Time: Sat Nov 02 16:38:31 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Clintons, Starr, Indictments & Electoral College
Cc:
Bcc:
No, you are missing the point,
if I understand you correctly.
The Electoral College votes in
December, giving Congress plenty
of time to impeach a president
between election day and
inauguration day, particularly
if they adjourn "sine die"
(pronounced "see nay dee ay"),
which they did. Imagine that!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>This whole concept is patently absurd and silly. Electors have a moral,
>if not a legal, duty to cast their vote for the candidate who gains a
>plurality in their state. Who could expect them to override the voters of
>their state? Only impeachment would be the proper avenue if a President
>is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors.
>
>--Andrew Lehr
>Common Law Network
>
>> 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
>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail