Fox and Wolf in Peace Talk
Despicable diversion tactics of TWO illegitimate World Leaders.
Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump are facing Criminal Charges and Impeachment at home respectively. In order to divert the attention from them these two Crooks are declaring to find solution to the Palestinian problem. The last people who are expected to keep away from any negotiations of this nature, according to Palestinians and the majority of the International community are these two agitators. Hoodwinking and Brow-beating are their trades all their lives. They are about to pay for their crimes. They are standing up on podium in an exclusive Zionist Jewish Club in New York declaring peace solution to the Palestinian Problem. There was not a single Palestinian oe any Muslim person among the Zionist group. Of course the Palestinians and almost all the Arab States have rejected the mockery
These are the allegations against Netanyahu:
Case 1.
Charges: Fraud and breach of trust
This case concerns the prime minister’s relationship with two businessmen: Arnon Milchan, an Israeli Hollywood film producer, and James Packer, an Australian billionaire. The draft indictment issued by the attorney general’s office in February alleged that Mr Netanyahu had “received various high-value benefits, including the frequent and continuous supply of expensive goods, while at the same time undertaking actions favourable to Mr Milchan”.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Netanyahu has insisted he only received tokens of friendship from Arnon Milchan (L)
It said the benefits received between 2006 and 2016, mainly cigars and bottles of champagne, were worth 956,800 shekels ($264,100; £199,200).
Mr Netanyahu has insisted they were merely tokens of friendship and that he did not act inappropriately in exchange for them.
Mr Milchan and Mr Packer are not
facing any charges, but like the prime minister they have previously denied any
wrongdoing.
Case 2
Charges: Fraud and breach of trust
This case concerns meetings that
Mr Netanyahu conducted with Arnon Mozes, a businessman and the controlling
shareholder of the Yedioth Ahronoth media group, which publishes a leading
Israeli newspaper. “During these meetings, the two discussed positive
changes in the press coverage by Mr Mozes’ media group regarding Mr Netanyahu,
and possible action to promote a legislative bill that would have operated to
reduce the financial damage created to Mr Mozes’ own newspaper by a rival
newspaper, Yisrael Hayom,” the attorney general’s draft indictment said. Image
copyright Reuters Image caption Arnon Mozes has been charged with bribery Mr Mandelblit has decided to charge Mr Mozes
with bribery. Both men have previously denied any wrongdoing, and said they did
not intend to promote the matters discussed in their meetings. Mr Netanyahu has
said the legislation concerning Israel Hayom never passed, and that he
dissolved his governing coalition in 2015 because of his opposition to it.
Case 4,000
Charges: Bribery, fraud and breach of trust
This case concerns what the attorney general’s draft indictment said was “an illegal arrangement between Mr Netanyahu and Saul Elovitch, owner of the news and media website Walla”.
Mr Netanyahu also held the post of communications minister from 2014 to 2017. Mr Elovitch was the controlling shareholder in Israel’s biggest telecommunications company, Bezeq.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Shaul Elovitch has been charged with bribery
“It is alleged that Mr
Elovitch acted to significantly and substantively alter press coverage
published on the [Walla] website so as to favour Mr Netanyahu,” the draft
indictment said. “Under this arrangement, Mr Netanyahu in return exercised
his authorities of office so as to benefit Mr Elovitch and his
businesses.”
The attorney general has charged Mr Elovitch and his wife, Iris, with bribery.
Mr Netanyahu, Mr Elovitch and his wife have previously denied any wrongdoing.
Mr Netanyahu has insisted he received nothing from Mr Elovitch and that Walla’s coverage of him has been negative. He has said experts supported the regulatory decisions that benefited Bezeq.
Trump’s Case:
The impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the incumbent president of the United States, was initiated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on September 24, 2019,[1] after a whistleblower alleged that Donald Trump may have abused the power of the presidency. Trump is accused of withholding military aid as a means of pressuring newly elected president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky to pursue investigations of Joe Biden and his son Hunter[a] and to investigate a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.[3] More than a week after Trump had put a hold on the previously approved aid,[4][b] he made these requests in a July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president,[6] which the whistleblower said was intended to help Trump’s reelection bid.[3]
Believing critical military aid would be revoked, Zelensky made plans to announce investigations into the Bidens on the September 13 episode of CNN‘s Fareed Zakaria GPS.[5] After Trump was told of the whistleblower complaint in late August[7] and elements of the events had begun to leak, the aid was released on September 11 and the planned interview was cancelled.[5] Trump declassified a non-verbatim transcript of the call on September 24,[6][8] the day the impeachment inquiry began. The whistleblower’s complaint was given to Congress the following day and subsequently released to the public.[9] The White House corroborated several of the allegations, including that a record of the call between Trump and Zelensky had been stored in a highly restricted system in the White House normally reserved for classified information.[10][11]
In October, three congressional committees (Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs) deposed witnesses including Ukraine ambassador Bill Taylor,[12] Laura Cooper (the top Pentagon official overseeing Ukraine-related U.S. policy),[13] and former White House official Fiona Hill.[14] Witnesses testified that they believed Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into the Bidens and Burisma (a Ukrainian natural gas company on whose board Hunter Biden had served)[5][15] and 2016 election interference.[16] On October 8, in a letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House Speaker Pelosi, the White House officially responded that it would not cooperate with the investigation due to concerns including that there had not yet been a vote of the full House of Representatives and that interviews of witnesses were being conducted privately.[17][18] On October 17, White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney responded to a reporter’s allegation of quid pro quo saying: “We do that all the time with foreign policy. Get over it.” He walked back his comments later, asserting that there had been “absolutely no quid pro quo” and that Trump had withheld military aid to Ukraine over concerns of the country’s corruption.[19][20]
On October 31, the House of Representatives voted 232–196 to establish procedures for public hearings,[21] which started on November 13.[22] As hearings began, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Trump may have committed bribery, which is listed in Article Two as an impeachable offense.[23][24][25] Private and public congressional testimony by twelve government witnesses in November 2019 presented evidence that Trump demanded political favors in exchange for official action.[26][27][28][29] On December 10, the House Judiciary Committee unveiled their articles of impeachment: one for abuse of power and one for obstruction of Congress.[30][31] Three days later, the Judiciary Committee voted along party lines (23–17) to approve both articles.[32] On December 16, the House Judiciary Committee released a report specifying criminal bribery and wire fraud charges as part of the abuse of power charge.[33] On December 18, the House voted mostly along party lines to impeach the president on both charges. The vote on Article One, abuse of power, was 230–197, with one vote of present. All Republicans voted against the article, joined by two Democrats. The vote on Article Two, obstruction of Congress, was 229–198, with one vote of present. All Republicans voted against the article, joined by three Democrats.[34][35][36]
