Discussion:
Trump and Netanyahu: Both Being Investigated for Made-Up Crimes
Add Reply
Michael Ejercito
2019-11-27 17:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15217/trump-netanyahu-impeachment-indictment

Trump and Netanyahu: Both Being Investigated for Made-Up Crimes
by Alan M. Dershowitz
November 27, 2019 at 5:00 am

Send
Print

Share288
The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions
that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal.

Politicians always seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some
even negotiate good coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have
press secretaries and media consultants.

Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu's alleged
conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for
good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule
of law has ever made positive media coverage the "quid" or "quo" necessary
for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of
Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.

[I]t is simply not a crime for a President to use his power over foreign
policy for political, partisan or even personal advantage. Imagine Congress
trying to pass a law defining what would constitute a criminal abuse of the
foreign policy power, as distinguished from a political or moral abuse....
Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain.

The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated,
prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and
unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as
they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.


The most striking similarity between the investigations being conducted
against US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is that both are being investigated for actions that their
legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Pictured: Trump and
Netanyahu at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. on February 15,
2017. (Image source: The White House)

There are striking similarities, as well as important differences, between
the investigations being conducted against American President Donald J.
Trump by the US Congress, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who
was just indicted.

The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions
that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Moreover, no
legislature in any country governed by the rule of law would ever enact a
general statute criminalizing such conduct. The investigations of these two
controversial leaders are based on using general laws that have never
previously been deemed to apply to the conduct at issue and stretching them
to target specific political figures.

Netanyahu has been indicted for bribery on the ground that he allegedly
agreed to help a media company in exchange for more positive coverage and/or
less negative coverage. There are disputes about the facts, but even if they
are viewed in the light least favorable to Netanyahu, they do not constitute
the crime of bribery.

Nor would the Knesset ever enact a statute making it a crime for a member of
Knesset to cast a vote in order to get good media coverage. If such a law
was ever passed, the entire Knesset would be in prison. Politicians always
seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some even negotiate good
coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have press secretaries and
media consultants.

Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu's alleged
conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for
good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule
of law has ever made positive media coverage the "quid" or "quo" necessary
for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of
Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.

Upholding a conviction based on positive media coverage would endanger both
the freedom of the press and democratic processes of governance. Prosecutors
should stay out of the interactions between politicians and the media unless
specifically defined crimes, as distinguished from arguable political sins,
are committed, and no one should ever be prosecuted for actions that were
never made criminal, and would never be made criminal, by the legislature.

President Trump is also being investigated for alleged bribery. Originally
the Democrats thought they could impeach him for non-criminal conduct, such
as alleged maladministration, abuse of office or immoral conduct. I think
they have now been convinced by me and others that no impeachment would be
constitutional unless the President were found guilty of the crimes
specified in the Constitution, namely, "treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors." So the Democratic leadership has now settled on
bribery as an offence for which they can impeach President Trump. The
problem with that approach -- similar to the problem with the Israeli
approach against Netanyahu -- is that it is simply not a crime for a
President to use his power over foreign policy for political, partisan or
even personal advantage. Imagine Congress trying to pass a law defining what
would constitute a criminal abuse of the foreign policy power, as
distinguished from a political or moral abuse.

Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain. They
have given aid to foreign countries to help themselves get elected. They
have appointed ambassadors based not on competence but on past and
anticipated future political contributions. None of these has ever been
deemed criminal, and Congress would never dream of enacting a criminal
statute that sought to cover such conduct.

Could it carve out a specific crime based on seeking personal political
advantage rather than partisan political advantage? I doubt it. But even if
it could parse such a statute, it has not done so. And if it has not done
so, neither Congress nor prosecutors can seek to criminalize the exercise of
a President's foreign policy power on the ground that they do not like the
way he used it or even if he abused it.

The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated,
prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and
unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as
they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.

Now to the differences. Israel is a parliamentary democracy in which the
Prime Minister can be removed by a simple vote of no confidence. There is no
requirement of, or need for, an impeachment mechanism. The United States, on
the other hand, is a Republic with separation of powers and checks and
balances. The Framers, led by James Madison, saw the impeachment power as
central to preserving our Republic and not turning it into a parliamentary
democracy. That is why they rejected a proposal that would have permitted
impeachment on the ground of "maladministration." Such an open-ended
criteria, according to Madison, would have resulted in a situation in which
the President served at the will of Congress. That is why Madison insisted
on the specific criteria for impeachment that the Framers ultimately
accepted.

Although the differences between Israel and the United States are
significant, they share in common the rule of law. Under the rule of law,
properly applied, neither Netanyahu nor Trump should be deemed guilty of
bribery.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at
Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House
Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019, and Guilt by Accusation,
Skyhorse publishing, 2019.

Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook
plainolamerican
2019-11-27 17:12:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Ejercito
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15217/trump-netanyahu-impeachment-indictment
Trump and Netanyahu: Both Being Investigated for Made-Up Crimes
by Alan M. Dershowitz
November 27, 2019 at 5:00 am
Send
Print
Share288
The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions
that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal.
Politicians always seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some
even negotiate good coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have
press secretaries and media consultants.
Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu's alleged
conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for
good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule
of law has ever made positive media coverage the "quid" or "quo" necessary
for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of
Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.
[I]t is simply not a crime for a President to use his power over foreign
policy for political, partisan or even personal advantage. Imagine Congress
trying to pass a law defining what would constitute a criminal abuse of the
foreign policy power, as distinguished from a political or moral abuse....
Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain.
The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated,
prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and
unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as
they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.
The most striking similarity between the investigations being conducted
against US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is that both are being investigated for actions that their
legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Pictured: Trump and
Netanyahu at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. on February 15,
2017. (Image source: The White House)
There are striking similarities, as well as important differences, between
the investigations being conducted against American President Donald J.
Trump by the US Congress, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who
was just indicted.
The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions
that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Moreover, no
legislature in any country governed by the rule of law would ever enact a
general statute criminalizing such conduct. The investigations of these two
controversial leaders are based on using general laws that have never
previously been deemed to apply to the conduct at issue and stretching them
to target specific political figures.
Netanyahu has been indicted for bribery on the ground that he allegedly
agreed to help a media company in exchange for more positive coverage and/or
less negative coverage. There are disputes about the facts, but even if they
are viewed in the light least favorable to Netanyahu, they do not constitute
the crime of bribery.
Nor would the Knesset ever enact a statute making it a crime for a member of
Knesset to cast a vote in order to get good media coverage. If such a law
was ever passed, the entire Knesset would be in prison. Politicians always
seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some even negotiate good
coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have press secretaries and
media consultants.
Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu's alleged
conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for
good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule
of law has ever made positive media coverage the "quid" or "quo" necessary
for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of
Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.
Upholding a conviction based on positive media coverage would endanger both
the freedom of the press and democratic processes of governance. Prosecutors
should stay out of the interactions between politicians and the media unless
specifically defined crimes, as distinguished from arguable political sins,
are committed, and no one should ever be prosecuted for actions that were
never made criminal, and would never be made criminal, by the legislature.
President Trump is also being investigated for alleged bribery. Originally
the Democrats thought they could impeach him for non-criminal conduct, such
as alleged maladministration, abuse of office or immoral conduct. I think
they have now been convinced by me and others that no impeachment would be
constitutional unless the President were found guilty of the crimes
specified in the Constitution, namely, "treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors." So the Democratic leadership has now settled on
bribery as an offence for which they can impeach President Trump. The
problem with that approach -- similar to the problem with the Israeli
approach against Netanyahu -- is that it is simply not a crime for a
President to use his power over foreign policy for political, partisan or
even personal advantage. Imagine Congress trying to pass a law defining what
would constitute a criminal abuse of the foreign policy power, as
distinguished from a political or moral abuse.
Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain. They
have given aid to foreign countries to help themselves get elected. They
have appointed ambassadors based not on competence but on past and
anticipated future political contributions. None of these has ever been
deemed criminal, and Congress would never dream of enacting a criminal
statute that sought to cover such conduct.
Could it carve out a specific crime based on seeking personal political
advantage rather than partisan political advantage? I doubt it. But even if
it could parse such a statute, it has not done so. And if it has not done
so, neither Congress nor prosecutors can seek to criminalize the exercise of
a President's foreign policy power on the ground that they do not like the
way he used it or even if he abused it.
The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated,
prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and
unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as
they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.
Now to the differences. Israel is a parliamentary democracy in which the
Prime Minister can be removed by a simple vote of no confidence. There is no
requirement of, or need for, an impeachment mechanism. The United States, on
the other hand, is a Republic with separation of powers and checks and
balances. The Framers, led by James Madison, saw the impeachment power as
central to preserving our Republic and not turning it into a parliamentary
democracy. That is why they rejected a proposal that would have permitted
impeachment on the ground of "maladministration." Such an open-ended
criteria, according to Madison, would have resulted in a situation in which
the President served at the will of Congress. That is why Madison insisted
on the specific criteria for impeachment that the Framers ultimately
accepted.
Although the differences between Israel and the United States are
significant, they share in common the rule of law. Under the rule of law,
properly applied, neither Netanyahu nor Trump should be deemed guilty of
bribery.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at
Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House
Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019, and Guilt by Accusation,
Skyhorse publishing, 2019.
Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook
Trump, Bibi and Dershowshitz are zionist pigs and will eventually be hauled off to prison or hung for treason.
The Peeler
2019-11-27 17:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:12:46 -0800 (PST), plaingaydumbmuzzieshit spouted yet
Post by plainolamerican
Trump, Bibi and Dershowshitz are zionist pigs and will eventually be
hauled off to prison or hung for treason.
ONLY in your retarded gay muzzie "mind", plaingaydumbmuzzieshit! LOL
Michael Ejercito
2019-12-01 15:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Peeler
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:12:46 -0800 (PST), plaingaydumbmuzzieshit spouted yet
Post by plainolamerican
Trump, Bibi and Dershowshitz are zionist pigs and will eventually be
hauled off to prison or hung for treason.
ONLY in your retarded gay muzzie "mind", plaingaydumbmuzzieshit! LOL
No doubt about it!


Michael

Michael Ejercito
2019-11-28 00:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by plainolamerican
Post by Michael Ejercito
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15217/trump-netanyahu-impeachment-indictment
Trump and Netanyahu: Both Being Investigated for Made-Up Crimes
by Alan M. Dershowitz
November 27, 2019 at 5:00 am
Send
Print
Share288
The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions
that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal.
Politicians always seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some
even negotiate good coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have
press secretaries and media consultants.
Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu's alleged
conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for
good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule
of law has ever made positive media coverage the "quid" or "quo" necessary
for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of
Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.
[I]t is simply not a crime for a President to use his power over foreign
policy for political, partisan or even personal advantage. Imagine Congress
trying to pass a law defining what would constitute a criminal abuse of the
foreign policy power, as distinguished from a political or moral abuse....
Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain.
The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated,
prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and
unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as
they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.
The most striking similarity between the investigations being conducted
against US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is that both are being investigated for actions that their
legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Pictured: Trump and
Netanyahu at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. on February 15,
2017. (Image source: The White House)
There are striking similarities, as well as important differences, between
the investigations being conducted against American President Donald J.
Trump by the US Congress, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who
was just indicted.
The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions
that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Moreover, no
legislature in any country governed by the rule of law would ever enact a
general statute criminalizing such conduct. The investigations of these two
controversial leaders are based on using general laws that have never
previously been deemed to apply to the conduct at issue and stretching them
to target specific political figures.
Netanyahu has been indicted for bribery on the ground that he allegedly
agreed to help a media company in exchange for more positive coverage and/or
less negative coverage. There are disputes about the facts, but even if they
are viewed in the light least favorable to Netanyahu, they do not constitute
the crime of bribery.
Nor would the Knesset ever enact a statute making it a crime for a member of
Knesset to cast a vote in order to get good media coverage. If such a law
was ever passed, the entire Knesset would be in prison. Politicians always
seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some even negotiate good
coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have press secretaries and
media consultants.
Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu's alleged
conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for
good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule
of law has ever made positive media coverage the "quid" or "quo" necessary
for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of
Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.
Upholding a conviction based on positive media coverage would endanger both
the freedom of the press and democratic processes of governance. Prosecutors
should stay out of the interactions between politicians and the media unless
specifically defined crimes, as distinguished from arguable political sins,
are committed, and no one should ever be prosecuted for actions that were
never made criminal, and would never be made criminal, by the legislature.
President Trump is also being investigated for alleged bribery. Originally
the Democrats thought they could impeach him for non-criminal conduct, such
as alleged maladministration, abuse of office or immoral conduct. I think
they have now been convinced by me and others that no impeachment would be
constitutional unless the President were found guilty of the crimes
specified in the Constitution, namely, "treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors." So the Democratic leadership has now settled on
bribery as an offence for which they can impeach President Trump. The
problem with that approach -- similar to the problem with the Israeli
approach against Netanyahu -- is that it is simply not a crime for a
President to use his power over foreign policy for political, partisan or
even personal advantage. Imagine Congress trying to pass a law defining what
would constitute a criminal abuse of the foreign policy power, as
distinguished from a political or moral abuse.
Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain. They
have given aid to foreign countries to help themselves get elected. They
have appointed ambassadors based not on competence but on past and
anticipated future political contributions. None of these has ever been
deemed criminal, and Congress would never dream of enacting a criminal
statute that sought to cover such conduct.
Could it carve out a specific crime based on seeking personal political
advantage rather than partisan political advantage? I doubt it. But even if
it could parse such a statute, it has not done so. And if it has not done
so, neither Congress nor prosecutors can seek to criminalize the exercise of
a President's foreign policy power on the ground that they do not like the
way he used it or even if he abused it.
The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated,
prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and
unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as
they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.
Now to the differences. Israel is a parliamentary democracy in which the
Prime Minister can be removed by a simple vote of no confidence. There is no
requirement of, or need for, an impeachment mechanism. The United States, on
the other hand, is a Republic with separation of powers and checks and
balances. The Framers, led by James Madison, saw the impeachment power as
central to preserving our Republic and not turning it into a parliamentary
democracy. That is why they rejected a proposal that would have permitted
impeachment on the ground of "maladministration." Such an open-ended
criteria, according to Madison, would have resulted in a situation in which
the President served at the will of Congress. That is why Madison insisted
on the specific criteria for impeachment that the Framers ultimately
accepted.
Although the differences between Israel and the United States are
significant, they share in common the rule of law. Under the rule of law,
properly applied, neither Netanyahu nor Trump should be deemed guilty of
bribery.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at
Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House
Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019, and Guilt by Accusation,
Skyhorse publishing, 2019.
Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook
Trump, Bibi and Dershowshitz are zionist pigs and will eventually be hauled off to prison or hung for treason.
Perhaps you should fantasize about something a little more realistic, like you having sex with Tawny Swain.

http://tawnyswain.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/photoshoot-with-jose-luis-2/



Michael
Loading...