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