The dramas in the trial of the prime minister-designate, Benjamin Netanyahu, continue, when yesterday the prosecution asked to declare David Sharan, former director of the prime minister’s office, a hostile witness. This is the third witness that the prosecution wants to declare as a hostile witness, after Shlomo Filber and Dr. Yifat Ben Hai Segev. Attorney Shashi Gaz spoke this morning (Wednesday) with Nissim Mashal and Guy Peleg on 103FM about this.
After he harshly attacked her: the prosecution asked to declare David Sharan a hostile witness
“Unfortunately, this is not unusual. The police investigate this way. In court, the judges will tell you, ‘Do you really want this to be a dialogue between honest traders? With tricks you will make a war, with an investigation you will investigate’. The only question is, is this case a show that shows To all of us, what does each investigation look like, or really as many think that it is only in Netanyahu’s case, and I tell you that it is not only in Netanyahu’s case, and I say this with regret. We must remember that the chairman of the Cable Council does not exactly need Netanyahu every day, and she is She said very difficult things. I understand the police in general who don’t investigate in the nicest way, but you notice that in case 4000 all the witnesses tell about a very unfair, negligent, tendentious investigation, shouting, putting words in their mouths”, Attorney Gaz began his words.
Click here and receive the Ma’ariv newspaper for a month as a gift for new members>>>
- Happy Holiday of Lights: these are the times for lighting the fourth candle of Hanukkah
When asked if the 4000 case collapsed following this evidence, Gaz replied: “I am one of those who believe that the 4000 case should not have been filed. I think it is a very problematic case and I don’t think that it should have been filed on the back of a prime minister, but I want to make a very clear distinction There is a big difference between how and why because the public is very confused. The fact that the witnesses are questioned in an ugly, biased way, does not detract or add, as sad as it is. It does not detract, the question is, what they actually say. I think this case is very difficult for the prosecution to prove, from the beginning, But these ‘hook’ concepts are not understood in sentences.”
When asked if the things that came up in the testimony about the connections between Netanyahu and Elovitch are reasonable in his eyes, he replied: “Not so reasonable in my opinion, but this is a different offense, not bribery, this is a breach of trust. But let’s say it differently, first of all, Sharan before the cross-examination , and the question of whether he told him, ‘Handle this problem personally.’ I have one word to promote the merger.”
Assisted in the preparation of the article: Amitai Doak, 103fm