by the government: bribery, malfeasance or misfeasance in office and so on. This could be made clear in the beginning text of the list. Hmains (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds more worthwhile, although as Collect points out, it may fail WP:NLIST. Hairhorn (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that this list should contain only "politicians" as stated in the lead and title. If we were to include every "appointee" it would contain thousands of names, and unless someone wishes to make such a list, they do not belong here. Collect (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what you are saying, the lead of the article currently does not contain any clear definition of the word politician. Also, including all federal appointees would not suddenly mean that there would be thousands of names that would need to be added to this incomplete list. There are only 638 appointees on the executive schedule and the vast majority of them are not corrupt. I think someone needs to to go wiki bold and simply add tighter, less arbitrary qualifications for inclusion in this list. I PROPOSE those qualifications be in addition to elected Federal Officials, any political appointee needing Senate Confirmation as well as anyone working in the Office of the President, Office of the Vice-President, the Office of a Senator, or the Office of a Congressional Representative, or Federal Judge. I know that sounds like a lot of people, but the reality is that the vast majority of these people are not corrupt and have never been convicted of any crime. So these qualifications would not make the list balloon. Currently, this incomplete list is small. If someone eventually feels that it has become too big a list for one article, they can divide it up into three separate articles: Exec, Legislative, & Judicial. I would see that needing to be done only way into the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance Friedman (talk • contribs) 14:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have iterated -- "politician" is a term which requires a reliable source for us to make that claim in Wikipedia's voice. Further, any such claim of a person being convicted of a crime as a politician is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and it is not up to us to assign a word unless a strong reliable source does. This article is apolitical in nature, and should remain that way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"politicians" "federal office"

This list is of politicians who held federal office. This is not the same as "anyone working for the government who belongs to a political party." There was no consensus ever reached to include minor functionaries, many of whom do not remotely qualify as "politicians" under any definition. We did have one editor, now blocked, who demurred with many voices. Collect (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The neat try to change the article to include all federal office holders was out-of-process. I would further note such a list would be intrinsically un-encyclopedic as covering many, many thousands of people over the years. Collect (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Content

You need to read and follow the WP article Poltician which is part of the inclusion criteria for this article. High level decision makers (not necessarily elected) are included as politicians. Your single person campaign against this does not change the facts. Hmains (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

First NO Wikipedia article ever is RS for any other Wikipedia article. Second, this has been discussed before. Third, the definition in dictionaries for "politician" includes seeking elective office. fourth, being a member of a political party does not make ne a "politician." Fifth, if you wish to use a definition other than the one used in this article, you need to use WP:CONSENSUS to try for the change. Sixth, edit warring to include living persons here is subject to the WP:BLP rules where any admin may find even a second revert to add improper contentious claims to any article to be edit war after a warning is formally issued. (a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office. and so n) Collect (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• The consensus is inclusion criteria of the article which YOU are changing without discussion. content. You say you that the link to politician as the definition of politician is not a RS and you then replace it with Politics of the United States which is just another WP link and is worse since it does not even discuss politician as such. Why don't you stop your unsupported changes and discuss things here first. Like coming up with RS and discuss them here. Your threats are unhelpful. Hmains (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As there is no such apparent "consensus" as you assert, we stick to what the common meaning of words are - and we can never use a Wikipedia article as a "source" of any type at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agnew?

Surely Spiro Agnew belongs here, no? Given the lengthy debates on who's in and who's out, I figured I'd ask before adding him. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not so simple - this list is for crimes committed while in federal office (which is not the Agnew case) and for crimes prosecuted while in federal office (applicable) although the only charge of which he was convicted was relatively minor. In fact, some sources imply Nixon pushed for the charges. Weird. Collect (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like being Vice President makes even something minor like criminal tax evasion notable, especially since he was evading the taxes on bribes and he ended up paying over a quarter million bucks in restitution and fines, but I suppose we can wait to see what others say. There's no hurry, he isn't going anywhere. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The act did not occur while he was in federal office, and, strangely enough, the actual conviction took place after leaving federal office. Technically per lead, not covered here. Nor is he the only one in such a position. Collect (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To be precise, the article lead says "convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government." Agnew was prosecuted while in office, and he was convicted after pleading no contest, so that clearly makes him eligible. Any further comments, or are we agreed? 71.197.166.72 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically the prosecution occurred immediately after he left office - which was clearly not anticipated by the writers of this article. In fact, it appears that the prosecutor may have demanded his resignation or else other charges would be filed, but that is "material not in evidence" here. He was not "prosecuted while in office" for sure. Collect (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Only the plea and conviction came after the resignation. While he was in office there was already an ongoing "Federal grand jury investigation of Mr. Agnew in Baltimore" and the resignation and plea were the result of "an agreement with the Department of Justice to admit evasion of Federal income taxes and avoid imprisonment" ( http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1010.html ). Clearly the investigation and agreement were not begun and ended in the "minutes" between the resignation and the plea (same reference). Okay? 71.197.166.72 (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your problem is that being investigated while in office is not the criterion given for this list. See "either committed or prosecuted while holding office" does not say " alleged, investigated, suspected, committed or prosecuted while holding office."

That's true, of course. But there were prosecutors assigned to the case who negotiated the plea with Agnew's lawyers while Agnew was in office, and there was a courtroom and a judge waiting for Agnew to present his plea minutes after he left office. Doesn't that qualify as prosecution under both the letter and spirit of the scope of the article? I mean, really? 71.197.166.72 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not as written. Collect (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've heard more persuasive arguments. :-) Wiktionary defines "prosecution" as "2. (law) The institution of legal proceedings (particularly criminal) against a person." Are you really trying to claim that no legal proceedings were instituted against Agnew while he was in office? If so, could you explain your view of what "prosecution" means in the context of this article? It seems awfully narrow. I think if the intent had been to limit eligibility to those "tried" or "convicted", those words would have been used. " 71.197.166.72 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically that is correct. Unless, of course, you wish "prosecution" to mean "allegation, rumour, or investigation" but that would be an interesting exercise to attempt at Wiktionary. The "legal proceedings" definition is what we therefore must go by here. Collect (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And to close the loop, you're taking the position that "legal proceedings" don't include convening a grand jury, negotiating a plea, and arranging to have a courtroom and a judge prepared to receive the plea? I just can't agree; in common use, "legal proceedings" includes all of the official actions from the moment that someone makes an accusation. Even Black's Law Dictionary gives a simple definition of "prosecute" as "to follow up" or "to carry on an action," with "criminal action" further described this way: "The proceeding by which a party charged with a public offense is accused and brought to trial and punishment is known as a "criminal action." So in common use and in the language of the art, "prosecute" doesn't mean just the trial, even though that's the most visible portion of the process. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Try trading the sources and tell me when the "grand jury" met and filed a "true bill" please. Such a claim would need a specific reliable source, which so far has not been presented. Else we should include GWBush as a "war criminal" because foreign sources have called him one, etc. All I can find is a debate over whether a grand jury even had the power to indict [13] Collect (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agnew waived indictment before pleading guilty. ( http://100years.upi.com/sta_1973-10-13.html ) But the point is that he was already being prosecuted at that point according to the definition of "prosecution" in common use as well as the legal definitions I cited above. So are we ready to proceed now? 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And after his resignation. And it does not fit what you seem to assert is what you know about the definition of "prosecution" as is clear from the actual definition offered. You appear to conflate "investigation" with the legal term "prosecution". They are not the same word. Collect (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But we've been over that. Both the common definition of prosecution from Wiktionary and the definitions in Black's Law Dictionary reflect the plain fact that "prosecution" includes more than just the trial. So unless you have anything to add, I think we're done here.71.197.166.72 (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(od) "Prosecution" requires an actual act of prosecution - such as the issuing of an indictment. Where no such act occurred, then "prosecution" has not occurred. And Black does not assert otherwise. Indictment? After the resignation. Trial? After the resignation. "Investigation" is not prosecution under any definition. Else we should list GWBush as a War Criminal, LBJ as a War Criminal, ALincoln as a War Criminal, AJohnson as a criminal (actually "indicted" in his case by Congress), FDR as a War Criminal and so on. Accusations are cheap (as are foreign indictments quite apparently) I fear this disappoints you, but if you wish to change the article criterion "or accused of any crime" then I suggest you seek WP:CONSENSUS for such a change. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Come, sir, I've been citing the sources of my definitions. You are merely asserting. Clearly the Wiktionary definition ("the institution of") reflects that prosecution includes the work to bring an indictment, as does the simple fact that prosecutors DO that work. Black's Law Dictionary ("to follow up" (on an accusation), "accused and brought to trial") is consistent with that interpretation. Either cite sources for your view, or withdraw, lest one be forced to conclude you are being tendentious.71.197.166.72 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually your defs do not comport with what you appear to wish to assert. That can be a problem. And if you wish to alter the definition of "prosecution" I commend you to write to the OED and other dictionary editors etc. explaining why your definition is superior to their definitions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But of course they do, clearly and unambiguously. You want "prosecution" to mean "trial," but that is just a part of a much larger process. In any event, since you won't move your argument forward, I have to assume you're done, and I do thank you for your contributions here. As you suggest, I will follow the WP:CONSENSUS principles in proceeding. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Kindly avoid trying to place words in my mouth. I only look at the dictionaries - and clearly "investigation" != "prosecution" but indictment, presentment etc. are part of "prosecution." All you need do is get the dictionaries to use the definition you know is correct, rather than the wrong one they all seem to be using so far. And note that if your definition is correct, then we need to list all those others who were investigated and not prosecuted, or who were prosecuted in foreign countries, etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding Spiro Agnew

