Arnon Milchan's cross-examination is done using the "exaggerated hug" method, as is customary for lawyer Amit Hadad, the fumes of flattery he lavishes on the key witness in the sticky, unair-conditioned courtroom in the old-fashioned Brighton hotel are also felt in the crowded courtroom in East Jerusalem, where the District Court is located. "You love Israel," "You are a Zionist," "You contributed to the security of the state in ways that cannot be detailed," "You are Netanyahu's only friend, the only one," Haddad slammed Milchan, who savored every word. Fanstic. Milchan was pleased, flowed, and every thesis Haddad presented to him he confirmed with "right," exactly the same "right" with which he had previously approved all the refreshments presented to him by prosecutor Liat Ben-Ari from his police interrogation.
We will immediately get to the place where these two permits seemingly contradicted each other – the visa affair – but let's start with the companies. Haddad spent hours yesterday proving that Netanyahu and Milchan were brotherly friends: Haddad presented Milchan with the claim that he, Milchan, is not only Netanyahu's best friend, he is his only friend. So much so. One can of course raise an eyebrow at the fact that a person who has been through so much in his life – childhood in Jerusalem, childhood in the United States, studies in the United States, a rich and varied diplomatic and political life – will find his "best friend" at a later age in the fields of billions. It is also possible to ask whether this is really a friendship, as Haddad claims, it is also possible to examine the changes in Milchan's version of this friendship, and the fact that he confirmed in his interrogation what he said to the police that had he not showered the Netanyahu couple with gifts, he would not have been such a welcome guest in Balfour.
But leave all that aside, anyone who follows the cross-examination can mistakenly get the impression that there is an argument between the prosecution and the defense of some kind of friendship between the Netanyahu couple and Milchan. The thing is that in the indictment itself, this friendship is mentioned as fact. "The defendant Netanyahu and Milchan had a friendly relationship, which included meetings from time to time, including with their families, and telephone contact," the indictment states. There is no argument about that.
Arnon Milchan arrives to give his testimony in Brighton (Photo: official website, Shaul Adar)
Anyone who follows the cross-examination can mistakenly get the impression that there is an argument between the prosecution and the defense of some kind of friendship between the Netanyahu couple and Milchan
Proving a clear friendship is very effective in repelling a claim of bribery, since then the defendant may prove that a certain benefit was not given to him for an action related to his position, but because of the friendship relationship. Case 1000, which deals with breach of trust and not bribery, will still stand, even if it is proven that every cigar and bottle given to Netanyahu is related only to Milchan's endless love for Netanyahu. On the contrary, it is not inconceivable that the companies in this case will even strengthen the portfolio. If Netanyahu indeed acted as a public figure for Milchan, the friend, as the prosecution claims he did, then he would have a serious conflict of interest, and that's before we even said a word about the benefits he received from him.
The verdict that convicted Shimon Sheves (Director General of the Prime Minister's Office under Yitzhak Rabin) dealt with exactly such a situation. Case 1000 contains two types of alleged criminal activity, each of which stands on its own: 1. The mere receipt of benefits on a huge scale, which alone constitutes a breach of trust. 2. Netanyahu's conflict of interest when he assisted Milchan in his various affairs.
Haddad tries in cross-examination to minimize as much as possible the actions Netanyahu allegedly did for Milchan. Before analyzing what achievements, if any, Haddad has achieved so far, let us say here the following text from a verdict in another case: "This is the receipt of large sums of money, by a public official, in violation of the law. Moreover, even according to the rules of the Asher Committee, these are 'other incomes' that the minister is forbidden to receive, and acts that constitute impartiality. These are acts that arouse suspicion, damage the image of the public service and undermine the public's trust in it, amounting to a breach of trust."
Benjamin Netanyahu at the entrance to the Jerusalem District Court (Photo: Flash 90, Jonathan Zindel)
This text was signed by none other than Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman, head of the panel of judges in the Netanyahu case, and she wrote these words in Olmert's conviction in the supplementary verdict in the Talansky case. Without delving into the depth of that case, we note that Friedman-Feldman discovered in this ruling a strict position from her two members of the panel regarding the fact that a public figure received unreported money from the sidelines, even before we began discussing actions he took on behalf of that benefactor. By the way, the actions attributed to Olmert at the time, mainly writing a letter for Talansky to billionaire Sheldon Adelson, were much more minor than those attributed to Olmert today. Friedman-Feldman wrote at the time: "The benefit of the defendant, even if it is in itself, may not seem of great weight, the weight lies in the context and the totality of the acts."
