news
Opinions and interpretations
The Netanyahu trial
Was not like this thing?
Mr. Prime Minister, let's talk about precedents
A defendant in a huge case talks to a key prosecution witness as in the case of crime families, a lawyer who goes on to represent the prosecution witnesses in the defense, a prime minister who incites a live broadcast against the law enforcement system and a politician who kidnaps the country for a fourth election. Evidence
Tags
Benjamin Netanyahu
File 1000
File 2000
File 4000
The Netanyahu trial
Arnon Milchen
Welcome read
Thursday, February 18, 2021, 3:19 p.m.
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
Israel and Syria are negotiating Russia-mediated ...
Facebook has blocked the publication of news in Australia in a controversial escalation ...
The arrest of a young man suspected of raping a girl in the south has been extended, extended ...
Belarus: Two journalists filming demonstrations against the president ...
Israel sends Gaza first shipment of Corona vaccines ...
Former President Trump Plaza Casino in Atlantic City ...
The Department of Defense and the U.S. MDA have begun developing a system ...
Edelstein: Workers in places with an audience will have to get vaccinated or ...
Ministry of Health: Hundreds of vaccines for Corona are thrown every day ...
A Nahariya resident was arrested on suspicion of murdering his 76-year-old mother ...
In the video: Summary of the Walla!
NEWS on Netanyahu's trial from 08.02.2021 (Photo: Connect, Roni Knafo, Shai Makhlouf and Reuters)
Let's talk for a moment about precedents.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterates that the charges against him are precedent-setting.
"There was no such thing," he claims.
In a recent interview with News 12, he mentioned "all this invention of bribery that does not exist in any law book."
Strangely, the offense of bribery was enforced here in Palestine-Israel during the Ottoman rule, during the British Mandate, and later passed into Israeli law. Not to mention the explicit prohibition that exists for this offense in Torah Yisrael, a prohibition that appeared only in last week's affair. "
Yes, yes, I know, Netanyahu did not really mean the offense itself - the" bribery offense "- but the type of death attributed to him -" positive coverage. "But that is exactly the point. For him, it is less important. For that matter, the choice of words, probably during the election campaign - the main thing that brainwashing will work: the system haunts him, whether you adopt for this purpose the strange narrative that he represents the Orientals, whether you adopt the version that he is persecuted for his rightness, or whether you adopt the claim Love it.All conspiracies are welcome, the main thing that will serve him.By the way, even about the type of death, one can certainly argue.The issue certainly exists in the legal history of Israel, but there is no doubt neither in this mass nor in this scope.
More on Walla!
NEWS
Ask Bennett and Shaked: What did Netanyahu forget to tell the court?
To the full article
More on Walla!
NEWS
Netanyahu's portfolios intended to suppress Mizrahis?
This is a fact as there is no corona.
That's why I exploded
To evade trial, "United Netanyahu" solemnly introduces a declared racist to the Knesset
The subservience to the ultra-Orthodox leadership began with Ben-Gurion.
Netanyahu who included her as rabbi
Until the general public is vaccinated the corona is still here: this is how you will achieve a safe, vocal, comfortable mask that you can breathe with especially for the period of exit
A precedent-setting charge?
The main thing is that brainwashing will work.
Netanyahu (Photo: Official Website, Alex Kolomoisky)
Therefore, for the sake of discussion, let us all agree that the charge in the 4,000 case is a precedent-setting charge.
Could it be that a particular person is surprising the system with alleged criminal behavior?
Precedent?
Does this mean that enforcement against him is selective enforcement?
The interesting thing is that the person who dealt with this question in the past is one of Netanyahu's panel judges, Justice Oded Shaham.
Eleven years ago, in July 2010, the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court's ruling on the issue of Tzachi Hanegbi's political appointments was published.
It was a judgment that perfectly expressed how confused the legal system was in relation to the question in question.
The three justices of the Magistrate's Court gave three different rulings, and somehow the result had to be refined: The head of the panel, Judge Yoel Tzur, believed that Hanegbi was acting in a seemingly legal space, and that no one told him not to offer favors in exchange for his support. His predecessors in office. "
Justices Aryeh Romanov and Oded Shaham ruled that Hanegbi had committed a criminal offense.
However, Judge Romanov did believe that the indictment against Hanegbi should be dismissed on the grounds of "protection from justice," while Judge Shaham thought he should be convicted.
Judge Tzur criticized the police for not examining other politicians for the same offenses, calling the investigation "selective and trending."
Tzur claimed that Hanegbi was "marked," he said, while "other appointment criminals" were completely ignored.
He wrote about the commander of the investigating unit at the time, Yoav Saglowitz (now a Member of Knesset), that he did not inspect the Ministry of the Environment before Hanegbi's period ... The above issues did not interest him ... , And even trending. "Shaham's view was 180 degrees opposite. He actually praised the police, and wrote that" it is not possible to be impressed by the existence of a biased investigation.
It can be seen that the investigation is focused on the issue of political appointments during the Negev period. "In conclusion, he rejected the claim for selective enforcement.
A piece of evidence
Notice the simple and precise words of Shaham: "The investigation focuses on the issue of political appointments during the Negev period."
An investigator and a lawyer should examine what is before them.
True, sometimes an absurdity is created.
Take for example the 2000 case. Seemingly, there really is something strange about it.
In fact, Netanyahu, who has no argument that he has not received positive coverage from Yedioth Ahronoth over the years, is actually accused of a kind of corrupt connection with Noni Mozes that was not visible to the naked eye?