After extensive discussion with Collect, I've decided to add Spiro Agnew to the section on the Nixon presidency.

Although Collect and I disagree on whether Agnew should be included in this article, I am confident that he should be included. The article lead says it covers "convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government." There is no question that Agnew was convicted of a crime; the only question is whether he was prosecuted for it while holding Federal office.

Given the common and legal definitions of "prosecution" I brought out in our discussion, I think there's no question that Agnew was prosecuted while still in office, even though his plea and conviction took place shortly ("minutes") after resigning. Prosecution may be best known as something associated with a trial, but in practical fact, prosecution is initiated when a credible accusation is received and a decision is made by the prosecutor's office to take the case forward. (I agree that the portion of the investigation conducted by a police agency is not part of the prosecution; this is where the credibility is established that justifies the prosecution.)

Although this analysis seems conclusive in itself, it is also supported by the United States Attorney Manual, Title 9, Chapter 27, "Principles of Federal Prosecution" ( http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm ), which describes one specific act that certainly took place while Agnew was in office-- formal plea bargaining-- as an element exclusively associated with the prosecution process. Collect seems to agree that if any act exclusively associated with prosecution takes place while the subject is in office, the subject was "prosecuted while holding office." Even if we continue to disagree about the relevance of other activities, plea bargaining is unambiguous.

Since it seems to me that the letter and spirit of this article, the previous discussions here about who should and shouldn't be included in it, and the facts of the Agnew case are all consistent in supporting Agnew's inclusion, I am confident that this is the right course of action.

The text I've added is minimal by intent, avoiding anything but the bare fact of the conviction, allowing readers to seek more information on the Spiro Agnew page if desired.

I'm entirely open to further discussion on the matter, of course. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As you seem hell-bent on ignoring the clear wording in the lead of the article, I shall remove such a section. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel that I'm "hell-bent" on anything. I made a dispassionate and well-reasoned argument in favor of the change, explaining how it is fully consistent with the clear wording in the lead of the article. If you (or anyone else) would like to make a reasoned argument against the change, please do so. In the meantime, I have reverted your edit. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not fit the ambit stated in the lead. If you wish to change the lead, then start an RfC which is the proper cource of action. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have explained adequately why the edit improves the article and is fully, unambiguously, and already consistent with the existing consensus. Restoring the edit a second time in the absence of any further reasoned argument.71.197.166.72 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

per lead

The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus below is to include him. While the prosecution was made after he resigned, in theory it occurred while in office, so it is in the spirit, if not the wording, of the header. If there is an issue, then the header could be tweaked, or a note added after his name - WP:IAR covers this well enough. Mdann52 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

---

This article specifies:

This list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government. It includes politicians who were convicted or pleaded guilty in a court of law; and does not include politicians involved in unprosecuted scandals (which may or may not have been illegal in nature), or politicians who have only been arrested or indicted. The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.

Was Spiro Agnew convicted while in Federal office or prosecuted while in Federal office for "acts committed while (he) was in office"? 23:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

discussion

This is an interesting case - as the "prosecution" of Agnew was not made until after his resignation, as there were Constitutional issues involved about indicting a Vice President who was still in office (with the Constitutional lawyers stating that the prosecution of a Vice President is done by impeachment). The crimes were specifically not committed while in Federal office, which has been the standard for this list in the past. Agnew was not a wonderful person, but the novel new interpretation being sought would have us list Andrew Johnson as being prosecuted, Bill Clinton as being prosecuted (each via impeachment), and George W. Bush for "war crimes" (prosecuted in a foreign venue), and so on. My feeling is that we must abide by what the article states, and not by what we wish it states as its ambit. The term "while they were in office" clearly refers here to the anteceding "politician's tenure (in Federal office)." Collect (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Note also the preceding discussions which discussed "federal office." Collect (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agnew was prosecuted while in Federal office, and the prosecution resulted in his removal from Federal office. This statement is clearly and unambiguously factual by the traditional definitions of the words, as explained above, not by a "novel new interpretation." There is no risk that accepting this edit would also require the inclusion of Johnson, Clinton, or Bush in this article since none of them were convicted of crimes, the first and most important requirement for inclusion here. That fact seems obvious enough that simply making the argument is inappropriate. Regarding the final sentence in the article lead ("The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office"), it specifically does not say "tenure in Federal office" or "while they were in Federal office," so that reference too is a red herring. I'd be happy to participate in a discussion of changes to the text mentioning Agnew, or in a discussion of changes to the article lead, but while the lead says what it says, Agnew is within the scope of the article, and including him in the article improves the article. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

