The judges in Netanyahu's cases published the summary of the conversation that took place two weeks ago with the prosecution and defense. The document circulated by the judges shows that the prosecution was told that there were difficulties in proving the offense of bribery in Case 4000. The judges also told the parties that it would be better to end the trial in favor of the state: "The need to end the trial for the good of the matter and the state was noted. The statements were made regardless of how the trial ended and regardless of the outcome of the trial."
The offense of bribery is the most serious offense for which Netanyahu is charged, and it exists only in Case 4000. In Case 1000 and Case 2000, Netanyahu is charged only with fraud and breach of trust.
In Case 4000, the prosecution claims that Netanyahu had a give-and-take relationship with Shaul Elovitch, the former controlling shareholder of Bezeq and the Walla website. According to the indictment, between 2012 and 2017, Netanyahu enjoyed favorable coverage on the Walla website, and in return acted as part of his public duties to promote Elovitch's business interests, including the Bezeq merger with the Yes cable company.
The judges' message to the prosecution stemmed mainly from the cross-examination of state witness Shlomo Filber. During cross-examination, Netanyahu's lawyer, Boaz Ben-Tzur, revealed that the meeting could not be on the date that the prosecution claims it was held, immediately upon Filber's inauguration as director general of the Ministry of Communications. The date is not a technical detail, since Filber held another meeting with Shaul Elovitch, Bezeq's owner, and his advisor Eli Kamir, where he told them that he was acting on Netanyahu's behalf. As noted, Ben-Tzur showed that insofar as the directive meeting was held, it took place only after Filber's meeting with Elovitch and Kamir, which means that Filber lied and that he did not act on Netanyahu's behalf, but independently.
Ben-Tzur did so in a variety of ways, including showing that the opinion with the location of Filber's cell phone indicated that at the time of the instruction meeting he was indeed near the Prime Minister's residence in Balfour and there it was written, "The coverage reaches the area of 3 Eliezer Kaplan St., Jerusalem and its surroundings - 15:58." Filber was in the area, but not in Belfort. Ben-Tzur presented WhatsApp correspondence that clearly indicates that Filber was in a meeting at the nearby Holiday Inn hotel with a man named Ofer Margalit. After the meeting, Filber traveled to Petah Tikva and did not meet with Netanyahu that day.
In addition, in cross-examination, fault was also cast on the instruction itself and not only on its timing. Filber testified to the police that Netanyahu instructed him with his hand to moderate prices and thus benefit Shaul Elovitch's Bezeq company. But when Netanyahu's lawyer, Boaz Ben-Tzur, projected Filber demonstrating Netanyahu's hand gesture on the courtroom screen, Filber suddenly changed his version from the one he gave to the police.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us