What We Discovered In The Cross-Investigation | Israel today

The provincial reports

from the Glasgow climate conference focused on the new series of photos Bennett obtained for him with world haters.

The media was comfortable minimizing the coverage of the most important trial in the history of Israeli democracy, the Netanyahu trial.

Recall - until this week, four prosecution witnesses went to the witness stand.

Each of them tried to link the prosecution's thesis regarding the gift of "exceptional media responsiveness" in Walla, to the authoritative reality.

The four of them found it difficult to establish their version of the main investigation - in the cross-examination.

Judge Moshe Baram has so far summed up the chapter on the death of the dead when he expressed his opinion from the testimony of salvation.

"Give a sign when you are telling the truth and when you are not."

This week he testified until No. 5. Avi Berger, former director general of the Ministry of Communications. Unlike his four predecessors on the podium, he was brought in as the professional on the regulatory side of the 4000 case, ie on part of the proceeds, the same "government actions Netanyahu carried out in exchange for Malowitz." In the wording of the lawsuit, simply, paragraphs 50 to 61 of the first indictment in the indictment are a series of stories that try to establish a fact: At a time when Elovich needed Netanyahu in the Bezeq deal, Netanyahu moved Gilad Ardan and fired Berger from the Ministry of Communications. To Elowitz, because they promoted the wholesale market reform against Bezeq and their professional position was not to approve the deal.

Berger's testimony was supposed to provide the meat and muscle for the thesis, but then came the cross-examination of Chen, Rosen Ozer and Ben-Zur. It turned out that it was the director general of the Ministry of Communications who slammed Bezeq and blackmailed her, illegally burying him for nine months without handling or addressing Yes's request for a merger with Bezeq.

His cross-examination also provided an opportunity to see how the prosecution and the witness withheld from the court data relevant to his credibility and conduct - for example, who had been VP at Partner for four and a half years. Partner, Eli Kamir. Contrary to his testimony at the outset, Berger was forced to recall the cross-examination that Kamir also later approached him in professional matters unrelated to Bezeq. Former CEO Berger also had to admit that at the time there was no professional position or official policy against the merger. In any case, he never spoke to Netanyahu, when he was communications minister, about Bezeq, and Netanyahu did not ask or ask anything about it.

The few times that Adv. Tzafrir, Chief of Staff of the Minister of Communications, spoke with him about Bezeq (be positive, meet Stella Handler and Ron Ayalon and expedite the professional handling of the application) - he did not contact or attribute to Netanyahu. The only thing he knew how to say was that Tzafrir asked for something on Netanyahu's behalf about Channel 10. During a cross-examination, it became clear that Berger had in fact segregated Tzafrir and banned him from attending the professional meetings. Recall that in the narrative of the State Attorney's Office, Tzafrir was the long arm of Communications Minister Netanyahu. Hand? Maybe Trumpeldor's left hand.

Then came the climax -

section 61 of the indictment. "On May 17, 2015, immediately after the formation of the new government headed by Defendant Netanyahu, in which he continued to serve as Minister of Communications, Defendant Netanyahu announced to Berger in a telephone conversation about his dismissal. "Elowitz Schberger will not continue in his position in the office. This, among other things, is in light of Berger's professional position on issues related to Bezeq." The cross-examination proved that Berger was fired regardless of Bezeq or Alovich. It was also revealed that his dismissal was approved, in real time, by then-spokesman Weinstein, spokesman for Prime Minister Shlomit Fargo's office and even the then cabinet secretary, one, Mandelblit, was up to date on everything that was happening. The prosecutor had to admit that there was no claim that Berger was fired because of Elovich while she was naive and said she never was either. But there was also such a claim. And it pumped to the Israeli public night after night. Is part of the consciousness engineering of "bribery,Fraud and breach of trust. "

Aviad Glickman tweeted on August 17, 2018: "The police believe that Netanyahu fired the director general of the Ministry of Communications, Avi Berger, at Elowitz's request." Raviv Drucker on Twitter, February 28, 2019: . He moved Arden out of the Ministry of Communications, even though he wanted to stay and after Shalovitch complained about him. "He tried to make sure that CEO Avi Berger would flow with Bezeq demands and after Shalovitch complained about him, he fired Berger."

Plaintiff Tirosh tried to justify section 61 as part of the proof of the mental element. But what about Berger and Netanyahu's mental element? What is he, Uri Geller? Is he examining kidneys and heart?

And another thing I noticed. Arden was not removed from the Ministry of Communications, Gideon Saar resigned and Arden was upgraded to the Interior Ministry, but asked Netanyahu - and also received - two weeks to launch the wholesale reform. When Adv. Ben-Zur referred to the end of Gilad Ardan's term and the completion of the wholesale market reform, Tirosh argued in response that Netanyahu did not know at all that the moves that Arden intends to complete in the additional time period include the wholesale market reform. in real. Arden did not talk to Netanyahu about professional matters. "

Note

,

, that section 50 of the indictment, which deals with Arden's transfer to the Ministry of the Interior, reads: Defendant Netanyahu will extend Arden's term by only two weeks. "

Understand? Under Article 50, Netanyahu prevented Marden from completing reforms "despite his request." In other words, according to the indictment, Netanyahu knew about the reforms and "prevented them." But after it became apparent Arden law reform carried out in those two weeks, according to her attorney's office suddenly Netanyahu knew about them. Why do you think the plaintiff contradicted itself? Because if Netanyahu knew this Bezeq harmful to reform the thesis pulse bribery.

According to the prosecution Netanyahu also knows about the reforms and I do not know, on the one hand he did not fire Berger because of Elovich, but on the other hand the fact that he knew it would be good with Elovich,Makes the dismissals part of the bribe thesis.

This is not an indictment, this is Schrödinger's cat.