He was prosecuted after his resignation - all sources agree on that, and the crime did not occur while he was in Federal office. The Constitution provides that a Vice President would have to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be removed from office, and the Constitutional scholars determined that the simplest way was to have him resign and then plead "no contest" to a single charge. As the lead is pretty clearly about "Federal politicians" and their tenure in office, it is unreasonable to interpret it to mean "while in any office whatsoever". As for "improving the article" that is not the way things work - we only add what the article says it covers. Else we would include the "war crimes" with which a bunch of presidents have been "charged" etc. If you wish to rewrite the topic of this article, I suggest you start an RfC, but until then we pretty much stick with the coverage already given. Please also read the prior discussions on this talk page before denouncing any editor as giving "red herrings" here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You say "all sources" but you do not cite any source that says so. You say "the crime did not occur while he was in Federal office" but this is irrelevant; nothing in the article requires that condition. You offer another unsourced assertion that Agnew wasn't prosecuted while in office because he couldn't be prosecuted while in office, but this is not the majority view, as described in this New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/01/us/the-president-s-trial-news-analysis-indicting-a-president.html which states "Most legal scholars and historians believe that the President, alone among all the 'civil officers' subject to impeachment, cannot be prosecuted until he is no longer in office" and "Robert H. Bork, as the Nixon Administration's Solicitor General, had concluded that while a sitting Vice President -- Spiro T. Agnew, who pleaded no contest to tax evasion charges -- could be prosecuted, the President could not be prosecuted." You reintroduce the nonsensical red herring. But what you don't do is make any attempt to move the discussion forward by introducing new arguments or sources, as I have tried to do at every opportunity. We have an RfC in progress; let's just see how that goes. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Only NYT, WaPo and every other source at the time said that. There was a lot of discussion noted about the Constitutional requirement that removal required conviction of impeachable offenses. Thus the official "prosecution" was delayed until he resigned. This is not controverted by any sources at all. Bork != "final authority on the Constitution" which would only be SCOTUS. And the article requires "while in office" where the anteceding usage clearly refers to "Federal office". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be difficult for you to cite and quote a source saying that Agnew was "prosecuted" after his resignation. Please do so, as you are not yourself a reliable source. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I already have several times now - read the talk page - and your IDIDNTHEARTHAT is showing. The resignation occurred before any proceedings in Federal court. Certainly it is likely that the resignation was "negotiated", but the definition of "prosecution" in law dictionaries involves specific actions which took place after the resignation (that is - an indictment or presentment). Collect (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean THIS talk page? Because I am sure there is no statement by you on this page in which you cite a source that says Agnew was "prosecuted" after resigning. Being sure doesn't mean I'm right, of course, but if I'm wrong, please point out that statement. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. I saw this discussion mentioned on NYBs talk page.[14] My take is that Agnew both committed the crime (receiving part of the bribe money while VP) and was prosecuted (in court as defendant at the moment he resigned).[15] . Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is we require a conviction for that crime - and he was not convicted of taking monies as Vice President. The court prosecution was specifically held after his resignation (for whatever reasons). As a result, IMO, he does not strictly fall into the ambit f this list - the crime of which he was convicted occurred prior to him being in Federal office, and was not prosecuted while he was in Federal office. We can not say on our own "but he committed ongoing crimes while in Federal office" because the charge of which he was convicted did not contain that element. We could rewrite the topic of this list, but, as I noted, it would open up a large window for others who were later convicted of crimes where the crimes of which they were convicted had naught to do with tenure in "Federal office." I think including crimes of which they were not convicted would be a real quagmire. Collect (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alan, you see that Collect and I agree on this point, as I predicted below (before he top-posted here). To be fair to the subjects, and to keep Wikipedia's coverage manageable and objective, we can only consider the specific crimes of which a person was convicted. What's more interesting to me in Collect's response here is that it effectively proposes a more reasonable basis for determining the relevance of an elected official's crime: did the crime adversely affect the subject's "tenure in Federal office"? I think there are at least two reasons to say it did, and others may wish to define more: 1) Did the crime occur while the subject was in Federal office? 2) Did the crime interfere with the subject's ability to serve? In Agnew's case, it's clear that the crime of which he was convicted didn't occur while he was in Federal office (only "while in office" as the article currently requires), but it did ultimately prevent him from serving out his term of office, thus thwarting the will of the voters who put him there. I think that in this case, that's the criterium that really matters. As a proposal to improve the lead, whether or not Collect intended it that way, I see some definite advantages in it. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with "consider[ing] the specific crimes of which a person was convicted." Having considered it, and his order to "pay $160,000 and a 10,000 fine for tax evasion" even for failure to report which arose in 1968, and the specific evidence stated by the Justice Department at the time ("as vice president, Agnew had continued to take money for past favors, and he had received some of the payments in his White House office."), Editorially, it only makes good sense to include it, in this list of acts in office (continued "evasion") and for prosecution (as he was defendant in court when he resigned).[16] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect Collect and I may have the same response here-- since the only crime of which Agnew was convicted involved his 1967 income taxes, he certainly wasn't convicted of a crime that he committed while he was Vice President. But he was certainly "in office" when he committed the crime, as the article requires, and he was certainly holding the office of Vice President when he was prosecuted for it. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, receiving the money was "acts in office" and that is certainly part of why he was in court that day. When a prosecutor plea bargains they hold all the bad acts over the defendants head to get them to accept the agreed to charge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The conviction was for a charge before he entered Federal office. Are you saying we should include all convictions for any crimes before being in Federal office, even though the lead clearly states that "office" with "federal" in the anteceding use is what is required? Do you understand just how wide a window is thus opened? Not just Agnew? Collect (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

First, was it? He failed to report that he earned a stream of income when he earned it (part of the stream extended into the VP office). Even regardless, the prosecution encompassed those acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