This legal principle became even clearer when it came to the Supreme Court. The head of the panel, Justice Salim Gibran, ruled that the very benefit of the benefit, even before any act is done by the defendant in favor of the giver of the benefit, may constitute a criminal offense: "This does not mean that as a condition for the crystallization of the offense of fraud and breach of trust for receiving a benefit, it is necessary to point out a concrete conflict of interest caused by it. In other words, there may be circumstances in which the receipt of the benefit per se (in view of the circumstances surrounding it) will establish an offense of breach of trust, even without proof of the existence of a concrete conflict of interest arising from it." Gibran, of course, qualifies and says that "where a 'frivolous' benefit is involved, criminal law should not be applied to it." It should be recalled that the amount of money attributed to Olmert in the Talansky case is less than the cumulative amount of champagne and cigars allegedly received by Netanyahu and his wife from Milchan.
Gibran also emphasizes the importance of systematization: "Whether it is a one-time gift or a systematic giving." In Netanyahu's case, the prosecution claims that it is a supply line of cigars and champagne. Haddad, of course, is trying to contradict this claim, so far with very limited success. It is doubtful whether Milchan will be able to help him here, since it was Hadas Klein who controlled the payments. Her testimony was clear and coherent on the matter.
Gibran also refers to concealment: "The conduct of the parties regarding the granting of the benefit can also serve as an indication of its nature, and overt conduct while complying with the reporting obligation (if any) is not similar to secret conduct designed to ensure that things remain hidden from view." Remember the codes? "Leaves" - cigars, "pink" - champagnes, "dwarfs" - clothes? Remember the fact that Milchan testified that he was afraid of the matter, and that Netanyahu told him that he discussed it with the attorney general?
Gives an "exaggerated hug" to Milchan. Attorney Amit Haddad (Photo: Flash 90, Jonathan Zindel)
Haddad was satisfied with his general statement that "Netanyahu did not help," perhaps believing that this will determine the fact he wants in court. It is doubtful whether he is right
In an interim summary, according to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Olmert case, the issue of Netanyahu's assistance to Milchan in matters of visas, Tata business, Channel 10, and the Milchan Law (extending the tax exemption for returning residents), is not at all necessary for a conviction. However, we will not be naïve - not necessary, but very important. The severity of the case is also definitely related to the two-way behavior.
This is the moment to deal with Haddad's main achievement, ostensibly, to date: When asked whether Netanyahu helped Milchan in the matter of extending his visa, the witness answered simply in the absolute negative, and then became a little more accurate in light of Justice Moshe Bar-Am's questions: "The question is whether Sir expected him to help?" Milchan replied: "I checked to see if he could help, he told me to call Dan Shapiro [then the U.S. ambassador to Israel]. That's the only help." Today he also added that Netanyahu told him explicitly that he could not help him.
So first, beyond the fact that this testimony completely contradicts the testimony of Hadas Klein, it also contradicts the testimony of the police of members of the Prime Minister's Office, including Eyal Haimovich and Gil Sheffer (who will testify at the trial), and especially his own testimony at the main interrogation, where he said that Netanyahu told him that he would look into the matter, and only then returned to him and told him to call Shapiro, that is, after he had done something. Moreover, Milchan confirmed the following description he presented to the police: He arrives at the Prime Minister's Office with cigars and champagne and asks Netanyahu what about the visa to the United States, and then Netanyahu calls his then-office chief, Ari Herro, with interest. This description is also cross-referenced with Herro. Haddad, of course, did not remind Milchan of these descriptions of his, but made do with his general statement that "Netanyahu did not help." Haddad may believe that this will determine the fact he wants in court. It is doubtful whether he is right.
