January 20, 2001. It was a Saturday. Most people remember that day for the chaotic transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations. But while the moving trucks were pulling up to the White House, Bill Clinton was busy signing a flurry of papers. Among the 176 acts of executive clemency he squeezed in during those final hours, two names sparked a firestorm that still flickers in political circles today: Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans.
You’ve probably heard their names pop up in attack ads or heated social media threads. Usually, they're held up as symbols of "radicalism" or "presidential overreach." Honestly, the reality is a bit messier than a thirty-second soundbite. This wasn't just a simple stroke of a pen; it was the culmination of decades of radical activism, massive FBI manhunts, and a legal debate over whether a sentence can be too long for someone who didn't actually pull a trigger.
The susan rosenberg and linda sue evans pardon (well, technically a commutation of their sentences) remains one of the most polarizing moments in the history of presidential pardons. To understand why, you have to look at what they were doing in the '80s and why the government wanted them behind bars for what felt like forever.
✨ Don't miss: Pentagon Damage 9 11: What People Often Forget About the Strike on Arlington
The "Resistance" and the Bombs
Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans weren't just casual protesters. They were members of the May 19th Communist Organization (M19), a group that grew out of the remnants of the Weather Underground. These were people who believed the U.S. government was an "imperialist monster" and that the only way to stop it was through what they called "armed struggle."
Basically, they bombed buildings.
Between 1983 and 1985, the group targeted several high-profile sites:
- The U.S. Capitol Building (specifically outside the Senate chamber).
- The National War College at Fort McNair.
- The Washington Navy Yard.
- The South African Consulate in New York (protesting apartheid).
It's a weird detail, but they actually called in warnings before the bombs went off. They didn't want to kill people; they wanted to destroy symbols of power. Because of those warnings, no one was killed in the M19 bombings. But the FBI didn't care about the "no casualties" part. To them, these were domestic terrorists, plain and simple.
The Brinks Job and the Arrests
The real heat came after the 1981 Brinks armored car robbery in Nyack, New York. That one was different. It wasn't just property damage—it was a bloodbath. Two police officers and one security guard were killed.
Now, here is where it gets tricky. Susan Rosenberg was indicted in connection with that robbery. Prosecutors claimed she was a getaway driver or helped haul the money. But she went underground. She spent years on the run, landing herself on the FBI's Most Wanted list. When she was finally caught in 1984 at a storage unit in New Jersey, she wasn't caught for the robbery. She was caught with 740 pounds of explosives and a submachine gun.
She got 58 years.
Let that sink in for a second. Fifty-eight years for possession of weapons and explosives. At the time, it was the longest sentence ever handed down for those specific charges. Linda Evans didn't fare much better; she was sentenced to 40 years for similar weapons charges and for her role in the "Resistance Conspiracy" bombings.
Why Clinton Did It
So, why did Clinton let them out? If you ask his critics, it was a "parting gift" to the radical left. If you ask his supporters (and Clinton himself in his later writings), it was about proportionality.
By 2001, Rosenberg and Evans had already served 16 years. Clinton’s logic was that their sentences were "wildly disproportional" compared to what other people got for similar crimes. Think about it: 58 years for having explosives, even if you intended to use them, is a massive amount of time when no one was actually hurt in the incidents they were convicted for.
There was also a lot of pressure from human rights groups. They argued that the two women were essentially "political prisoners" being punished for their ideology rather than just their actions.
The Backlash Was Intense
It wasn't just Republicans who were mad. The susan rosenberg and linda sue evans pardon (commutation) ticked off plenty of Democrats too.
Rudy Giuliani, who was the Mayor of New York at the time, was absolutely livid. He called the decision "disgraceful." Even Chuck Schumer, a fellow Democrat from New York, criticized the move. The police unions were particularly vocal. They felt that even if Rosenberg wasn't convicted of the Brinks murders, her association with the group that committed them made her a danger to society.
The NYPD didn't forget. They never do.
Where Are They Now?
It’s been over two decades since they walked out of federal prison. What does a "retired radical" actually do?
🔗 Read more: How Many Plane Crashes This Month? What the Data Actually Says
- Susan Rosenberg: She became a writer and a teacher. She wrote a memoir called An American Radical and worked for years in various nonprofit spaces. She actually served on the board of "Thousand Currents," a group that provided fiscal sponsorship to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. This connection is why her name started trending again during the 2020 protests.
- Linda Sue Evans: She’s kept a lower profile but remained active in social justice causes, particularly those focusing on the rights of incarcerated women and ending the "War on Drugs."
Was it the "Right" Decision?
The answer depends entirely on how you view the legal system. If you believe the law should punish the act, 16 years for possessing explosives (with no injuries) might seem like plenty of time. If you believe the law should punish the intent and the association, then 58 years was a just sentence for someone involved in a movement that sought to overthrow the government.
There is no middle ground here. People either see them as reformed activists who were over-sentenced or as terrorists who got lucky because a president wanted to clear his desk on his last day.
What to take away from this
If you're trying to make sense of the susan rosenberg and linda sue evans pardon, keep these three things in mind:
- Possession vs. Action: Neither woman was convicted of killing anyone. Their sentences were for weapons possession and conspiracy to commit bombings where warnings were given.
- The "Last Minute" Factor: The fact that these happened in the final two hours of the Clinton presidency added a layer of "secrecy" and "scandal" that likely wouldn't have been as strong if they had happened in the middle of his term.
- The Precedent: This case is often cited in debates about the "pardon power" of the President. It shows how a single person can bypass the entire judicial system based on their own definition of "fairness."
If you want to dig deeper, I’d suggest looking into the Resistance Conspiracy trial transcripts or reading the actual clemency petitions. They offer a much more nuanced look at the legal arguments than you'll find on a Wikipedia sidebar. You might also find it interesting to compare their commutations to those of the FALN members (Puerto Rican nationalists) that Clinton also released around the same time. It was a very specific era of American political history that we probably won't see again.
To get a full picture of the fallout, you should look up the New York Times archives from January 21, 2001. The quotes from the families of the officers killed in the Brinks robbery provide the perspective that often gets lost in the high-level legal talk. It’s a heavy read, but it’s necessary for a full understanding.
Final thought: Whether you agree with the pardon or not, the story of Rosenberg and Evans is a reminder that in American politics, the past is never really dead. It's not even past. It just waits for the next election cycle to become relevant again.