https://t.co/i51hOrUSa0
Senator Menendez #SenatorMenendez
Senate #Senate— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 25, 2024
Day: May 25, 2024
The walls are closing in on Bibi https://t.co/B1qYl2NErH
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 25, 2024
The walls are closing in on Bibi
The last two weeks have not been good for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant — his fellow war cabinet member, whom Netanyahu attempted to fire in March but was forced to retain — publicly attacked him on May 15 for failing to develop a plan for governing Gaza once the Hamas war comes to an end. Gallant also demanded that Netanyahu clarify that the Israeli Defense Forces would not reoccupy Gaza.
Two days later, the third member of the so-called inner war cabinet, former Defense Minister Benny Gantz, set out six conditions for his remaining in the government; if they were not met by June 8, he would resign. These included the return of the remaining hostages and normalization with Saudi Arabia, which the kingdom had conditioned on Jerusalem outlining a path to Palestinian statehood.
Gantz also called for Israeli security control over Gaza in conjunction with “an international civilian governance mechanism for Gaza, including American, European, Arab and Palestinian elements — which will also serve as a basis for a future alternative that is not Hamas and is not [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas.”
Finally, in a swipe at the ultra-Orthodox parties in Netanyahu’s coalition, who oppose any form of national service for their followers, Gantz demanded that the government “adopt a framework for [military-national] service under which all Israelis will serve the state and contribute to the national effort.”
Netanyahu rejected both sets of proposals. He remains unprepared to tolerate Palestinian Authority control over Gaza, or indeed any Palestinian governance no matter what form it takes. He answered Gallant by stating that he was “not prepared to switch from Hamastan to Fatahstan.”
He also asserted in a statement from his office that Gantz was guilty of “issuing an ultimatum to the prime minister instead of issuing an ultimatum to Hamas.” The statement added that were Netanyahu to meet Gantz’s conditions, it would result in the “end to the war and defeat for Israel, abandoning the majority of the hostages, leaving Hamas in power, and creating a Palestinian state.”
Despite the prime minister’s defiant responses to his war cabinet colleagues, their open critiques have intensified public and international pressure on the prime minister. Shortly after Gantz issued his demands, Karim Khan, the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor, applied to issue arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Gallant, as well as for Yahya Sinwar and two other Hamas leaders. Israel had fought hard to prevent Khan from taking any such action, and it came as a shock to the Israeli public when he did.
While President Joe Biden and leading legislators from both parties condemned the court’s action, and some in Congress sought to cut off funds for the ICC, other Western states were more reticent about Khan’s initiative. Moreover, shortly thereafter Israel came in for a second shock when Ireland and Spain, both members of the European Union, as well as Norway, announced that they would recognize a Palestinian state. While all three nations were known to sympathize with the Palestinian cause, their announcement nevertheless stunned Jerusalem, since apart from Sweden they were the first major European states to do so
Finally, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who had been seeking an Israeli-Hamas cease-fire, made it clear that Netanyahu was prepared to forego normalization with Saudi Arabia rather than accede to Riyadh’s demands for steps leading to Palestinian statehood. A formal accommodation with the Saudis would be major step for the Arabs’ acceptance of Israel as their neighbor, an outcome that the Jewish State has sought since independence. Netanyahu’s stubborn rejection of the Saudi proposal has only further diminished his already low public standing.
Many observers have for some time called for Netanyahu’s departure from government. It is clear that he will not voluntarily leave, however. Apart from his obvious desire to avoid conviction in the various criminal cases that have been brought against him, it also appears that he views the destruction of Hamas as the only way for him to offset his disastrous policies that led to the tragedy of Oct. 7, for which he still refuses to take full responsibility.
Gantz’s threat to leave the governing coalition will have no impact on Netanyahu’s majority. Only if Gallant follows up on his critique and is joined by three other members of his (and Netanyahu’s) Likud party can the prime minister be dethroned. The time has long since passed that they do so for the sake of their embattled country.
Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
https://t.co/i51hOrUkks
The News And Times Review#NewsAndTimes #NT #TNT #News #Times#World #USA #POTUS #DOJ #FBI #CIA #DIA #ODNI#Israel #Mossad #Netanyahu#Ukraine #NewAbwehr #OSINT#Putin #Russia #GRU #Путин, #Россия #SouthCaucasus #Bloggershttps://t.co/O0SIgLVWzM…— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 25, 2024
Judge rules Menendez’s prosecutors can’t show ‘critical’ evidence – Saved Web Pages Review https://t.co/3M43M7AGwi
“The decision puts a hole in prosecutors’ ability to prove their central claim: that the New Jersey Democrat took bribes to help send billions of dollars of… pic.twitter.com/K0fOy819T6— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 25, 2024
Judge rules Menendez’s prosecutors can’t show ‘critical’ evidence
Stein found the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause does not allow prosecutors to show jurors the evidence. The clause grants members of Congress a form of immunity that is mostly impenetrable in investigations relating to the official duties of lawmakers, their aides or other congressional officials.
Coincidentally, Stein based his order on a 1979 Supreme Court case about another New Jersey Democrat accused of corruption. In that case, the high court ruled the speech or debate clause barred prosecutors from introducing certain evidence against Rep. Henry Helstoski, who had been accused of accepting bribes.
Prosecutors had hoped to present the evidence in the Menendez case next week in the form of a summary of the years of text messages, phone records and other documents obtained during a multi-year investigation of the senator, his wife and various associates, including New Jersey business people accused of bribing him.
They wanted to show jurors two series of exhibits. First, 2019 text messages and phone records that allegedly show Menendez sought to assure bribers that he was not holding up military aid to Egypt after Egyptian officials heard he was. Second, a 2022 text message from Menendez’s wife about her husband having to sign off on military sales to Egypt, which prosecutors interpreted to mean she was signaling to “keep the bribes flowing.”
Citing the Helstoski case, Stein said “prior holds on foreign military assistance and prior sign-offs are precluded from coming in as evidence.”
Before the ruling, prosecutors called the evidence “critical” to parts of their case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.
Menendez is also accused of taking other bribes to do other things, which are not immediately affected by Stein’s ruling.
So, while prosecutors can talk about alleged promises given in exchange for bribes, they can’t talk about legislative acts themselves.
Experts on the “speech or debate” protection for Congress have described this sometimes-awkward dynamic as a feature of the framers’ vision, not a bug. It is rooted in their desire to prevent members of Congress from being intimidated or coerced by the threat of prosecution from the Executive Branch. Punishing members for their official acts, therefore, can be extremely complicated — by design. This dynamic has frustrated several prosecutions of members of Congress, however, it has not precluded them altogether.
Unlike executive privilege, which shields a president’s private communication, or attorney-client privilege, the speech or debate protection is actually written into the Constitution, making it a far more absolute protection than the others. And though the text only explicitly protects their remarks on the House or Senate floor, it has long been interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend to any acts that are part “integral” to the legislative process.
Other recent battles over the issue have included a fight over the FBI’s seizure of Rep. Scott Perry’s cell phone — part of the investigation into Donald Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election. The ensuing legal fight resulted in the first-ever ruling that members’ personal cell phones are covered by the speech or debate clause. That, the court ruled, was a natural extension of perhaps the most significant ruling of its kind — a 2007 ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals forcing prosecutors to return some documents seized from the congressional office then-Rep. William Jefferson.
Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
Garland told reporters that Trump and some of his allies were referring to a “standard operations plan” that limits when agents can use lethal force while executing search warrants.
The FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in August 2022 to retrieve classified material that he retained after leaving office. Agents found a slew of records that led to one of the four criminal prosecutions Trump currently faces.
Ahead of the search the FBI drafted a policy statement, which was made public this week, that authorized law enforcement to use deadly force only if an officer or another person was under immediate threat. Trump was not present when the search took place.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: BIDEN’S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!” read one e-mail, titled “I nearly escaped death.”
“It’s just been revealed that Biden’s DOJ was authorized to use DEADLY FORCE for their DESPICABLE raid in Mar-a-Lago.”
Garland, who oversees the FBI as attorney general, said such policies are routine and were also in effect during consensual searches of Biden’s homes conducted by the FBI in a separate classified documents investigation.
The use-of-force document was among hundreds of pages of records unsealed this week in the criminal case accusing Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive government documents after leaving the White House in 2021. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
His defense team is seeking to suppress evidence seized during the search, arguing that it violated Trump’s rights under the U.S. Constitution.