NYT stated the single charge involved was for 1967, and we know it was a "single charge." So yes - I think the charge was for acts before he became VP. Collect (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That does not answer my point ("Even as vice president, Agnew had continued to take money for past favors, and he had received some of the payments in his White House office." Per the Senate biography, I linked.), and as to your request on other cases, I do not know of any cases like his. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we use "neither charged nor convicted" crimes in this article? Sorry -- I find that be t a real quagmire. The charge was for 1967. The prosecution was after his resignation. But saying in any way "we can use crimes of which he was accused but never prosecuted and obviously not convicted" flies in the face of the ambit of this list. Collect (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note also the 2012 RfC which had settled this - except for one sockmaster who was caught at the time. See above onthis talk page. Collect (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote: "He [criminally] failed to report that he earned a stream of income when he earned it (part of the stream extended into the VP office)." He would have filed for 67 in 1968, and [criminally] failed to amend in 69, 70, 71, 72. The only thing "suggested" by that is that some acts extend over years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What matters is the actual charge of which he was convicted. That charge was specifically for 1967. It is OR at best to suggest that the charge included the years through 1972. I am sorry if that was in any way unclear whatsoever. Also note that wording before this article was retitled with a misspelling<g> was exceedingly clear. I rather think we should at some point limit the list to felonies committed while holding federal office, as right now we include DUIs etc. which scarcely seem sufficiently encyclopedically important. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about the actual charge for which he was convicted - it's the type of charge that encompasses acts after the income year of 1967. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source stating that Agnew pled guilty to charges other than for 1967 explicitly? We can not use original research to say "but that charge might have encompassed years after 1968" per policy. Collect (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that you don't file in the income year, so yes that's explicitly sourced. It's already sourced that he didn't get on the right side of the law with the feds, so much so, that he did not contest his guilt, took the felony conviction, and had to pay them back after all those years of criminally avoiding his liability and collecting the money in his Whitehouse office. I am confident editorially, that is enough "acts", you disagree, so be it. I am also confident that he was prosecuted while in office because you don't show up in federal court and just plead that day. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(od) Wikipedia does not use "common knowledge" but requires reliable sources making claims. And in fact it is not all that rare to be officially charged and settled in a single day, so we can not use that either. Sorry. Collect (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ofcourse we do, Wikipedia editorial judgments are made on common sense. Your not even disputing that tax filings are not made in the income year. As for charged and settled that does not mean that prosecution has not taken place, it did not all happen in that day, sorry. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry -- but we are not allowed to use anything other than what sources state. To use our own "knowledge" is called "original research" and is barred by policy. If you wish to alter that policy, then make the changes on the policy pages. Until then, we are stuck with following the rules in place. Or you can find a source clearly stating that Agnew pled guilty to a crime encompassing 1969 or later (when he was VP). Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, common sense is already in WP:Consensus. The sources state he was plea bargaining while he was VP; also that he was at the plea hearing when he resigned; and the sources state he pled guilty and paid for acts which spanned the time period while he was in office. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Common sense" is not a source. Try [17] and note the wording thereon. ""I hereby resign the office of Vice President of the United States, effective immediately," Mr. Agnew declared in a formal statement delivered at 2:05 P.M. to Secretary of State Kissinger, as provided in the Succession Act of 1792. Minutes later, Mr. Agnew stood before United States District Judge Walter E. Hoffman in a Baltimore courtroom, hands barely trembling, and read from a statement in which he pleaded nolo contendere, or no contest, to a Government charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, when he was Governor of Maryland." Showing that the nolo plea was after the resignation. And the crime was before he became VP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You've not contradicted what I said, "minutes later" does not, and he was plea negotiating in the weeks before that day according to the Senate biography.[18]. And we've already gone over your other point on which we disagree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The plea and charge were made after the resignation per NYT and all the other sources. The crime was specifically dated as 1967. That is what matters, not that he was "plea bargaining" (inapt use - it was "resignation bargaining") twenty years prior - "prosecution" does not occur until a presentation in a court or an indictment is filed. By the way, not all indictments ever get filed. I know you do not like this, but we stick by what the facts are. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I know you don't like this but you are simply wrong: "Meanwhile, Agnew's attorneys had entered into plea bargaining with the federal prosecutors. In return for pleading nolo contendere, or no contest, to the tax charge and paying $160,000 in back taxes (with the help of a loan from Frank Sinatra), he would receive a suspended sentence and a $10,000 fine. On October 10, 1973, while Spiro T. Agnew appeared in federal court in Baltimore, his letter of resignation was delivered to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger." [19] Your claim to controvert that with your reading of a news primary source of the day is contrary to Wikipedia norms, even if you were making common sense conclusions from what you have read, which you are not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect, it is ironic that you would insist we "stick by what the facts are" because there are two factual errors here. 1) The plea was filed after the resignation, but the plea and charge were "made"-- in the sense of defined and agreed to by both sides-- before the resignation, which is conclusive proof that Agnew was prosecuted while in office. Those are undeniably elements of prosecution as defined by Wiktionary, Black's Law Dictionary, and the United States Attorney Manual, all cited above. 2) Nothing in this case happened "twenty years prior" to the resignation. I assume you are merely being flippant, but considering how (properly) consistent you are in your demands for correctness by others, such flippancy suggests that perhaps you are less sincerely interested in correctness per se and more interested in having your way. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(od) The plea is made when it is made in court and only then. Fact. Wiktionary != legal dictionary. Fact. The charge was specifically about 1967 and only about 1967. Fact. Agnew was not in federal office in 1967. Fact. I am simply following Wikipedia policy here, and regret your attack on me personally. Collect (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wiktionary != legal dictionary." = WP:WL. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Fact: Agnew was in court for the plea hearing when he was Vice President. Fact: He plea bargained with prosecutors when he was Vice President. Fact: He evaded paying the taxes he owed all through his Vice Presidency. Fact: He was convicted of tax evasion and ordered pay $160,000. and a $10,000 fine on an initial $29,500 failure to report income - a failure to report that he continued while in the Vice Presidency. Fact: The Justice Department found he received money while he was Vice President. Fact: He did not pay the money to the government when he legally owed it to them continuing to evade his tax obligation during the time he was Vice President and - he was convicted of evasion and ordered to pay for it all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Alan, though I appreciate your support on the relevant issues here, I think it's important to understand that Wikipedia policy says we don't accuse people of crimes that haven't been proven, even if an impartial analysis of all the available facts leads inescapably to an obvious conclusion. By policy, Wikipedia would not say Agnew evaded taxes while Vice President because he wasn't convicted of that crime. I don't even think Wikipedia policy allows us to refer to reliable sources making that claim. Even if there was an official statement by the US Department of Justice claiming that Agnew evaded income taxes while Vice President, without a conviction, it would still be just an unproven assertion-- and I don't think there's any such statement on the record, only third parties passing along hearsay that this was the case. Before we could include that kind of material anywhere in Wikipedia, it would require a massive change in site-wide policy, and I don't think that's going to happen. All we can say here is that he was convicted of one specific crime, which is enough to justify his inclusion in this article. Here we're only looking to build consensus on whether (or more correctly now, how) to represent the facts about Agnew in this article, and below, I'm looking to build consensus on how to improve the article overall by resolving the contradictions in the lede. While I have a lot of sympathy for your position in this side argument, it isn't helping to move us toward our immediate goals. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the sources, he was convicted of evading taxes until he was hauled into court and paid it - that's how evasion works, you don't report and you don't pay and you continue in that conduct until criminal conviction. That's not accusing him of anything but the facts of the matter - and is enough for the "acts" prong of the editorial test in my view. Why that would not assist in consensus building is odd, but I certainly understand that others look at it differently (that continuing acts of omission despite him being convicted of evasion somehow don't count) - so I've said my piece in the hope that it may, because consensus is built on laying out ones thoughts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you know, I think I understand your point now. Sorry if I was just being dense, but I now get that you're contending that Agnew's "tax evasion" doesn't consist of an instantaneous offense but of a continuous violation from 1968 until he paid the taxes he owed. If that's true, it would certainly make this whole situation a lot clearer, since Agnew would undeniably have been committing a crime while in Federal office. I looked at the [IRS Tax Crimes Handbook] and I see that page 2 describes the "two kinds of tax evasion" defined in section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 7201), the second of which is "evasion of payment", which "generally occurs after the existence of a tax due and owing has been established (either by the taxpayer reporting the amount of tax or by the I.R.S. assessing the amount of tax deemed to be due and owing) and almost always involves an affirmative act of concealment of money or assets from which the tax could be paid." Apparently these definitions go back to 1965, since the primary reference is given as "Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351 (1965)". However, the "affirmative acts" requirement (explained in some detail in paragraph 1-1.04-[2] in the Tax Crimes Handbook) means that evasion of payment is not a violation that takes place over a period of time while the taxes are not paid; it IS an offense that takes place at some specific time(s). Going back to the Agnew case in particular, I just can't find any source saying that Agnew was charged with "evasion of payment" vs. the first kind of tax evasion, which is "evasion of assessment," the kind that applies when someone files a false tax return. And I can't find any source saying that Agnew was accused of taking any affirmative action during his tenure as Vice President to evade the assessment OR avoid the payment. So... maybe you should look into this yourself, and I'd be happy to see what you find out, but for me, for now, I don't think your contention holds up. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, Agnew would fit in perfectly under the "State and Local" parallel list to this one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I understand your position on that, but the fact remains he was convicted of a federal crime and removed from a federal office. I think it's important for this article to reflect crimes that interfere with the subject's federal service. I believe most people would expect to find Agnew here with other federal politicians who were forced out of office regardless of whether the crimes were federal or not. Or, of course, the article could be recast as "List of US federal politicians convicted of federal crimes" except then we'd really need at least four articles of this type (federal vs. state politicians, federal vs. state crimes). I think it's better to just have two articles, and have subjects like Agnew in both of them (because he committed his crime while in a state office, and because he was removed from a federal office). 71.197.166.72 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You do not quite fully grasp my points. The editorial standard is "stem from acts" - that's not a legal standard because this is not a court (and it would be poor judgement to treat it as if it were because this is a lay produced general interest encyclopedia). Agnew in the plea was adjudged liable for significantly more money than he owed in 1968 - the reason for that is so, is because over the course of his Vice Presidency his acts of omission included not paying it: Meeting the editorial standard, as an act of omission is an act for which he was adjudged liable in criminal court. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Secondary reliable source for your specific claim? Collect (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

? I've already supplied the secondary source for the $160,000, and the cite for the 29,500 is already on this page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned here by bot. Agnew belongs on this list. If the language does not permit it, it should be tweaked so that it does. He quit because of his crimes. Let's not split hairs. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Also summoned here by bot. Agree fully with what Coretheapple said succinctly. Spiro Agnew belongs on the list. In fact, I don't even see why the distinction has to be made about it happening after they are in office. You don't call people "former" politicians but politicians. Wikimandia (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• OTOH the crime was committed as a State official, so he can clearly be on that list. Collect (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed revisions to lead paragraph

The current lead paragraph says:

This list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government. It includes politicians who were convicted or pleaded guilty in a court of law; and does not include politicians involved in unprosecuted scandals (which may or may not have been illegal in nature), or politicians who have only been arrested or indicted. The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.

I think there is consensus that the first and last sentences are at least partially contradictory. The first sentence says that "crimes... prosecuted while holding office in the federal government" are in scope, but the last sentence says that some such crimes don't count. This exception dates back to before the list was restricted to federal politicians, and in my opinion at least, does not make sense because it may tend to exclude some subjects that truly ought to be included in the article, subjects that any reader would reasonably expect to find here given the title of the article, which (I believe) is clearly expressed and makes good sense.

So I'd like to propose a new lead that is generally similar to this one, but clearer and easier to interpret. My intention is to implement this three-part basic standard for inclusion:

• The subjects included in the article must have been US federal politicians, and
• Each must have been convicted of a crime, and
• The crime must have had a material adverse effect on the subject's tenure in federal office.

I am not sure I can list all possible material adverse effects, but I am sure that at least these things qualify:

• The crime was committed while the subject was in federal office, or
• The crime was prosecuted while the subject was in federal office, or
• The subject was convicted while in federal office, or
• The subject resigned or was removed from federal office.

Any of these conditions implies that the subject failed in some way to carry out the duties of the office or that the subject's ability to carry out those duties was impaired, for example by taking the subject's time away from those duties, distracting the subject from those duties, or reducing the public's confidence in the subject.

If more such conditions can be defined, thus justifying the addition of more names to the list, I think that's fine. I think it's more important to find good reasons to expand the list than to shrink it, as long as the basic standard is met. We can always discuss and achieve consensus on new conditions as they are proposed, now or later.

As far as the definitions of the words used here, my intention is that they all mean what they normally mean. Politicians are those who are in office as the result of a political process such as an election. Federal office means an elected office in the US federal government; a career politician appointed to some non-elected position (e.g. cabinet secretary, chief of staff, ambassadorship, etc.) doesn't qualify because they are serving as an employee, not a politician. (I do intend to include those appointed to elected office by a superior office-holder in exceptional cases, such as filling a vacancy until the next election, even if the person wasn't previously a politician, because in such a case the person IS serving as a politician... but we could talk about that.) Convictions can be the result of a trial or a confession. Crimes are those defined by the relevant criminal codes. Removal from office may be the result of any legal process including but not limited to impeachment.

So here's what I propose the new lead should say:

This list consists of American federal politicians convicted of crimes that had a material adverse effect on their tenure in federal office. It includes only federal politicians who were convicted in a court of law, not those who have only been arrested or indicted, those involved in unprosecuted scandals, or appointees to non-elected offices. Material adverse effects include at least these conditions:

• The crime was committed while the subject was in federal office.
• The crime was prosecuted while the subject was in federal office.
• The subject was convicted while in federal office.
• The subject resigned or was removed from federal office.

I welcome all comments. Please note that I do not intend this section to be used to discuss what the article lead DOES say, only what it SHOULD say. Also, I'd like to thank Collect for contributing several of the ideas I've used in this proposal, although any infelicities are entirely my own responsibility. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Adverse effect" is a non-starter as intrinsically being ill-defined. The criterion should be whether a felony was committed by the person while in Federal office, and the person convicted thereof. DUIs etc. should not be here, for example.

This is a list of elected Federal officials who were convicted of felonies which were committed while they were in office.

Simple, and would remove some of the really minor examples currently in the list. And we should also correct the typo in the name of the article while we are at it. And eliminate all the "second assistant deputy secretaries of the interior" who may not even be "politicians" in the usual sense of the word, as well as judges who frequently were not "politicians" in the usual sense of the word either.. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "adverse effect" should not be used without being defined, which is why I included an explicit definition. Your proposed sentence actually WOULD literally require the inclusion of those convicted of felony DUIs and other offenses that might have no significant political consequences. It would also include Agnew, since he was an elected federal official who was convicted of a felony that was committed while he was in office. I support correcting the typo, but that's out of scope for this section. I agree, and already specifically proposed, that we should not include cabinet secretaries and the like. The one interesting difference in your proposal is that it doesn't require that subjects be politicians at all, just that they be elected to office. Was that your intention? It's actually not a bad idea, as it removes a requirement that can be a judgment call at times. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

However we also have a parallel list for state and local politicians: This list includes American politicians at the state and local levels who have been convicted of crimes they committed in office. Agnew clearly does fall into that category for listing. By the way, where it is a "felony DUI" then, indeed, it ought to be listed here. As a general rule "elections" involve people voting - which seems a good solid and direct criterion. How many elections might you name where no voting occurs? "A person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office" is one definition. "Someone who is active in government usually as an elected official" is another. [20] moreover is clear: "Political office: the name given to the government office that is obtained by an election." So the use of an election as a criterion is borne out by sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about appointees to what is normally an elected office? Or from the other side of it, how do you feel about career politicians who happen to be serving in an appointed position such as cabinet secretary? You previously said, and I agree, that "second assistant deputy secretaries of the interior" shouldn't be included, but some of those office-holders were career politicians before being appointed. If the definition refers to "politicians", you know someone's going to show up here and interpret that reference as a license to include them. It would be better to avoid that problem. Omitting that word also offers a way past the previous controversy in which no consensus could be reached on the definition of "politician". 71.197.166.72 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Where an office is generally defined as an "elected office", I suggest we go by the usual situation - Ford as VP was unique, and usually congresspersons (including senators) are appointed for a maximum of under two years. As for political cabinet members - I think that is not absolutely clear - Surgeons-General are rarely appointed as politicians <g>, so the criterion should be whether the office is sufficiently political as to be used. On the whole, I suspect anyone more than "one degree of separation from the President" should not be listed if we could word that more elegantly - certainly "third assistant undersecretary of the Interior" is a very minor position no matter how ne looks at it. I also would avoid judges as (with very few exceptions over the years) they are not part of the partisan election process. In fact, although a lot of noise gets made, the vast majority of judicial appointees at the federal level are pretty much mainstream. And the loons don't get arrested <g>. (note the <g> there, I do not want anyone to get angry!)

So what about "A politician is a person who holds or seeks elective office" as the initial step - then "A federal politician is a person who holds or seeks federal elective office, including anyone appointed to finish an incomplete term of another person, or a person who is directly appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate for a non-judicial federal office" which is not all that elegant but covers the initial gist I think we could agree on. Yes it would still include the Surgeon-General, but other than that I think it would work. And this would end up including Ambassadors unless we can find an elegant way to exclude them. Close? What changes would help? Collect (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds generally okay to me, but I don't feel like I have a good understanding of how that definition would affect the existing article. Could you scan through the article as it exists, and particularly think back about people who were opposed or removed, and summarize any conspicuous changes that would be caused by adopting this new definition? I confess I'm still attracted to the idea of removing the word "politician" entirely in favor of a more readily evaluated definition based on "elected office", including those directly appointed by the President. I've scanned through the article myself with that definition in mind, and I think everyone in there now would still be in there. Since I wasn't around for any of the previous arguments (truly, I wasn't) I don't know if anyone not in the article now would be included by that definition, so I'd appreciate any insight you can offer on that point as well. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

removable under more stringent standards

John Pickering (judge)

Grant's unnamed associates ("Whiskey Ring")

1921-3 Forbes and Miller (minor unelected positions)

1923-9 English (judge - and not even convicted AFAICT here)

1963-9 Ted Kennedy (not felony)

1977-81 "Koreagate" (convictions seem missing now - but Richard T. Hanna should actually be added for a gain of one entry)

1981-9 2 judges

Iran-Contra Affair where the only "official" is Abrams who was all of Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs which is pretty far down

1989-93 2 Judges and the "Treasurer of the United States" whose only function is to make the second signature on dollar bills. Very far down any political totem pole, and likely lower than Ambassador to Mongolia <g>

1993-2001

Oakar (non felony)

Murphy (one non-felony at end of the day)

Sanders (wow Deputy Assistant United States Secretary of the Navy, for Reserve Affairs - some major political office)

2001-9 Larry Craig (non felony "lewd conduct")

Fossella (non felony with 5 day sentence)

Libby (Cheney Chief of Staff -- likely right on the dividing line in any event - high enough to be noticed,but not a "political office" as such - the Chief of Staff to a VP is basically carrier of John Nance Garner's spittoon <g>

2009-

3 judges (none of whom appear to be politicians per se)

Mike Crapp (what a name!) (non felony)

Trey Radel (non felony)

7 removals for non-felony, 1 added , 7 judges out, 6 pretty minor folks out (I did not yank Agnew for this exercise even though I find him a better fit for the "state and local" list as showing when the crimes took place), and one "catchall" removed where no one except the president (Grant) is named in the list, and he had nothing directly to do with the scandal AFAICT - his private secretary (Gen. Babcock) was acquitted.

