Opuscula Indictment Vs. Conviction: BIG difference

ISRAEL’S ATTORNEY GENERAL has indicted the country’s chief politician for three separate crimes.

As in the United States, where the U.S. House of Repesentatives is attempting to impeach the incumbent president, the nation seems to be taking sides: “He’s guilty” or “He’s innnocent.”

SO FAR, NO TRIAL — not in Israel and not in the U.S.

IN THE U.S., the U.S. Senate may — if the House Democrats and a handful of Republicans have their way — try a president for whatever crimes the members of the House claim the president committed.

From the U.S. Senate web site¹: (T)he House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office.

The U.S. Constitution makes it clear² that “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

The U.S. House has impeached — sent to the Senate for trail — two presidents: Andrew Johnson and Wm. Jefferson Clinton. The Senate failed to convict either with the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

In theory, if there are only 30 senators in the chamber, 20 could impeach an incombent.

Two politicians impeached by House but NOT convicted in Senate:
Andrew Johnson and Wm. Clinton (with wife)

Johnson was indicted (impeached) by the House for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

According to a U.S. Senate web site (https://tinyurl.com/y79aq7b9), “During the years immediately following the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson clashed repeatedly with the Republican-controlled Congress over reconstruction of the defeated South. Johnson vetoed legislation that Congress passed to protect the rights of those who had been freed from slavery. This clash culminated in the House of Representatives voting, on February 24, 1868, to impeach the president. On March 5, the trial began in the Senate, where Republicans held more seats than the two-thirds majority required to remove Johnson from office. When the trial concluded on May 16, however, the president had won acquittal, not because a majority of senators supported his policies but because a sufficient minority wished to protect the office of the president and preserve the constitutional balance of powers.”

The House brought Clinton up on four charges (https://tinyurl.com/txez3ac):
* ”willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
* ”willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him
* “engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding and
* ”refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.”

The Senate vote in the Clinton trial was split evenly: 50-50.

Israel lacks a constitution as Americans know it.

It also lacks a bicameral (two equal houses) government.

Israel’s Attorney General has brought charges (indictments) against the prime minister.

Who will try the prime minister?

Unlike the U.S. that has, basically two political parties — there have been rogue candidates in the past such a Geo. Wallace and Bernie Sanders, but they have proven to be nothing more than headline grabbers — Israel has, depending on the season, anywhere between 10 and 30 parties.

Two independent politicians: Geo. Wallace and Bernie Sanders

It would seem as if the state’s Supreme Count will be the venue for a trial of the prime minister if the crimes are sufficiently serious or if there are appeals.

The two countries ARE alike in that the majority of the media is left-leaning and each country has liberals who know the incumbent is guilty, guilty, guilty. Never mind if there is evidence to support the charges.

The Israeli Supreme Court, as in the U.S. — depending on your political point of view — either reins in the Knesset or makes laws on its own.

According to an Israel Government web site³, 15 judges sit on the court, most are Israeli born and most served in the Israel Defense Forces IDF). Of the 15, five are women, including the current president of the Supreme Court. The political affiliations are not identified.

In the past, Israeli prime ministers and presidents have been brought before the bench.

Ehud Olmert⁴ – A confidant of Arial Sharon, prime minister from 2006 to 2009, cabinet minister 1988–1992, 2003–2006, mayor of Jerusalem 1993–2003. Convicted of breach of trust in July 2012, and of bribery in March 2015. In May 2015, Olmert was sentenced to six years in prison, but his sentence was reduced to 18 months in December 2015.

Moshe Katsav – Iranian-born, the 8th president of the State of Israel. In a landmark and unprecedented case, on 30 December 2010, Katsav was convicted of two counts of rape, obstruction of justice, and other charges. On 22 March 2011, in a landmark ruling, Katsav was sentenced to seven years in prison.

It is interesting that an Israeli-born recidivist (twice convicted) got a greatly reduced sentence while an Iranian-born criminal got seven years. Admittedly, Katsav’s crimes included rape. I am not suggesting that Katsav should have gotten less time.

Because of the nature of both Congresional houses, it is very likely the Senate would find the House’s impeachment (indictment) lacking evidence to remove a president from office.

What will happen in Israel is, at this point, anyone’s guess.

