Time: Sat Nov 02 12:56:56 1996
To: 
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Clintons, Starr, Indictments & Electoral College
Cc: 
Bcc: liberty lists,"Allan J. Favish" <AJFavish@worldnet.att.net>

Dear Allan,

Thank you very much for sending me
this very incisive analysis of the
grand jury and its relation to the
electoral college.  I have taken
the liberty of forwarding this 
excellent essay to the other email
lists of which I am a memer (in good
standing, I hope).  

Thanks again!

/s/ Paul Mitchell



>Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 10:35:47 -0800
>From: "Allan J. Favish" <AJFavish@worldnet.att.net>
>To: pmitch@primenet.com
>CC: fiedor19@eos.net
>Subject: Clintons, Starr, Indictments & Electoral College
>
>-- 
>Regards,
>
>Allan J. Favish
>http://members.aol.com/AllanF8702/page1.htm
>[The following opinion article was published on October 18,
>1996, in the Los Angeles Daily Journal and the San Francisco
>Daily Journal, on page 6.  These newspapers serve the legal community.]
>
>Starr's November Surprise?
>by
>Allan J. Favish*
>
>The speculation about whether independent counsel Kenneth
>Starr will have a grand jury indict First Lady Hillary Rodham
>Clinton and perhaps name President Bill Clinton as an
>unindicted co-conspirator often centers on whether such
>actions might occur before the Nov. 5th election.
>
>There appears to be an underlying assumption that any grand jury
>action that would cause a vote denying the president a
>second term must occur before Nov. 5.  However, those
>who make this assumption fail to take account of the
>electoral college.
>
>Because of the electoral college it is possible for grand
>jury action against the president and first lady to occur
>after the November election and still cause a vote denying
>the president a second term.  This is because the electors
>who vote in the electoral college will do so on Dec. 16.
>Their ballots will not be opened until January 6, 1997.
>Therefore, major grand jury action against the Clintons
>could follow the Nov. 5th election but occur prior to
>the real election by the electors on Dec. 16.
>
>Under the Constitution, the electors are free to vote for
>whomever they wish on Dec. 16.  Some states have laws
>imposing small fines on electors who fail to vote for the
>candidate who won the state, and those states may be able to
>impose that punishment, but no state can stop an elector who
>wishes to vote for somebody else.
>
>Assuming a Clinton victory on Nov. 5 followed by grand
>jury action, there would be pressure on the Democratic party
>electors to vote on Dec. 16 for Al Gore (or somebody
>else) for president, rather than Clinton.  This pressure
>would result from a desire to spare the Democratic party an
>impeachment fiasco and long-term political damage.
>
>Of course, indictments and being named an unindicted co-
>conspirator are not convictions.  Naturally, if the grand
>jury's actions were short on specifics and easily rebutted
>by the first couple in a press conference then there would
>be little problem for the Democratic party and Starr would
>be rightly ridiculed by the press.
>
>However, grand jury actions often contain detailed
>explanations of the charges and set forth some of the
>evidence.  Since it would be unlikely for Starr to initiate
>such grand jury action against either of the Clintons
>without very specific and powerfully documented charges,
>it's likely that any such action would not be easily
>dismissed by the Clintons.  The political calculations would
>begin immediately for the Democratic party.
>
>If the Clintons could not adequately rebut the charges in
>the court of public opinion, powerful leaders in the
>Democratic party would argue that the Democratic electors
>should vote for somebody else, probably Gore.  They would
>argue that it is for the good of the party and is not a
>betrayal of the popular vote since Gore was the people's
>choice to be vice-president and it is his job to step in
>when there is an emergency.
>
>However, the Democratic electors would have to reach near
>unanimous agreement on this "dump Clinton" vote to avoid
>splitting their votes and denying any candidate an electoral
>vote majority.  In that situation a runoff would be held in
>the House of Representative where each state gets one vote.
>If the Republicans control a majority of the state
>delegations, Bob Dole would win.
>
>Under this scenario, prior to leaving office on
>Jan. 20, 1997, the president could pardon the first lady,
>but he could not pardon himself.  Thus, the electors who
>vote on Dec. 16 may want a promise from the potential
>presidents (Gore and others) that they either will or will
>not pardon Bill.  Any such promise would not be enforceable,
>but breaking such a promise might have political
>consequences for the Democratic party.  Would the leadership
>of the Democratic party (minus Bill) want its electors to
>elect a president who would promise to pardon Bill or not
>pardon Bill?
>
>How the Democratic party would resolve these problems is
>certainly open to speculation.
>
>More certain is the fact that by saving his grand jury
>action until after the November popular vote, but unleashing
>it before Dec. 16, Starr can avoid charges of trying to
>influence the popular election and avoid reducing the
>credibility of his charges, while still taking action that
>could prod the Democratic party into dumping President
>Clinton before a second term, should he refuse to resign.
>
>______________________________________________
>*Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Tarzana, California.
>Web Site: http://members.aol.com/AllanF8702/page1.htm
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail