Talk:Bill Clinton pardon controversy

message: I would LOVE to know what Republican pardons have to do with Clinton's pardons, other than that some Leftist loose screw wants to make Pardongate seem "not so bad".
:Putting Clinton's pardon in context seems appropriate. The POV of the poster is evident.--agr 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Constitution gives the President unfettered authority to pardon anyone he wants, for any reason he wants. It is in fact one of the only Constitutional powers that has no limits whatsoever. That makes "Pardongate" the definition of a manufactured "scandal". It's funny how this "scandal" gets a separate article, but George H.W. Bush's last-minute pardons of his Iran-Contra accomplices gets only a short section in his own article. Wikipedia conservative bias, perhaps? 71.203.209.0 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's keep partisan viewpoints out of this

message: I don't want to get in a revert war here, but somebody has added back in the sentence "It is widely believed she was a victim of Kenneth Starr's witchhunt." to the Susan McDougal section. Firstly, the term "witchhunt" doesn't belong in a neutral POV article. On top of that, "it is widely believed" is just weasel wording for "I think that..." If there's factual data to be included here, great. If someone wants to rewrite this sentence so that it's clearly true, that's wonderful. But as written, it simply doesn't belong here. Gary D Robson 03:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another issue here. The FALN "pardons" were not. They were commutations as can readily be seen by reading the link (number 3) under FALN Pardons. The full text of the release orders is here [DOJ News Release]. A pardon is not the same as a commutation of sentence. I feel the title is a mischaracterization of actual events. To wit: "Unlike a pardon, a commutation does not nullify the conviction and is often conditional." BingoDingo (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral POV

message: This article doesn't contain the word "Democrat" anywhere and doesn't criticize the Democratic party in any way whatsoever. Why, then, is the final section of the article entitled "Republican presidential pardons?" I think this section should be "Other presidential pardons" or "Comparable presidential pardons," and discuss controversial pardons by other presidents of both parties. Comments? Gary D Robson 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok by me. Derex 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Republican Pardons

message: :I moved the below from the main Clinton article, because that's what this one is for.  I think all this info is in here or the Marc Rich article.  But, placing it here, in case anyone wants to merge details in. Derex 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: moved material

