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. [1] 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)

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.[2]

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[3]

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.[4]

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)

"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)[5] 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)[6] 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)[7] 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.

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 [8] 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)

References

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)