Too much of a change in nature of the list? The non-felonies seem to be worth removing - including Kennedy at this point. Collect (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this work, it's much appreciated. Some comments, all pretty much just WP:JDLI at this point pending deeper thought. Kennedy probably should be dropped, because while Chappaquiddick certainly interfered to some extent with his job performance and trustworthiness, the convictions were minor and ultimately he wasn't forced out, he was re-elected instead. I think it's appropriate to respect the voters' choice here. Abrams could go either way, since he was a political appointee approved by the Senate, which would seem to meet your proposed standard, but I agree he's pretty far down and the charges were fairly trivial. I'd rather have a standard that makes his inclusion easier to decide. Robert Collins and Walter Nixon were both Presidential appointees, and both were forced from office for felony crimes while in office, which (to me) is the sort of situation that justifies inclusion here. Villalpando was a very high-profile case, a Presidential appointee who ended up with multiple felony convictions and a prison term. While Treasurer isn't intended to be a position of much political importance, Villalpando exploited the position pretty effectively. I would like to see a standard that keeps her in the article. I agree about Oakar. Murphy shouldn't be here under the current rules; his only conviction was for a non-federal crime long after he left federal service. Sanders' conviction was federal in nature but also long after his federal service, so he shouldn't be here either. Craig is also borderline, but I'd lean toward removing him; same for Fossella. I think Libby had a significant political role in the Bush administration; he was simultaneously Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President for at least some of that time, according to a reference in his Wikipedia article. He was convicted of a felony during his time in office and was removed from office as a result. I'd like to see a standard that keeps him in the article. Of the three post-2009 judges, Kent was impeached and resigned while facing federal felony charges; Porteous was impeached and convicted for federal felonies (significantly, crimes against the federal government itself); Camp was convicted of federal felonies and removed from office. I'd include them all. Kray-poh's crimes were state misdemeanors and have had no clear effect on his tenure in office, so I'd drop him. Radel's case is unusual because I believe it's true that he has no official criminal record now-- but he did resign from federal office due to a criminal conviction. I'd go along with whatever outcome results from the adoption of a sensible standard. My conclusion from all this is that I see alignment between felony convictions and inclusion, and between removal from office and inclusion, but no alignment between the "politician" status and inclusion or between the "judge" status and inclusion. But again, just one person's opinion here. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure whether "assistant to the President" per se is a substantial "political office" alas. I still think judges in general, even if removed for felonies, are not considered "politicians" and would prefer to err on the side of exclusion in such cases. And while I know Villalpando evaded taxes, the office of Treasurer is pretty meaningless in fact, having essentially no control over anything at all other than announcing the new currency designs[21] with a sentence of only four months in prison and nothing in the papers about her release which would typically have been earlier than four months. Let's keep Libby and ditch the judges, ok? While they all had political parties attached to their names, they generally did not engage in political activity as such. And, of course, reword the introduction to the list which I suspect you could do? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't always the office that is political; sometimes it's the actions of the office holder, or the expressed intent of the elected official who made the appointment. Or the political significance may be in the public reaction to an appointment-- or to a removal from office. We the people have been given good reasons to believe that judges are often appointed for political reasons, which gives us a good reason to learn when and how these appointments go wrong. In particular, people should be able to find out from Wikipedia if a particular President has been associated with an unusually high incidence of criminal behavior by appointees. Also, the judiciary is a co-equal branch of the Federal government; I can't come up with any good reason to say that this article covers only the other two branches. Would you support creating a similar article covering only federal judges? I wouldn't. I think it's more important for this article to represent a complete view of criminality by senior federal office holders than to narrow in on only senior elected federal office holders. Whether you meant it this way or not, I still like how your earlier proposed definition neatly sidestepped the whole problem by just not referring to "politicians." I really don't care whether the subjects of the article are "politicians" or not; the consequences of the crime are more important than the employment history of the criminal. We agree that crimes of little or no political significance shouldn't be included, and I'm sure we can agree on some way to express that point in the selection criteria. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So far there is no evidence that felonies by judges have anything at all with their party or who appointed them. So much for that <g>. Judgeships are not partisan political offices, thus judges are not generally called "politicians." And yes - if you wanted a List of Federal judges convicted of felonies I would not object. Just that they are not "politicians" under the normal definitions. Would that work for you? Collect (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "politicians" in the title of this article was not written with the Finger of God. I believe that word is the root of the problems here, and I think the article would be much improved by its removal. I know it's there now, and I respect the consensus-building efforts of those who put it there, but I think there's plenty of evidence that that consensus was not strong or lasting. I think keeping the word around leaves us with no good way to resolve the confusion and ambiguities associated non-politicians elected to office and appointed to normally elected office, politicians holding non-elected offices, nominally apolitical judges being the subject of partisan political processes, and so on. History suggests that if we continue to define this article in terms of "politicians," there will be no end to the bickering. Having re-opened that discussion, we should resolve it more correctly this time. I don't know if all my Wikipiety and wit can lure us back to cancel half a line, but as long as there's hope, I'm going to keep trying. On the other hand, if you are irreconcilably opposed and no one else wants to chime in, I don't think I have anything else to add. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Politicians" was added apparently to differentiate this list from a host of similar lists which have been around, not to mention "lists of scandals" and the like. Changing it now would likely upset the trichotomies or quadrichotomies already made. And "federal" was added because it had an unwieldy number of minor folks. One editor in December sought to rename it to "List of American federal office holders convicted of crimes" which was likely to also be messy. Earlier " List of American politicians convicted of crimes". Before that "Convicted politicians". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you editing the article to standards not yet agreed upon?Polarpark (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A dialog of two is not consensus.Polarpark (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Because a man arrested on a misdemeanor charge for possibly being gay is not actually something which Wikipedia should make a big deal over -- let's stick to actual crimes. And John Adams did not own the Alien and Sedition Acts - your desire to attach his name is just a tad silly. Also people who are not politicians should not be listed as such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So what started as a discussion about Spiro Agnew has turned into a redefinition of 'federal', 'politician', 'crime' and 'office'? If you wish to discuss Senator Craig or John Adams please do so. But you do not have the right to make massive revisions on this or any other article until they are thoroughly discussed and agreed upon. Eliminating or moving huge chunks of the article without consensus is vandalism. Continuing reverts based on your own assumptions is warring. I see you have started an RfC. Based on the rambling discussions above, may I suggest we take the issues one at a time?Polarpark (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to have some uniform standards in an article subject in large part to WP:BLP is commonsense - and the colloquy above shows this was not done as "vandalism" as you seem to shout. I iterate my comments above about the ambit of this list. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There are three questions in this RFC.

1. Should misdemeanors be listed as "crimes" in this list? I find that the majority opinion is that they should. The replies appear to follow WP:NOTPAPER though it was not mentioned. Concerns about what kinds of misdemeanors should be listed were raised, but not addressed enough to form any consensus.
2. Should people who have not held or run for political office be considered "politicians" for purposes of this list? There was no consensus on this issue. The arguments for and against were pretty evenly split and both had merit. Some wanted just those who ran, others wanted staff members, and confirmed appointments included.
3. Should John Adams be identified as the owner of the Alien and Sedition Acts? There is no consensus on this issue.