message: An editor has repeatedly deleted the following opening sentence from the "Pardons signed on final day of office" category: "It is common practice for Presidents to grant a number of pardons shortly before leaving office". This is a well known and referenced fact, and seems to me irrefutably relevant to the content of the category - Clinton wasn't setting a new precedent by any means, and his actions follow suit with prior presidents. As well, this same user has added the addendum "...just hours before George W. Bush's inauguration.[10]". Not only is the unnecessary insertion of the word "just" a weasel word, why would one not include the precise amount of time, as opposed to simply stating "hours". Was it two hours? Twenty? "Hours" certainly implies a very short amount of time, which makes a common and legit practice appear somewhat sneaky and underhanded. This looks more like POV pushing than encyclopedic and relevant editing, IMHO.--Jackbirdsong 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Can you substantiate on your "well known and referenced fact" statement? No. The problem is that you do not read. I gave you a link to read: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm. In case you truly are so lazy to even do that, here's all I really needed you to read (if you can do that): "reports began to circulate that there would be a large number of grants at the end of his term. This by itself would be unusual, for pardoning had in the past taken place regularly and consistently throughout the President’s term and was not reserved until its end." So, please, when people make edits, at least attempt to read their edit summaries. Further, when you delete content from Wikipedia, at least read (my underlying theme here) what you're deleting. For example, there was no need to delete the reference (very important on Wikipedia!) that clearly stated it was a "list of the people pardoned or commuted Saturday before President Clinton left office, as released by the White House." ~ UBeR 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Well, firstly, while I would prefer to stay on topic and discuss your actions as an editor, rather than stoop to your level of personal insults (although pretty funny- I cannot read, and yet I am supposed to respond to your written statement) you seem to have missed the point here. All that I was saying above was that it is not uncommon practice, or an unheard of event, for Presidents to grant late, or "last-minute" pardons. You want me to substantiate my claim? here's one example - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/bush.pardon/index.html. The point was that it seemed to me (and now given your immature behavior on this page, it seems all the more plausible) that your edits are designed to show one side of the story. In your above ranting, nowhere did you address my concerns in a polite and civilized manner. Perhaps its my fault, for not having given you the benefit of the doubt in the first place, but those initial concerns are all the more justified by your belligerent and personally insulting response.--Jackbirdsong 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry for my harsh response, but let it be known that one should assume good faith in the contributions of Wikipedia's contributors. It is especially detrimental to ignore the explanations said editor gave for edits, and then to ask for those same explanations after reverting the edits. I hope that you can see where I am coming from in that regard. ~ UBeR 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My main point was simply that it is common for presidents to grant last minute pardons. I in fact did initially read the link you provided, which states:"reports began to circulate that there would be a large number of grants at the end of his term. This by itself would be unusual, for pardoning had in the past taken place regularly and consistently throughout the President’s term and was not reserved until its end." As it is possible for two people to have different interpretations of the same information, here is the way I see it: This statement maintains that it is uncommon for presidents to reserve the majority of their pardons for the end of their term rather than spreading them envenly throughout. But it does not specifically say that prior presidents never granted last minute pardons. This was my point- that Clinton's actions were not unprecedented in the sense that they were late pardons, but rather in the sense that they were so numerous. It was the addition of "...just hours before George W. Bush's inauguration.[10]" that made the whole thing seem so POV to me. I think that simply stating the date and number of pardons granted would be entirely sufficient and NPOV. --Jackbirdsong 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: I just edited this page, but started to wonder why we have it at all. Couldn't we just mention on the page List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton that there was controversy?
--KarlFrei 13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a clear example of conservative bias. As mentioned above, George Bush's last-minute pardons of his own accomplices in a criminal endeavour have only a brief mention in his main article, while this manufactured "controversy" gets an article to itself. The double standard is quite obvious. 71.203.209.0 07:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Last minute," yet he's still in office? Trying to make sense of your post, but I cannot. ~ UBeR 01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not really unaware that there was another President named George Bush, are you? If not, I suppose your inability to understand that post would make some sense. — Red XIV (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this page exist? 

message: I cleaned up the references to Mel Reynolds to include the information that his sentence was commuted and that he had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges, and was released to serve the balance of his sentence on bank fraud charges under the auspices of a half way house. 
I noted that Rostenkowski and Roger Clinton had both served their entire sentence before they were pardoned.
Smokingmaenad 23:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes to the Mel Reynolds, Rostenkowski and R. Clinton notes.  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bill Clinton pardon controversy. 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/20060802073854/http://www.usdoj.gov/03press/03_1_1.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/03press/03_1_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329134212/http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2004/vol8n05/Media3-en.html to http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2004/vol8n05/Media3-en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116062154/http://www.judicialwatch.org/5997.shtml to http://www.judicialwatch.org/5997.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131165059/http://archive.salon.com:80/politics/feature/2001/02/23/pardon/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/02/23/pardon/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219013139/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/pardons.rodham/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/pardons.rodham/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216033309/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elderly.scams/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elderly.scams/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209183439/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/burton.rich.02/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/burton.rich.02/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Clinton pardon controversy. 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/20071117201528/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228185353/http://www.justice.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm to http://www.justice.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041021212508/http://www.grandlodgefop.org/letters/ltr990818.html to http://www.grandlodgefop.org/letters/ltr990818.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The number of people stated to have been pardoned by Carter is not correct.  Carter issued a pardon for all Vietnam War draft dodgers, without naming or otherwise identifying them.  The exact number of draft dodgers is indeterminate, but definitely more than stated in this article. 47.139.43.165 (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter