WSJ: Netanyahu Bribed Republicans Over Iran Deal

[Craig B]

Obama buys into the anti-Semitic premise that U.S. interests do not wholly overlap with Israeli interests.

Then why does anyone need to be bribed to support these interests? Surely they would proudly do for zero payment anything that wholly overlaps with Netenyahoo's current desires.

 

[ferd burfle]

Interesting that standing up to Netanyahu isn't recognized by the right wing as a positive. They'd prefer Obama play lapdog.

I think a substantial part of this is playing to the right wing bibble-thumpers who believe in end-times/Israel "prophecy".



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it your considered opinion that Israel is legally considered an enemy of the United States? Because if not, then nobody here can possibly be guilty of treason.

And as money is speech any so called bribes by foreign powers are just a simple conversation.

 

[Ziggurat]

And as money is speech any so called bribes by foreign powers are just a simple conversation.

That has nothing at all to do with my question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That has nothing at all to do with my question.

The definition of treason doesn't require an enemy as you are defining one.

From Google Definitions

trea·son
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government....

From the Free Dictionary:

trea·son.
1. The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.

While both definitions add "especially ..." what it refers to is not required.

However, the 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES does refer to overthrow and enemies.

But there is the The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)

The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal") to register with the Department of Justice when acting in any capacity, even if only indirectly controlled, on behalf of a foreign principal. It also requires periodic disclosure of all activities and finances. The Act covers political activities, public relations counsel, publicity agents, information-service employees, political consultants, fundraisers or those who represent the foreign power before any agency or official of the United States government. It does not include news or press services not owned by the foreign principal.[9]

At a minimum the contact between members of Congress and Netanyahu should have been in the open.

 

[Ziggurat]

The definition of treason doesn't require an enemy as you are defining one.

The relevant definition here is that given by the US constitution, not Google, and that does require an enemy.

But there is the The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)

Not relevant here.

You really aren't any good at this whole law thing, are you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The relevant definition here is that given by the US constitution, not Google, and that does require an enemy.

Not relevant here.

You really aren't any good at this whole law thing, are you?

You really aren't good at discussion, are you, what with all your semantic sidetracks meant to derail the issues that matter. These Pubbies in the House want to emasculate the office of President because they aren't winning the real majority of votes.

They can only control the country by gerrymandering and a massive influx of cash from a few rich billionaires and corporations. So much for pretending to value democracy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The relevant definition here is that given by the US constitution, not Google, and that does require an enemy.

Yes that is limited to serious enemies of the state like the United Mine Workers union.

 

[Ziggurat]

You really aren't good at discussion, are you, what with all your semantic sidetracks meant to derail the issues that matter.

Treason is a serious crime, so serious that it remains the only crime defined by the constitution, and it is therefore a serious accusation. It's not a derail to ask if the person who made that accusation can support it.

If you think it's a derail, you are free to just shut up rather than continue the derail.

 

[grunion]

I called it treason because it is an (as yet unsubstantiated) attempt by a foreign power to use Congress to undermine the actions of the United States government not by appealing through regular channels but through secrecy and graft. If any government officials are complicit with this attempt it is treasonous, be it Chuck Schumer or Steve Scalise. I did not mean it in its Constitutional sense, so perhaps "sedition" would be more accurate. I called it graft because it is (posited to be) elected officials using the power of their office for personal gain.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Treason is a serious crime, so serious that it remains the only crime defined by the constitution, and it is therefore a serious accusation. It's not a derail to ask if the person who made that accusation can support it.

If you think it's a derail, you are free to just shut up rather than continue the derail.

It's a semantic derail to go off on whether or not there is a legal case for treason. Grunion explained his rationale for what he meant.

 

[Mycroft]

Obama buys into the anti-Semitic premise that U.S. interests do not wholly overlap with Israeli interests.

Then why does anyone need to be bribed to support these interests? Surely they would proudly do for zero payment anything that wholly overlaps with Netenyahoo's current desires.

He meant that ironically. It's his way of putting forth the straw-man argument that conservatives believe US interests do wholly overlap with Israeli interests, and also that conservatives will call anyone who disagrees with that an anti-Semite.

 

[theprestige]

maybe I'm just naive, but even if there was not a single bribe offered (and if they know what they're doing there wouldn't be evidence regardless), something in the back of my mind has always a little wary about the whole foreign lobbyists thing.

I have enough problem with domestic lobbyists; a country like Israel doing 'whatever it can do' to steer American foreign policy is even worse.

This is a good point, but I worry about throwing the baby away with the bathwater.

Congress has the responsibility to study any subject which they consider important enough to legislate on. This responsibility properly includes hearing from lobbyists both foreign and domestic, whenever they see fit.

And of course any foreign leader would be delinquent in his own duties, if he did not do every legal thing within his power to influence US policy in favor of his nation.

So I'm not sure how you could ask both American lawmakers and foreign emissaries to each responsibly discharge their proper duties, without insisting that they meet with each other and expose themselves to each others' influence.

The same conundrum arises with domestic lobbyists, of course.

 

[Ziggurat]

I called it treason because it is an (as yet unsubstantiated) attempt by a foreign power to use Congress to undermine the actions of the United States government not by appealing through regular channels but through secrecy and graft.

That's not treason.

If any government officials are complicit with this attempt it is treasonous, be it Chuck Schumer or Steve Scalise. I did not mean it in its Constitutional sense,

That's the only sense that actually matters.

so perhaps "sedition" would be more accurate.

Sedition is even less accurate.

I called it graft because it is (posited to be) elected officials using the power of their office for personal gain.

I didn't challenge your use of the word "graft".

 

[a_unique_person]

That's not treason.



That's the only sense that actually matters.



Sedition is even less accurate.



I didn't challenge your use of the word "graft".

How would you describe issue then ?

 

[Tony Stark]

Poor Bibi, did everything he could to sabatoge the President of the United States and still couldn’t get his way. But heh, maybe the people of the United States will be stupid enough to put someone in the White House that will take orders from him (ie a Republican scumbag) and he will be able to get us to take out Iran for him.

 

[Ziggurat]

How would you describe issue then ?

The allegation is of corruption, not treason.

 

[stevea]

You really aren't good at discussion, are you, what with all your semantic sidetracks meant to derail the issues that matter. These Pubbies in the House want to emasculate the office of President because they aren't winning the real majority of votes.

Seems to me Ziggy is exploring the definition of basic terms foundational to this argument, and you are guilty of ad hom & attribution of motives fallacies.

--

So let's see - The allegation is that Netanyahu offered bribes to members of congress, brought to light by NSA spying that involved foreign heads of state and Congress.

I have no issue with the NSA surveilling foreign heads of state, tho' the fact that this violates Obama's claim is a reflection on his lack of character and credibility.

I don't know or greatly care abt Israeli law, but it's entirely likely that Netanyahu is guilty of no crime in this case. Manipulation of another nations decision making process is deplorable - but that's about as far as it goes. Let's not forget that the Obama State department in 2013 funded One Voice at $350k to promote an anti-Likud policy in Israel&Palestine. Both are unseemly interference.

The language implied but not quoted in the link articles "what can I do to get you to vote for ..." suggests an offer of quid pro quo - a bribe. But this is also common use of language in persuasion, and the articles only provide LEADING SPECULATION that bribes were actually accepted.

I'm in favor of treating any such corruption as the crime it is, but let's not forget that there is a lot more evidence on the table that, for example, Hillary as SecO'State had a pay-to-play corruption racket involving the Clinton Foundation. Contributors admit this. Or that Bill&Hill' were heavily involved in accepting large amounts of Chinese funds for Bills campaign and the DNC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
Cattle futures & Whitewater are just gravy wrt corruption.

Then we have this SELECTIVE PARTISAN release of information in what should be a criminal investigation. That itself is a crime that needs investigation. I'm completely in favor of a NON-PARTISAN special prosecutor to investigate the matter. But I have zero tolerance for the use of allegations based on intelligence for political ends. Where have I seen this problem before ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy

Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone.

---


I am NOT proposing a tu quoque argument - all these allegations deserve a proper investigation and disposition - without their use for political smear campaigns. That seems quite unlikely given this is the most partisan, biased and unjust DoJ in human memory, and I include the horrific Gonzales/Bush2 DoJ in that calculation.


