On April 4, attorney Liat Ben-Ari, chief prosecutor in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial, gave the prosecution's opening argument at the beginning of the evidentiary stage of the proceedings.
On the morning of Ben-Ari's opening argument, I published an article that focused on the huge holes in the prosecution's basic thesis that Netanyahu had asked for unusual coverage on the Walla news site in exchange for regulatory benefits for controlling shareowner of Bezeq – which owns Walla – Shaul Elovitch. Supposedly, this was a legal precedent – the first instance of media coverage comprising an element of charges of bribery against a politician.
If you missed it, the word on which the case will survive or fail is "unusual" – whether the tradeoffs between Netanyahu and Elovitch were so unusual as to be criminal enough to be bribery. Amazingly, even before the evidentiary stage of the trial began, it was already known that the prosecution had not troubled itself to create any criteria that would determine a norm, deviation from which would cross into the area of criminality.
The prosecution and its mouthpieces in the media could always release a particularly thick smokescreen:
Every time it was proven that Netanyahu had been the subject of hostile coverage on Walla (according to checks by outlets Mida, Globes, and the Seventh Eye), pundits in the studios said "It could have been worse," and that the problem was "opening the prime minister a door to a 'leading' news site." In other words, "thanks" to the benefits that were supposedly given to Elovitch, Netanyahu had a privilege that was not limited to other politicians.
On Tuesday, during the cross examination of former Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua, it turned out that the prosecution had gone so far as to hide evidence proving the close contact between Yeshua and other prominent politicians, in a way that pulled the rug out from under the thesis that Netanyahu made "unusual requests," and also exposing Yeshua's blatant lie to the court that he had supposedly not intervened in the site content when it came to other politicians.
Correspondence between Yeshua and former Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog – Netanyahu's main rival in the 2015 election – was presented, which showed that Yeshua had gone out of his way to assist Herzog. According to the material, even while he was on vacation in Hawaii, Yeshua instructed Walla's lead editor to post a headline dictated by Herzog against his then-rival in the Labor primaries, Shelly Yachimovich.
Astonishingly, by a "mistake," this correspondence arrived at the defense team only a month ago, during Yeshua's initial questioning.
Judges were amazed that such dramatic evidence could have been categorized as "irrelevant" and asked the prosecution if there was any other material that had not been delivered to the defense. The prosecutor in Case 4,000, Yehudit Tirosh, responded, "I don't know how to answer." Incredible.
And that's not all:
It turned out that Yeshua had held at least 14 meetings with various politicians (including Moshe Kahlon, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, Dalia Itzik, and others), but not a single meeting with Netanyahu.
In other words, the "unusual" request lean toward the other side of the equation – against Netanyahu. Yeshua also confirmed that Elovitch and his wife prevented the publication of negative items about Kahlon, fearing retribution from the former minister.
Another "unusual" issue has to do with publishing tycoon Ilan Shiloah. Yeshua admitted that he had taken care to provide positive coverage of Shiloah because the latter had made hefty ad purchases on the Walla site, and was a friend of Elovitch's son. But Yeshua also had a personal reason to help him out – his son worked for Shiloah, and on Tuesday it turned out that Yeshua and his son had earned $400,000 from the IPO of Shiloh's company. In other words, flattering coverage in exchange for jobs for family and a nice sum of money.
The broader picture is becoming clear.
The prosecution prided itself on having set up a battery of 40 attorneys to file the indictment against Netanyahu – but reasonable thinking by a single person would have prevented it from making a mockery of its flagship case, in what could be the most important trial in the history of Israel.
The Netanyahu trail is just starting, but even now, when a major witness for the prosecution falls apart on the witness stand, along with the prosecution's basic thesis – the question arises of whether the judges will find the courage to admit that the case before them was stitched together carelessly, and continues to fray.
THANKS SO MUCH,, IT MEANS THE WORLD TO US IN THESE DIFFICULT TIME
No comments:
Post a Comment