Thoughtfully, conceptually, there really is an absurdity here, but there is another thing here as well.
Remember when a former Knesset member, Ruhama Avraham, once said the funny sentence "and because of what? Because of evidence" at some immunity hearing?
So this is, this is the thing, because of evidence.
The other thing here is simple - evidence.
The Moses-Netanyahu tape is a piece of evidence.
Once the law enforcement authority receives such evidence, does it not have discriminatory, or non-discriminatory, enforcement discretion?
Scholars should not ask themselves whether they examined Moses' previous connections?
Or did not check?
Investigators should follow the evidence and intelligence provided to them.
Take, for example, Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi's constant whining about the embarrassing recordings revealed about him.
He repeats: "It is very interesting that the recordings from Ehud Barak's bureau have disappeared."
Walla is really interesting - but not relevant to you, Mr. Ashkenazi.
What is relevant is what the content of the recordings is about you.
Did the researchers want to provoke Barak and stab Ashkenazi?
The answer is of course no.
If they had not examined evidence given to them in the Barak case, and would have done so only to Ashkenazi, then the answer would have been yes.
A precedent we missed.
Hanegbi at the opening of the Netanyahu trial (Photo: Reuven Castro)
This was exactly Shaham's line in his ruling in the Hanegbi case - the police, who followed a very serious report by the State Comptroller in the Hanegbi case, based on witnesses describing this corruption, did their job.
By the way, Judge Romanov also had no criticism of the police, but still believed that Hanegbi deserved "protection from justice."
In fact, in this case all three judges were in a minority opinion, but the practical result was of course that Hanegbi wins from this specific offense, and was convicted only of another offense.
This was a classic case that should have been appealed to the district court, and from there to the Supreme Court.
The prosecution was upset by the result, and wanted to appeal, but there was only one problem: Hanegbi's verdict was given during the prosecutors' strike on their terms.
The attorneys obeyed the committee's instructions and did not appeal, and so we missed the Negev precedent in the matter of protection from justice.
In any case, the existing rulings of the Supreme Court regarding "selective enforcement" set a very high standard for the defendants.
Netanyahu's lawyers are doing everything to claim that Netanyahu's rights have been severely violated.
If Judge Shaham's perceptions, which we learned about in the Hanegbi case, also represent the perceptions of the other members of the panel, it seems that the court longs for a moment when he can simply study the case on its own merits, without background noise and discrimination allegations.
Precedents we never dreamed of
But let's talk about a few more precedents that happen in this trial and this period: When was the last time you heard of a defendant in a mega-case conducting phone calls, friendly, after the trial began, with a key prosecution witness against him?
Have you heard of such a thing?
If so, tell me.
I have been covering this system for many years, and yes, I have come across such cases, but not really in white-collar cases, rather more in the cases of criminal organizations.
By the way, even there, the blessings that the defendant conveyed forever are in the spirit: "Happy holiday", "How are you".
Sometimes they also add: "Just want to see that you're fine."
When Netanyahu was asked about this in an interview with Yonit Levy, he pulled out: "Once," and then a few seconds later, he recalled: "Once, twice, I no longer remember."
And I ask, Mr. Prime Minister, do you want to think again?
Only twice?
And when you poke "twice," you only mean the voice calls between you two?
Maybe messages were conveyed through some mediator?
Because some of these have already been mentioned in the media, and there are some that have not been mentioned.
One of those who has been mentioned is billionaire Larry Allison.
On the content of the talks, Netanyahu says: "I congratulated him ... I congratulated him on ... you are allowed to talk, but what I talked to him about, I talked to him about ... I said to him: 'Happy holiday,' or do not remember what."
So remember or do not remember?
Because the words you used, Mr. Prime Minister, are quite important in such cases.
What messages were conveyed between the two?
Netanyahu and Milchen (Photo: GettyImages)
Let's talk about another precedent: in how many cases have you come across an attorney who represented two key prosecution witnesses throughout the investigation, ultimately representing the defendant in the trial? True, he does represent him in the 4000 case, not the 1000 case (which Milchen and his assistant Hadas Klein testified ), But this is one defense team, which even now signed together on all the preliminary requests. The things attributed to Adv. Ben Tzur in his conversation with Milchen: "Call, he has a warm corner in his heart for you", were not denied by him, he was just angry about This is what the prosecution warned him about, and more in public.
And another precedent: When did you see a prime minister attack, incite and seduce the public in a live broadcast against law enforcement agencies, as Netanyahu does?
Although Olmert did this during his interrogation and trial, and blatantly as well, he is still very far from the way Netanyahu does it in his voice and live.
Is it likely that a prime minister, even if he is sure that he has been wronged, will incite an entire public against the general prosecution in the State of Israel, which is responsible for several other cases besides his own?
"Selective enforcement"?
The court will decide.
The Jerusalem District (Photo: Reuven Castro)
And to the latest and most disturbing precedent of all: a prime minister is leading Israel to a fourth election, due to only one issue - being charged with a crime.
It is undisputed that without the charges against him, a coalition led by the right would have been formed as early as 2019.
So yes, even if the charge against Netanyahu is a precedent-setting charge, it stems from unprecedented behavior, which the law enforcement agencies had to address.
The court will decide in the future whether to treat this precedent as Shaham (current member of the panel), Romanov, or Tzur.
What is really worrying are the destructive and dangerous precedents that Netanyahu imposed on us as a result of these cases, precedents we really did not dream of - contamination of the legal process against him, without shame, public indictment of the judiciary, and dragging the country to a fourth election.
Baruch Kara is the legal commentator for News 13
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
