Channel 13 intends to hold a public trial for the Prime Minister days before the actual trial

• Raviv Drucker // Photo: Gideon Markowitz

The channels of the left, the depression and the melancholy are in a continuous frenzy that is only getting worse. Pike commentators and journalists, in delusional collaboration with law enforcement officials, enlisted to overthrow the right-wing government; Combined and coordinated activity that led to the indictment against the Prime Minister. An indictment that was the focus of three election campaigns. The plot didn't work out.

The public largely made the move, absorbed in his healthy senses the subversion, and the voter note expressed complete distrust of the law enforcement system and the media lobbyist.

Now well-known media outlets, which in recent years broadcast leaks from the interrogations, demonized the prime minister, allegedly disrupted investigative procedures and decided to hold a field trial - are recruiting again for the trial to open. The Advocates and Attorney General's fingers are already ready for the big lick of Netanyahu's appearance in court. 

Made worse Channel 13, which intends to hold a public trial of the Prime Minister just days before the trial began. In an amended country, where the USC does not hide cassettes that cast a bleak shadow, or in places that have no biased and mobilized prosecution, or in countries where the Supreme Court President is not convinced that the law prohibiting judicial hearings is a dead letter - there is no way such a preliminary trial would But whatever the law enforcement system is about to collapse, it has long lost public confidence and is primarily concerned with protecting the Iron Wall and its strongholds against the elected officials. While these lines are being written, I still hope that by the time the law enforcement system is broadcast, it will prevent committing an offense. The alleged subjudice.

Years ago, I served as a district court intern. I was well acquainted with the judges' conduct and discovered that judges are also ordinary people. When they make them laugh they laugh, when they annoy them they get mad, when they write compliments about them they enjoy and when they try to influence them they are affected. This is why the law of the Court states that "a person shall not publish anything about a pending criminal matter in order to influence the course of the trial or its results." It is a criminal offense punishable by a year of imprisonment.

Freedom of speech is more essential than the judicial process

Many waters flooded the law enforcement system, from the days when the purity of the law and the judgments were material and fundamental. During the Mandate period Berl Katznelson was forced to pay a high fine for knowing that he published in the newspaper "Davar" at the time of the legal hearing on Arlozorov's murder. Supreme Court Judge Moshe Silberg banned the presentation of a case that mentioned the facts of the case in Justice Salhi when a legal hearing was held. In 1983, Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak dismissed an appeal by journalist Orly Azulay for her conviction following the publication of a sympathetic article on convicted felonies, two days before his sentencing. This happened before President Barak realized that in order to advance the constitutional revolution and to root out judicial activism, media support and court-friendly associations needed support.

The subjudice offense appears in the statute book, but the courts do not attribute it to it. Freedom of expression is more fundamental than the purity of the judicial process. So what is the wonder that the public is skeptical about the possibility of getting justice.

Rini admits that in the past I did not understand Prof. Ruth Gavison's remarks about her doubts about Netanyahu's ability to win a justice trial. Now, in light of the public broadcasting of the original program, it is clear to me that she is right. This is, in my opinion, a transparent attempt that has the alleged criminal intent to influence witnesses, generate public opinion and direct the court to the desired destination. To this should be added the media's attempt to establish some resemblance between Olmert's envelope charges and Netanyahu's "sympathetic coverage" charges.

On Jerusalem Day we will remember that one of the nicknames for this marvelous city is "City of Justice." Despite the harsh feeling, I still hope the trial will be conducted by judges in the courtroom, rather than outside the city by the media. And this may not be an exaggerated expectation.