Lecturer in nature. Milchan (Photo: official website, Olivia Fitoussi)
It is clear that Milchan, with his lecturing character, will try to please both the prosecution and the defense attorneys
It can be assumed that this is the kind of case in which the prosecutor will use the "re-interrogation" tool, which is mainly clarification and supplementation to the issues raised in the cross-examination. The rules regarding re-interrogation are very strict, since this is not an allocation of improvements, but due to the lack of clarity as to whether or not Milchan's statements in the cross-examination contradict what he said in the main interrogation, it is likely that the use of re-examination will be approved. If he does not reconfirm what he said during his initial interrogation, Ben-Ari may declare him a hostile witness and can cross-examine him. It is highly doubtful that we will get there, so it is very doubtful whether the jubilation of the shofars about Milchan's statement about the visa story was not as usual too exaggerated. Regarding the law known as the Milchan Law (the Tax Benefits Law for Returning Residents), the businessman tried today in cross-examination to distance Netanyahu from involvement in the matter.
One way or another, there is nothing surprising about Milchan's answers to Hadad. For those who forgot, Milchan may have been a witness but was suspected of bribery in this case. Most of the attorneys in the civil service believed that he and Netanyahu should be charged with bribery in Case 1000 as well, but former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit decided to close the case against Milchan and make do with a breach of trust against Netanyahu. It was clear that Milchan would do anything to distance himself from any image of a dealer in favors, emphasizing that he simply liked to give to friends. Second, it was clear that Milchan, with his lecturing character, would try to please both the prosecution and the defense attorneys. Add to all this the presence of Mrs. Netanyahu in the courtroom, who put a pass on the judges' comments, and yesterday even hugged Milchan and spoke with him at length. It is inconceivable that the judges did not utter a word about this.
Speaking of judges, in general, throughout the trial they display a slightly frustrating solidity, regardless of whether your heart is inclined to prosecution or defense. With the exception of Justice Bar-Am's comments, which usually challenge the prosecution, the judges do not challenge the witnesses, do not stop long interrogations, do not challenge the prosecution or the defense with lines of investigation. Their lax comments on behavior in the courtroom, especially by attorney Amit Hadad, are also puzzling. Haddad raises his voice at the judges, argues with them, enters their words in the middle. On one occasion, when Friedman-Feldman remarked to him, "I'm not done talking," he responded by shouting, "I'm not done either." I've seen judges impose a costs fine on lawyers for less than that.
The judges didn't say a word. Milchan and Sara Netanyahu's embrace (Photo: Binny Ashkenazi, Binny Ashkenazi)
More articles in Walla! On Netanyahu's trial
- Roni Alsheikh on Netanyahu and the investigations: "It was impossible to guess that he would not resign"
- Attorney General announces she will continue to manage Case 4,000, Netanyahu's defense lawyers: Her position is "reckless and unfounded"
- Everything you need to know about vacationing in Croatia - at the most affordable price
Therefore, I find it puzzling that these solid judges held that famous meeting in Case 4000 and said what they said about the bribery clause. There is not even the slightest discredit in these words the judges, whose work I have known for many years. They are honest and conscientious, and two of them, Shaham and Friedman-Feldman, have a rich criminal record. However, the conversation they had at the time they had it was a professional mistake of theirs. Obviously, they wanted to do it before the summer recess, a good time to negotiate a plea bargain, but in practice the conversation took the trial out of its regular conduct, created a sense of discomfort, fears that everything had already been decided.
The prosecution claims that its thesis presentation does not end with the prosecution's case, but believes that during Netanyahu's cross-examination she will be able to prove things that she did not prove before. Since this article deals mostly with Milchan's testimony in Case 1000, let's take an example from there (even though the conversation dealt with Case 4000): Milchan said during his interrogation that the prime minister did not speak to John Kerry following his request. The thing is that even the prime minister does not rule it out in response to the indictment, he confirms that he contacted Kerry. Cross-examination here can be very effective in establishing the case, whether Netanyahu confirms what he wrote in response to the indictment or denies it.
The judges must prepare for the fact that there will be no shortcuts in this case, although I still believe that Netanyahu will do everything possible to create a plea bargain. At the moment, the gaps are large, and even bigger is the lack of trust. In this state of affairs, and since a plea bargain will only sharpen the conspiracy theories, it seems that there is no choice but to hear the case to its end. Contrary to what the judge said in the closed conversation, this is also in the public interest.
- news
- Opinions and interpretations
Tags
- Netanyahu's trial
- Arnon Milchan
- Case 1000