FBI agents seized about 100 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago during the court-authorized search, which came after Trump thwarted government demands to return the documents, according to prosecutors.
Sign up here.
Reporting by Andrew Goudsward, additional reporting by Gram Slattery; Editing by Scott Malone and Chizu Nomiyama
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
___________________________________________
Judge rules Menendez’s prosecutors can’t show ‘critical’ evidence – POLITICO https://t.co/Fb1FiFPfDW
“The decision puts a hole in prosecutors’ ability to prove their central claim: that the New Jersey Democrat took bribes to help send billions of dollars of American military aid…— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 25, 2024
Stein found the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause does not allow prosecutors to show jurors the evidence. The clause grants members of Congress a form of immunity that is mostly impenetrable in investigations relating to the official duties of lawmakers, their aides or other congressional officials.
Coincidentally, Stein based his order on a 1979 Supreme Court case about another New Jersey Democrat accused of corruption. In that case, the high court ruled the speech or debate clause barred prosecutors from introducing certain evidence against Rep. Henry Helstoski, who had been accused of accepting bribes.
Prosecutors had hoped to present the evidence in the Menendez case next week in the form of a summary of the years of text messages, phone records and other documents obtained during a multi-year investigation of the senator, his wife and various associates, including New Jersey business people accused of bribing him.
They wanted to show jurors two series of exhibits. First, 2019 text messages and phone records that allegedly show Menendez sought to assure bribers that he was not holding up military aid to Egypt after Egyptian officials heard he was. Second, a 2022 text message from Menendez’s wife about her husband having to sign off on military sales to Egypt, which prosecutors interpreted to mean she was signaling to “keep the bribes flowing.”
Citing the Helstoski case, Stein said “prior holds on foreign military assistance and prior sign-offs are precluded from coming in as evidence.”
Before the ruling, prosecutors called the evidence “critical” to parts of their case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.
Menendez is also accused of taking other bribes to do other things, which are not immediately affected by Stein’s ruling.
So, while prosecutors can talk about alleged promises given in exchange for bribes, they can’t talk about legislative acts themselves.
Experts on the “speech or debate” protection for Congress have described this sometimes-awkward dynamic as a feature of the framers’ vision, not a bug. It is rooted in their desire to prevent members of Congress from being intimidated or coerced by the threat of prosecution from the Executive Branch. Punishing members for their official acts, therefore, can be extremely complicated — by design. This dynamic has frustrated several prosecutions of members of Congress, however, it has not precluded them altogether.
Unlike executive privilege, which shields a president’s private communication, or attorney-client privilege, the speech or debate protection is actually written into the Constitution, making it a far more absolute protection than the others. And though the text only explicitly protects their remarks on the House or Senate floor, it has long been interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend to any acts that are part “integral” to the legislative process.
Other recent battles over the issue have included a fight over the FBI’s seizure of Rep. Scott Perry’s cell phone — part of the investigation into Donald Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election. The ensuing legal fight resulted in the first-ever ruling that members’ personal cell phones are covered by the speech or debate clause. That, the court ruled, was a natural extension of perhaps the most significant ruling of its kind — a 2007 ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals forcing prosecutors to return some documents seized from the congressional office then-Rep. William Jefferson.
Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
#Russia Losses 575,643
+9,567 from May 18Saturday, May 25, 2024, in the morning report to the aid to the President of Russia, Nikolai Patrushev, irrevocable military operational losses of the #RussianArmy are 499,451 people. Data are as of 6 a.m. Moscow time today.
This figure… https://t.co/UNBzLVN9Qt pic.twitter.com/3VZuOj2h22
— generalsvr_en (@generalsvr_en) May 25, 2024
https://t.co/WyNcxJisyN
The News And Times Review#NewsAndTimes #NT #TNT #News #Times#World #USA #POTUS #DOJ #FBI #CIA #DIA #ODNI#Israel #Mossad #Netanyahu#Ukraine #NewAbwehr #OSINT#Putin #Russia #GRU #Путин, #Россия #SouthCaucasus #Bloggershttps://t.co/O0SIgLVWzM…— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 25, 2024