Time: Sat Nov 02 20:30:04 1996 To: Neil Nordbrock From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Clintons, Starr, Indictment & Electoral College Cc: Bcc: >Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 17:48:18 -0800 >From: ewolfe@wnstar.com (Ed Wolfe) >Organization: Liberty Chimney >To: PIML <piml@mars.galstar.com> >Subject: piml] [Fwd: L&J: Clintons, Starr, Indictments & Electoral College] > >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> >> =========================================================== >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> =========================================================== >> > >-- >Clinton Murders & Gov't Out of Control >http://www.involved.com/ewolfe > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail