|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Clinton article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|Bill Clinton has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article has been reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "thorough and unbiased, giving fair weight to both Clinton accomplishments and scandals."; "The bulk of it appeared to have been written by the Clinton Museum and Library in Little Rock, Ark."; "a great place for a student to begin building his or her knowledge on Clinton." Please examine the findings.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
|This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:|
Doesn't there have to be an actual conviction and not just an indictment? As far as I knew, he didn't actually get impeached? Even in the article it mentions that a super majority was not reached. Would someone please verify and clarify this in the article? Otherwise, it's hugely misleading. 2601:1:9280:155:214:85FF:FE15:4B0D (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Impeach", in the context of American politics, simply means to accuse or to charge someone with wrongdoing. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's not what impeach means in American politics. Bill Clinton was indeed impeached, wherein the legislative body (Congress) formally voted and officially declared him fit for removal from office. However, there's a follow-up process to actually remove the impeached individual from office, and Congress didn't follow up on it, never intending to actually removed him from office. Yet, he was impeached. The accusations themselves weren't an impeachment. Nixon had lots of accusations regarding Watergate, but he wasn't impeached. He resigned before it ever got that far. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it does.
CongressThe House brings charges, the Senate hears and decides upon the merits of the charges. It's not complicated. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it does.
Acquittal = Not Impeached!
Clinton was not impeached, he was called to stand trial against articles of impeachment while such accusations were being investigated; But merely standing trial does not equate to imprisonment per guilt of committing the accused crime. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Since Clinton was found 'Not Guilty' and thereby promptly acquitted on all charges, there is no conviction and impeachment is dissolved.
It is clearly stated in the following rules of the Senate -
"The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official is removal from office."
As well as in The Constitution itself -
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.--U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4." .
Since Clinton, in fact, was NOT removed from office (a Constitutional mandate imposed on impeached officials), he could not be said to have been impeached. The definition of the term is more broad and loosely defined anywhere else in the world but in the U.S., the term 'impeachment' is Constitutionally bound to definitively and specifically mean "to be removed from office."
Even if you apply the term only in it's broadest sense, the statement that Clinton is the second president to be impeached is still completely incorrect. Richard Nixon was actually the second President to be called under investigation through official impeachment proceedings, if the definition is taken to mean merely "being charged of suspected crimes", making Clinton, then, the third President to face the same. Either way, to state that Clinton was the second U.S. President to be impeached is misinformation. I am removing the sentence that is misleading for these very reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skj91 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood your own second source. Article 2.4 of the Constitution, as you quote it, says:
- "on impeachment for and conviction of treason" [emphasis mine] implying that the two processes (impeachment and conviction) are separate.
- The OED definition of "impeach" agrees with this:
- "impeach, v. 5a. spec. To accuse of treason or other high crime or misdemeanour (usually against the state) before a competent tribunal"
- In this sense, Nixon was not impeached: he resigned before proceedings started. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is this not present under William Jefferson Clinton?
Section: 5.1.01 Main Cause of the Great Recession of 2008-2010
Some economists have pointed to deregulation efforts as contributing to the collapse. In 1999, the Republican controlled 106th Congress U.S. Congress under the Clinton administration passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act) and President William Jefferson Clinton signed the Act into Law in November 1999. The GLB Act repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act (GS Act) of 1933. This repeal has been criticized by some for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis. After all, it was the partial repeal of the GS Act which permitted the conglomeration of Banks, Financial agencies and Mortgage companies with one another and the creation of subprime lending which led directly to the housing crisis.
This information was taken from the Glass Steagall (GS) Act article and appears to be an important addition to the Clinton files so LINK can be created between the GS and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Acts. The three of these elements (Clinton and the two Acts) are SO closely linked that I don't see how these can be left out (as it currently is). Was this done purposefully??
- Not relevant to Clinton's biography, perhaps more suited for Presidency of Bill Clinton. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Suspended Law License and Fine by District Court
I had my updated deleted by "tarq" who said they were 'right wing'. I included citations from the contemperaneous AP reporting on the event, and the statement released by Clinton himself at the time he surrendered his law license. It is a historical FACT that he was fined $90,000 by a US District Court Judge, and that he had is law license suspended in Arkansas as a result of her referral to the Arkansas Bar Association.
Your attempting to re-write history, and have the comment of CLinton's lawyer stand as the last word on this.
- You gave an unreasonable and inaccurate amount of detail to the matter, which is better and more succinctly covered already at Impeachment of Bill Clinton#Contempt of court citation. Bill Clinton was never disbarred from the practice of law, there was a mutual agreement to suspect his law license in AK for 5 yrs, which automatically removed his right to practice before the Supreme Court, that is all. It was never as big a deal as the now ~15-yr-old right-wing talking point memos made it out to be. That sort of nonsense will not be appearing in this article. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's unreasonable to even mention it in his bio: yet, it's reasonable to have a quote from his attorney that whitewashes the whole matter? You prefer partisan opinions to simple facts, court determined facts, at that. What sets Clinton's criminality apart from other Presidents is that it was adjudicated, both in the Senate, where he was found not-guilty, and in the Civil case, where he paid a substantial fine and agreed to surrender his law license.
Only a partisan without the ability to honestly assess NPV would claim that those legal facts don't belong in his bio.
- I'm a Democrat who voted for Clinton twice. I believe that the fact he agreed to a five-year suspension of his law license merits inclusion in his main bio article. In a typical lawyer's bio, it would get significant coverage. For a President, there's so much else that's important that this would get squeezed down to one sentence, or part of a sentence if it can be spliced into the impeachment discussion -- but it should be in here. JamesMLane t c 08:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Tarc has said he will not permit it to be mentioned here. "That sort of nonsense will not be appearing in this article. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)" He is apparently willing to over rule the consensus of commentators on the talk page, and revert edits to ensure his POV stands.
Extramarital relationships / Sexual assault allegations
Why isn't there a section for sexual assault allegations? Obviously many political and public figures are easy targets for such accusations, but the list on The Honorable Bill Clinton is well documented and substantiated. Wouldn't it be possible for a well-sourced, neutral entry to be written? Our.weakness (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sexual assault? You'd have to provide valid, reliable sources for that (I'm not talking about WorldNetDaily). I believe all of his dalliances were consensual. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Juanita Broadrick and Kathleen Willey come to mind, but Paula Jones as well. Maybe a better section would be "Extramarital relationships" as per the JFK article. A section that could cover Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen. Granted, some of these are interspersed throughout the article already, but given the number of dalliances and accusations, I feel a section would be vital to a clear understanding of his public image. --Our.weakness (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Public image of Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations, which is linked to at Bill Clinton#Public image, already covers this. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Trivia map that shouldn't be in this kind of article
In my opinion, the map with the legend Countries visited by President Clinton during his terms in office should be deleted. It's meaningless high-school quiz type trivia that does not bring anything to the article. It does not belong to an encyclopedic article on this nature.--Lubiesque (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Typo in 3rd Paragraph
"First" is misspelled: "... the fiurst from the baby boomer generation"