I hope this helps. AlbinoFerret

---

Should misdemeanors be listed as "crimes" in this list? Should people who have not held or run for political office be considered "politicians" for purposes of this list? Should John Adams be identified as the owner of the Alien and Sedition Acts? 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

discussion

I suggest that the answer is "no" in each case. First of all, most misdemeanors do not even get covered about people - singling out a noted person for a misdemeanor just because it was found by an editor here is simply incorrect in my opinion (Craig, Kennedy inter alia). Second, "politician" is generally considered to involve elected or high appointed office. Minor bureaucrats who do not wield "political power" are too minor to have here. Lastly, I can find no source asserting such ownership. Collect (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

In the common language, any one who runs for political office is certainly a politician. There is no requirement that to be a politician one must be successful in obtaining the office being sought. Hmains (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Note the language "held or run" above in the actual RfC. My comment is about "elected office" which does not mean the person was elected to the office, but that the office is one for which an election is held, in case that caused confusion. Collect (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Summoned here once again by bot. The bot sure loves this article! To answer your questions: yes, only elected officials. Yes, including misdemeanors. That's a crime too, and if you don't believe me, try committing one and see how the court system reacts. As for Mr. Adams, I have no opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Also brought back by the bot. Agree with coretheapple above. And absolutely misdemeanors should be on here too - some of these misdemeanors could be plea bargains down from a felony (eg drunk driving). Wikimandia (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • • Note "misdemeanors" [22] can include failure to stop at a stop sign, or being caught at a speed trap. Do we want that Pandora's box opened here? (I think I could find over five hundred entries within a week in such a case). [23] is an example where such "crimes were removed. See also [[24]] about the use of Infobox criminal. Collect (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Collect above- No in each case. Misdemeanors are rarely noteworthy for any reason, and "people who wield political power" as a stand-in for politician is too vague in this case. Macrowriter (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Collect and Macrowriter above. The primary difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is the amount of jail time that a person may be sentenced to serve. Anything over one year is considered a felony. If we start listing all misdemeanor offenders, we will have thousands of people to list. Madeinmontana (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition and Inclusion of Politicians

If any article needs a concrete definition, it's this one. POLITICIAN - someone who is active in government, usually as an elected official. A definition as only an elected official seems too small, a definition of, anyone active in government, seems too big. May I suggest a definition of anyone elected to office, their appointees and staff. Further, I would accept Collects suggestion to include anyone seeking elected office as well as the heads of political parties. And I would include misdemeanor only if they led to bigger consequences such as resignation. Polarpark (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In DC alone that covers over 5,000 people. Adding in Embassy staff, etc. and "third assistant secretaries for toilet paper" adds up. Even if we restricted this to "requiring Senate confirmation" as a possible choice, that is still 1400 people at any one time in that one group. Plus Congress + staff etc. likely way over 5000 in DC alone. Way too big a population to keep under any rational sense of control. Can we try to make this remotely a manageable universe? Collect (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's already manageable. Of all those thousands of people plus appointees plus staff who are ELIGIBLE to be considered for this list, only a very few are NOTABLE and even fewer are CONVICTED. Look at the list, 200 years of politics and it wasn't too long at all. Quite manageable indeed.Polarpark (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree with Collect, but not quite. Cabinet officers should probably be considered "politicians," although they don't run for the job. I don't think congressional staff should be included, or for that matter, judges either, although they apparently are included. Misdemeanors might deserve inclusion in the case of prominent officials, but not those of lower rank - just Congress and the cabinet, perhaps.

Re John Adams, what on earth do you mean by "owner"? He was president when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, and he sponsored them, but he wasn't the "owner." I don't think he needs to be named; if anybody wants to know about the acts they can look up the article on them. Wallace McDonald (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Cabinet members are Senate confirmed - and belong. Third assistant undersecretaries do not seem to fit the description. And the fact is I think John Adams absolutely does not need to be named here - we agree. If you read above, I strongly suggested that Judges in general are not "politicians" and should be removed. Are you sure you aren't me? <g> Collect (talk)

I’m afraid you don’t understand the federal government. The President is required to appoint people to fill thousands of federal positions. About 700 require Senate approval. About 3,700 do not require Senate approval. NOT 5000+ as you assert. Naturally, all these positions are filled with close friends, party regulars and big donors. People who can be counted on to fulfill the presidents political agenda. People like Bush’s ‘hell of a job, Brownie’, Michael Brown and Obama’s ambassadors. Sometimes they are even called assistant secretaries. These are the folks who actually do the work and run the country. They can all be counted on (more or less) to follow the Presidents lead and his party line (since their jobs depend on it) and if any of them commit a crime and are convicted of something, they should be listed here. That averages to about 10 per administration. Yes, to list them all could take an encyclopedia, but wait, this IS an encyclopedia.Polarpark (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article you think meets RS says 1200 to 1400. You forget, alas , that many thousands do not get filled every term -- the number of appointees in DC etc. is, in fact, way over 1400. [25] total is over 3000 for substantive appointments. This list used to include people down three levels - who clearly are not "politicians." In fact, a level where the numbers get well over 5000. But heck -- all I ask is that you list all the Congressmen who left at the start of the Civil War first -- just to be fair. Collect (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Be true to the title - Both Felony and Misdemeanor are crimes, Misdemeanor does include prostitution, drugs, DUI, assault, petty theft, trespass, and generally up to a year in jail plus their life is toast. If that doesn't appeal because class 3 and 4 misdemeanors are petty, then I suggest editing the header and title to reflect what the article is to be and do not presume what that will be -- be true to the title and description as they are now and change article only after and if they change. (p.s. I see some listed that do Not seem a crime, even a misdemeanor -- Durenberger listed for 'unethical' and Eilberg for conflict-of-interest  ?) Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A pretty quick look finds that we would likely have a few thousand entries -- especially if we include every DUI and speeding ticket. I yanked Teddy Kennedy - but if we count all "misdemeanors" he would get a whole paragraph to himself <g>. Collect (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• No to all the changes, I don't see much wrong with this article. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Shadyglenns (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• IMHO all politicians should be held responsible for their actions. Every last one of them. Whether elected, appointed, hired, selected or assigned they are working for an elected politician to carry out his vision of government. They are therefore political and therefore politicians. Every judge, every committee head, every staff secretary. If convicted they should be listed here. I see a previous RfC has recommended ‘’’no consensus’’’ for a change and I agree there should be no change in the current inclusion requirements.Newlenp (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Collect et al, main argument seems to be that to include everyone would make the article too long. I suggest he look at Special:Longpages for comparison.Newlenp (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Matthew Lyon was convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. I have no idea what John Adams owned or why.Newlenp (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• And I see no problem with adding all of the Confederate politicians if they were convicted of something, just to be fair.Newlenp (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Article Name and sections

Should this page be moved to United States federal politicians convicted of crimes as there is no entity called the American Government?

Also, should there be consistency in naming the sections? Other than those presidents where the full name is necessary for clarity, some list only the last name, while others have the full name (e.g. Herbert Hoover) and some are labeled Presidency while others are Administration.Goldnpuppy (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried - but ran into an insufficient power to correct the spelling oddity <g>. "American" is a usual term for the US, but US is not a bad choice. No objections seem likely, in fact. Collect (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118205953/http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/matthew_lyons.aspx to http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/matthew_lyons.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

James E. Gaines: 6 not 33 months

As of 2017-01-25, under Reagan: Executive branch, this says, "James E. Gaines, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy ... was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity and theft ... . He was sentenced to six months in prison.[74] He was sentenced to 33 months in prison." I will delete the last sentence, since it has no reference and was contradicted by the reference for six months. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Complete the time sequence + fix an error

As of 2017-01-25, this article has a few gaps and an error.

ERROR: Wm McKinley was president 1897-1901, not 1891-1895, as listed before I looked at it; I fixed that.