If "the other" are "Pubbies" to you Ginger, then you are queen of the Hippies(Hypocrats ?) for not applying even a similar standard to your own preferences.

==

They can only control the country by gerrymandering and a massive influx of cash from a few rich billionaires and corporations. So much for pretending to value democracy.

Like "your party" doesn't do exactly the same.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
Tom Steyer and Bloomberg give more to Dems than all the top Reps contribs combined. They are the top 2 BIllionare contributors.

Gerrymandering - the Dems in Dem (legislature+gov) states do this also, there are just fewer such states. Life's a b*tch when you are losing - huh ?
===


Such selective partisan ire would be funny if wasn't also the cause of so much tragedy for this nation. Pull your head out of .. (uhhm err) the sand. Both parties stink. This strong preference for a cr*p sandwich over sewage broth is comical.

 

[3point14]

The issue here is much bigger than the spying. Netanyahu made an unprecedented effort to influence/sabotage the US-Iran nuclear deal. We didn't elect Netanyahu. We shouldn't be acting as proxies for Israel.

Regardless of how you feel about the Iran deal, Netanyahu should not have been so blatantly trying to influence Congress.

He should have done it the right way: By anonymously donating heavily to a presidential campaign fund.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems to me Ziggy is exploring the definition of basic terms foundational to this argument, and you are guilty of ad hom & attribution of motives fallacies.

What ad hom? Not sure I used one recently.

The fact he's a right winger and it colors his POV is a relevant fact, not an ad hom, the same way any of us have underlying philosophies and premises.

So let's see - The allegation is that Netanyahu offered bribes to members of congress, brought to light by NSA spying that involved foreign heads of state and Congress.

I have no issue with the NSA surveilling foreign heads of state, tho' the fact that this violates Obama's claim is a reflection on his lack of character and credibility.

Obama is not the topic. But if he looked into Netanyahu and the Iran deal specifically, I think there was cause.

I don't know or greatly care abt Israeli law, but it's entirely likely that Netanyahu is guilty of no crime in this case. Manipulation of another nations decision making process is deplorable - but that's about as far as it goes. Let's not forget that the Obama State department in 2013 funded One Voice at $350k to promote an anti-Likud policy in Israel&Palestine. Both are unseemly interference.

Again this is not about Obama, start a new thread. I've always thought it was hypocritical that we try to influence other governments while it's a crime here for foreign money to be applied to campaigns. Every US President probably going back to Washington has interfered with foreign governments.

[snipped a bunch of unproven partisan claptrap.]


I am NOT proposing a tu quoque argument

Yes you are.

all these allegations deserve a proper investigation and disposition - without their use for political smear campaigns.

As if Bill and Hillary have not been thoroughly investigated?

That seems quite unlikely given this is the most partisan, biased and unjust DoJ in human memory, and I include the horrific Gonzales/Bush2 DoJ in that calculation.

If "the other" are "Pubbies" to you Ginger, then you are queen of the Hippies(Hypocrats ?) for not applying even a similar standard to your own preferences.

What nonsense. Since the Clinton investigations found little to nothing, the Bush investigations found plenty. But I don't suppose you can see that given you are still chasing after WhiteWater of all things. Ken Starr's million dollar investigation wasn't enough for you?

Like "your party" doesn't do exactly the same.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
Tom Steyer and Bloomberg give more to Dems than all the top Reps contribs combined. They are the top 2 BIllionare contributors.

Gerrymandering - the Dems in Dem (legislature+gov) states do this also, there are just fewer such states. Life's a b*tch when you are losing - huh ?
===


Such selective partisan ire would be funny if wasn't also the cause of so much tragedy for this nation. Pull your head out of .. (uhhm err) the sand. Both parties stink. This strong preference for a cr*p sandwich over sewage broth is comical.

Not a tu quoque argument? Puhleese. That's is your argument.

IMO, yes both parties engage in crap. And in some decades the Democratic Party has been worse. But for the last half century, the Pubbies have been down right criminals on a regular basis and it's been top down, not a few miscreants among the ranks.