American jurist blasts Netanyahu trial: ‘Israel is the first country in history to put a leader on trial for trying to get good coverage.’
Subscribe to Israpundit Daily
Digest
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@ Bear Klein: I agree.
@ Bear Klein: I agree that this bill is a good idea. It should definitely be adopted to avoid future excessive interference with the executive branch by the judicial branch.
Yamina pushes bill to prevent investigation against PM. I believe this is a good idea for the future.
Continue article at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/280839
The US Justice has for years issued the opinion that a sitting POTUS can not tried while in office. Impeachment is used instead. Donald Trump was just acquitted by the US Senate after the Democratic House impeached Trump with very weak charges and weak or non-existent evidence.
Israel would also be better off if a current Prime Minister could not be charged except for the most serious crimes such as treason while in office.
Case 1000 against resembles the allegations of conflict of interest and possible bribery that were lodged against Sherman Adams, theU.S late president Dwight Eisenhower’s chief of staff, by several U.S. Senators.. Adams accepted a gift of a vicuna coat, probably worth 20,000 dollars or more in present-day inflated money, from his old college roommade and buddy, Bernard Goldfine. Since graduating from college, Goldfine had become a wealthy businessman with two businesses, one a fur importing business and the other a pasta wholesaling business. Adams critics in Congress complained that Goldfine had lodged a complaint with the Pentagon’s civil complaints department alleging that the Pentagon had not paid him him in full for a large order of pasta that he had sold them for consumption by American soldiers. Adams’ critics speculated that Goldfine gave Adams that expensive gift to bribe him to intervene with the Pentagon in the case.
President Eisenhower was forced to let Adams go because of the furor, even though he praised Sherman’s service highly. The Justic Department investigated both Adams and Goldfine, but determined that Adams never contacted the Pentagon about Goldfine’s financial claims for additional payment. They also determined that Goldfine regularly gave expensive gifts to all of his friends around Christmas/Hannukah time, whether they were in a position to do him favors or not. Possibly, his motive was to show off how rich he was. In any case, the Justice Department found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by either man, and they were not charged with any crime.
Of course, Milchan, unlike Goldfine, did ask Bibi to do favors for him. Also, Bibi did attempt to do favors for Milchan, although he was unable to deliver the favor that would have benefited milchan financially. Still there is some resemblance between the cases as far as ‘breach of trust” is concerned, since there was no evidence of a definite “quid pro quo” in either case.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
BS
P.S. the Minister of Finance at the time was Moshe Kahlon. He, on the advice of the civil servants in his department, rejected Milchan’s request for a tax break, despite Bibi’s recommendation. Bibi did not fire Kahlon in “revenge.”
Two additional individuals who were “pissed” by Bibi’s conversations with Mozes, owner of Ma’ariv, were Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who owned Ma’ariv’s rival Israel Hayom. The Adelson’s had founded Israel Hayom and financed it, giving it away for free, at Bibi’s request. It had always strongly supported Bibi. Still does, for the most part. The Adelsons were outraged that Bibi would even consider supporting Mozes’ proposed legislation for even a moment, since it in effect would have banned Israel Hayom. They would not have lost money had they done that, but they were deeply insulted nonethless. Like all the other wealthy businessmen who felt wronged by Bibi’s wheeling and dealing, the Adelsons complained about him to the Israeli police.
None of this resolves the question of whether Bibi’s phone conversations were criminal offenses. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Dershowitz is correct that Bibi would never have been indicted under American law for cases 2000 and 4000. He might have been indicted, however, for conflict of interest for accepting gifts from Milchan. I consider this to be the only reasonable criminal complaint against Bibi.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Reminds me of the 1970 Monty Python bit, “The Pirhana Brothers”.” In, what they called, “the operation,” they selected a victim and threatened to beat him up if they paid him, Then in what they called, “the other operation,” they threatened not to beat him up if he didn’t pay them. One month later, they hit upon “the other other operation”. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn’t pay them, they would beat him up. This, for the Pirhana brothers, was the turning point.” at 2minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJSxAgPmy2Y
@ Bear Klein: The proposal, or most of it, was approved by apoitical experts at several different government offices. In fact, many of these experts had recommended that Bezeq’s regulation change request be approved long before Netanyahu had his “incriminating” conversations with Elovitch. These independent civil servants all believed that the changes requested by Bezeq would be good for Israeli consumers by allowing them the bundling services, and the reduced prices for internet and telephone services, access to iPhones, etc. that result from bundling. And as noted before, they added to Bezeq’s proposal a provision that opened up the telecommunications field to competition, and Bibi signed off on that. Hence, Bezeq’s profits are way down, not up, and Elovitch, really pissed about this, complained to the police about Bibi.
The same thing happened in relation to the motion picture producer, Milkman who gave Bibi aand Sarah all those gifts. What he really wanted from Bibi was not an American passport, which he certainly could have obtained without Bibi’s help because he was a genuine permanent resident of the United States, and had numerous highly placed American friends who could recommended. What he really wanted from Bibi was an extension of his tax break in Israel. Bibi did ask the Finance ministry to grant Milchan the tax break. But the finance ministry, at the time headed by , refused to grant Milchan the tax break extension he requested. Hence Milchan, like Mozes and Elovitch, complained to the police.
No one who tried to bribe Bibi got what they wanted from him.
Case 4000 has two main parts.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/what-could-netanyahu-be-indicted-for-608609
In Case 4000, Netanyahu is accused of involvement in a media bribery scheme in which Walla owner Shaul Elovitch gave him positive coverage in exchange for Netanyahu making government policies favoring Elovitch’s Bezeq company to the tune of around NIS 1.8 billion
@ Bear Klein:
Actually. Bibi screwed Bezeq by opening up the telecommunications industry to competition. For from getting the huge profits they expected Bibi to deliver, Bezel has been losing big-time to American-based competitors. Its profits are way down.
All the people who had done favors for Bibi, or offered to do them, or given him gifts, were screwed by him. He did not deliver what they asked him for. So they complained to the police. That’s why he is in legal trouble.
Bibi’s case bears a remarkable resemblance to that of Francis Bacon, the famous English jurist and philosopher. As Lord Chancellor of England, Bacon extorted bribes from both sides in civil litigation cases before his court. Then he judged each case fairly and impartially, based on the facts and the law. True, he warned both sides through their lawyers, in advance, that that was what he intended to do. But they didn’t believe him. Then, when the individuals who had paid Bacon only to lose their case complained to the English parliament, it impeached him and removed him from office.
I listened to Dershowitz and his claim of knowing Israeli law well was false. He is very famous as US Attorney but he appears to have a hole in his Israeli legal knowledge.
He said Israel if they want to charge someone (public officials) with taking gifts that are too much they should have a law to that effect. Israel does in fact have such a law and Bibi has way way way over violated that the law. This is in Case 1000. Whether that is a big deal is another question.
His argument that trying to get good press is not illegal probably works for Case 2000. As Bibi to my knowledge did no illegal actions on behalf of Moses, even though they were discussed.
Case 4000 is very different and here it appears Bibi has some very serious legal problems and looks like he acted illegally on the behalf of Bezeq in a manner that harmed the citizens of Israel in order to obtain what I would argue is free political advertisement for an extended period. If the charges prove out verified in Case 4000 I believe Bibi has a good chance of being convicted and sentenced to prison.