RECENT GAP: 1909-1921, the presidencies of Taft (R) and Wilson (D). I added an entry with that title and a note saying, <No criminal convictions of American federal politicians found by contributors to this article>

EARLIER GAP: One entry currently says, "1777–1868". I revised that to say "1777-1891". This gives full coverage from 1777 to the present.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. 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/20070928075028/http://www.chicagoreporter.com/2001/1-2001/sentencing/Mel.htm to http://www.chicagoreporter.com/2001/1-2001/sentencing/Mel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120102554/http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081899/criminalclass3-081899.htm to http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081899/criminalclass3-081899.htm
• 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711135055/http://nytimes/ to http://www.nytimes/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711135055/http://nytimes/ to http://www.nytimes/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F125823930534720.xml&coll=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150120003318/http://www.times-herald.com/local/Camp-to-plead-guilty-Friday-57686 to http://www.times-herald.com/local/Camp-to-plead-guilty-Friday-57686

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 Anthony Weiner conviction

The lead of the article says the crimes have to be committed or prosecuted while the official was in office. Weiner was not in office when he committed the crime that resulted in his 2017 conviction. "In May, Weiner, 53, pleaded guilty to one charge of transferring obscene material to a minor in federal court in Manhattan. The charges stem from communications that the former congressman had with a 15-year-old girl on social media sites between January and March 2016." http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/anthony-weiner-sentencing/index.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This is far from the only one of these. The following officials committed a crime since 2009 WHILE IN OFFICE. Corrine Brown, Petraeus, Fattah, Crimm, Renzi, Radel, Jackson Jr, Fuller. This list should also be re-ordered by decade since its not like George W. Bush had any ties to William J. Jefferson and sorting them by administration seems to imply that.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reorder by Decade

Ordering by presidential administration the crimes and convictions of individuals with no ties to that particular President seems unusually especially since List of federal political sex scandals in the United States is sorted by decade.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. 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/20130720050817/http://latimes/ to http://www.latimes/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.google.com/booksm,

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Convictions for crimes committed prior to time in office

The introduction to the article states as follows: "The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician's tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office." This language serves to exclude any conviction for an act that took place prior to service as a federal official, given that such act neither occurred within the officer's tenure nor could have stemmed from acts that occurred while in federal office.

Given this restriction on the politicians to be included on the list, Congressman Greg Gianforte does not belong on the list. Gianforte assaulted a reporter during the special-election campaign for the U.S. House seat and pleaded guilty soon after he won the election, but no only was Gianforte not seated as a member of Congress until after the crime, he was not seated until after the plea, allocution and sentencing. Including Gianforte on this list because "the crime took place during the campaign" expands the scope of the article in ways that would be difficult to predict, since any number of federal officers will have committed and been convicted of crimes prior to having taken office. If Gianforte is to be included on the list, then the introductory sentence "The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician's tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office." will need to be deleted (or at least greatly modified), and a Pandora's Box will have been opened. I would keep Gianforte out. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

add more people?

Should any of the following people be added or do they not meet the right criteria? Tom Barrack, Elliott Broidy, Michael Cohen (lawyer), Paul Manafort, Rick Gates (political consultant), George Nader, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone[26] Andrevan@ 05:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan indictments and convictions

The article appears to be missing many Reagan Administration officials who were indicted and/or convicted for things done during his administration. Coleman1963! (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia article, "Scandals of the Reagan Administration", begins with the following statement with detail following it:

"The presidency of Ronald Reagan was marked by numerous scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any president of the United States."

I think the current article should be updated to include the many officials in the Reagan administration who meet the current article's criteria. I realize that many of them were pardoned by G.H.W. Bush, but they were still indicted and convicted. A more difficult question is whether you include a mention of the officials who were indicted but pardoned before trial, and whether you include officials who were indicted and convicted but then had the conviction overturned on a trial technicality and were then not re-tried or were pardoned. Anyway, I think this article should be updated to include at least the convicted officials particularly considering it was a record number. Coleman1963! (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The scope of the article is as follows:

"This list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government. It includes politicians who were convicted or pleaded guilty in a court of law; and does not include politicians involved in unprosecuted scandals (which may or may not have been illegal in nature), or politicians who have only been arrested or indicted. The list also does not include crimes that occur outside the politician's tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office. It does not include convictions which were vacated (e.g. Ted Stevens (R), but does include convictions that were pardoned)."

If there are Reagan Administration officials who meet such criteria and are not currently listed, please add them. However, please note that the Wikipedia article that you quoted refers to the "investigation, indictment or conviction of over 138 administration officials" from the Reagan Administration, but (i) that "or" is huge, and only those who were convicted (or pled guilty) and whose convictions were not overturned on appeal can be listed, and (ii) it is possible that the number includes, say, low-level career employees at the IRS convicted of forgery or something, who would not be "politicians" under any reasonable definition of the word (heck, they wouldn't even be political appointees). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

MISSING

What about Talib or Shchiff both were censured for their crimes. What about G Santos who was thrown out of congress, what about AOC mis using campagin funds, what about Omar Ilhan who married her brother for a green card? 2603:9000:8502:191D:B479:9E63:D6AC:95F6 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The name of the article is "List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes." Even before you read the article's introduction, that should give you a clue as to why federal officeholders that have not been convicted of a crime don't appear on the list. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump

So since the addition of former president Trump to this list has been reverted, I'll be the first to raise the question of how this article should deal with it here.

In my view, Donald Trump's recent conviction for falsification does fall within the scope of this article, which documents "American politicians convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government. The user who removed him from the list, @AuH2ORepublican, makes the argument that he was convicted after his term expired (true) for crimes that took place before it (false). In making this argument, the user incorrectly states that Trump was convicted for "payments to Stormy Daniels in 2016 to cover up a federal campaign-finance crime in 2016". This is a common misreading of the case; he was in fact convicted not for making payments to Stormy Daniels, but for actions he took to cover up that the payments had been made, i.e. directing Michael Cohen to make false statements in his business records. A cursory look at the indictment shows that the crimes were committed between February and December of 2017, whereas Trump took office on January 20.

AuH2ORepublican also contests Trump's inclusion under the section on his presidency rather than the current administration, arguing that the conviction occurred under Joe Biden, even if Trump did not hold office under him. Although this argument is reasonable, it is inconsistent with how other convicted members of the executive branch have been dealt with on this list, which lists them by the administration with which they served. For example, William P. MacCracken Jr. was convicted during FDR's term but is included under the Calvin Coolidge presidency. Likewise, the conviction of Maurice Stans occurred under Gerald Ford, but he is listed under Nixon. TRCRF22 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@User:TRCRF22, it seems to me that the main elements of the crime for which Trump was convicted took place in 2016, even if the false characterization of the payments to Cohen did take place during 2017. Without the 2016 actions, there would have been no crime, much less a crime that could have been prosecuted in 2024; the statute of limitations for charging him for the 2017 falsification of corporate records expired long ago, and the prosecution could go forward only because the falsification of records was deemed a felony (whose statute of limitation was longer) done to cover up other crimes, all of which were committed in 2016. That being said, if you can obtain a consensus for the position that Trump's conviction was for crimes committed in 2017, then of course you can revert my reversion (although I would recommend that you also specify that the conviction was for the falsification of corporate records between February and December of 2017 and provide a link to an article regarding his conviction thar also specifies such fact).

As to where to locate the conviction if there is a consensus that it meets the criteria for the article, you are absolutely correct that it should be under the Trump presidency. That makes all of the sense in the world, because the inclusion would be for crimes committed during the years of the Trump presidency, and I see now that you are correct that that's how prior examples of convicted Executive Branch figures similarly were located within the presidencies during which the crimes were committed. When I suggested otherwise, I had been thrown off by the fact that several recent convictions of federal legislative officers had been placed within the presidency at the time of post-office conviction instead of the presidency at the time in which the legislstor was in office and committed the crime. For instance, Steve Stockman left Congress over two years before the start of the Trump presidency, yet is listed under the Trump, not Obama, presidency because his conviction took place when Trump was president. I think that, for the sake of consistency, such entries should be moved to the presidencies during which the convicted legislator committed the crime (and, if the crime straddled two presidencies, to the presidency during which he last held office. I will make those changes during the next few days, but if anyone wants to make the moves before then, that would be even better. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Amazing!

It's truly amazing how all the convictions of trump associates have somehow disappeared from the article or were never mentioned in the first place.