Meanwhile, Israel is threatened by Iran and its proxies and cannot afford to lack strong, determined leadership, regardless of who sits in the prime minister’s chair.

Sources

1. https://tinyurl.com/u9v2vhu

2. https://tinyurl.com/rf82jql

3. https://tinyurl.com/qn72qek

4. https://tinyurl.com/jgpbjk5

עינים להם ולא יראו * אזנים להם ולא יאזנו

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Web sites (URLs) beginning https://tinyurl.com/ are generated by the free Tiny URL utility and reduce lengthy URLs to manageable size.

 

Comment on Impeachment

Polls Who was asked? No one asked me

 

A GALLOP POLL APPARENTLY proves that "Jewish voters keen on Clinton, Sanders, widely dislike Trump, Cruz"

According to the pollsters, Gallup said in a March 24 article that an aggregation of Jewish respondents to its daily polling showed Jewish voters favor Sanders, an Independent Vermont senator, at 61 percent favorable, and Clinton, a former secretary of state, at 60 percent.

ALL VERY INTERESTING, but I failed to read

1.   How many people were polled
2.   Where the people who were (allegedly polled resided
3.   The age of the people pulled

And since the poll is about how Jews (allegedly) think, what is the level of religious observance of those polled?

Lunch at a Chinese restaurant on Yom Kippur?
An hour or two in synagogue on Yom Kippur?
At shul on holidays
Trick or Treat on Oct. 31 and a "Chanukah bush" for Dec. 25?
Kosher for Passover but not other times?
Shomer Shabat
Kashrut inside the home and outside, too?
Aware of the difference between "glat" and "Bet Yosef"? (Know that "glat" applies only to meat; not fish and dairy products.)

I live in South Florida and I consider myself an "observant" Jew.

The people I know are "pro-Trump" and have no use for Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Sanders.

I'm sure there ARE Jews in South Florida who will support ANY Democratic candidate against a Republican candidate - mostly these folks are expats from the Democratic strongholds of colder climes. I know of at least one Jew in Washington State who surprised me by his exceedingly liberal position, but maybe Seattle is "outside the boundaries" of the mostly conservative Intermountain West. (I lived in Nevada and Wyoming so I have some first hand experience in that part of the country; I also lived in northern - north of Sacramento - California, and area that also is mostly conservative.)

Besides knowing the demographics of the Jews who Gallop claims were polled, I'd also like to know exactly how the questions were presented: how were the phrased and how were they put before those polled?

When I was a reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot-News in the early 1970s, I had an interesting job - once a week I went into downtown Harrisburg to buttonhole passersby and ask them a question deemed relevant by my boss.

Rain or shine, hot or cold, a photographer and I suffered the elements to get answers from six people who would agree to be named and have their photo taken. Never did we get to call it a day after the first six people were stopped.

MY POINT in all the above is that, based on personal experience, I know a question can be phrased to elicit the answer the pollster desires. I also know it's not necessarily WHAT the pollster says, but HOW it is said.

When I see ANY poll that claims anything, even if I agree with the poll's results, I am suspicious.

When I see poll results that fly in the face of my experience, e.g., 90% of the observant Jews I know in South Florida are NOT for Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Sanders, then red flags are raised, bells go off, and any other cliché that comes to mind makes an appearance.

If you ask non-observant Jews in New York - where Mrs. Clinton bought her senate seat - if they support Mrs. Clinton, I'm confident there would be overwhelming numbers in her favor.

But come south and ask about Mrs. Clinton and the answers tend to be questions:

What about the emails?
What about Benghazi?

The question for Sen. Sanders is "How are you going to pay for all the socialist ideas such as free college for all?" (Georgia's lottery pays college tuition for top students, but a high school drop out with a single digit IQ won't make the cut.)

THE NEXT TIME you hear or read that "a recent poll proves that …" ask yourself the critical questions:

Who was polled?
When was the poll taken (what happened just before the pollsters hit the street or phones)
Where did those polled live?
How old were those polled - how much life experience did they have?
How were the questions phrased?
How were the polls taken - in person, on the phone, via mail or email?
Who paid for the polls - they are expensive to create and implement?
Would anyone in your circle respond the way the pollsters claim their responders answered?

Tell me the results you want and I can design a questionnaire that will give you those results. Guaranteed. Every time.