Evidence from the inferno
Let us return to the Netanyahu family’s lawsuit against Ehud Olmert. Everything that will be written here, does not testify or determine my opinion regarding the subject of the lawsuit. I have no idea what the verdict will be, but anyone who followed the evidence was exposed to the daily tirade routine within which Benjamin Netanyahu also tried to lead a state. The testimonies of Prof. Uzi Arad and Nir Hefetz, both former associates, who saw things inside the room and looked at the whites of the eyes, did not renew much. Readers of this column are familiar with these stories, but this time they were not heard from a columnist, but from eyewitnesses. under oath.
The scene in which Yair Netanyahu bursts into a room where an important, matter-of-fact, professional discussion is taking place about the size of the public broadcast, getting down on all fours, mimicking a dog and publicly humiliating his father, to dust (“How long will you lick Kahlon? “Etc.) was not a single event. When this happened, some of those present got up and left: Chief of Staff Yoav Horowitz, Shlomo (Momo) Pilber and Nir Hefetz. They could not bear it anymore. If he could, Netanyahu himself would also leave. But he must bear it, until his last day. The one who did stay in the room was the constant present, Nathan Eshel. The one who had long ago been removed from public service permanently, after being accused of harassing a bureau employee. Well, he was removed from public service, but remained in public broadcasting.
Olmert himself came up to testify late at night. He told a story we know (published here as well), but there were some innovations: the day when the late and loyal lawyer and ultimate associate of the Netanyahu couple, Yaakov Weinroth, asked for an urgent personal meeting with Judge Yehuda Weinstein. The two have been friends for many years. And once they even represented the couple together (in the gift affair and Amidi) and even survived. Weinstein smelled trouble and preferred to avoid a meeting. Weinroth insisted that it was important and personal, etc.
The meeting took place. This happened after it was announced that Weinstein intends to file an indictment against Sarah Netanyahu in the dormitory affair. At the beginning of the meeting, Weinroth, who was suffering from incurable cancer at the time, spoke about his wish that Weinstein be the administrator of his estate. The ombudsman did not understand the passage, but the token soon fell to him, when Weinroth went on to talk about Ms. Netanyahu and hinted that she was unfit to stand trial. At this point, Weinstein stopped the conversation, and called on the secretary to write down the minutes.
Everything I wrote here, Olmert recounted from the podium on Sunday. Advocate Yossi Cohen, who represented Netanyahu, shouted and claimed that Olmert was lying. How do you know? Olmert replied: I know, because I heard the story from Adv. Weinroth, personal, direct testimony. Cohen announced that he was demanding that Adv. Weinstein be summoned to court for what is known as “summons testimony.” He would deny the story. Meanwhile, Olmert continued his testimony. Regretted it.
What does it prove? Do not know. I am not a doctor, not a kidney and heart researcher and not a psychiatrist. Only a journalist who has sat for two decades in front of very many dozens of eyewitnesses, hearing and survivors of various kinds. By the way, I also sat in front of Attorney Weinroth. He urgently called me to his office after the above saga was published, to convince me that he did not intend to give Levinstein an alleged bribe (the administrator of the estate), but meant “only my spiritual estate.” I asked him then what he recommends Netanyahu do. “A quick plea deal,” he said. He also repeated the story Olmert told in his testimony. And then died. Now Netanyahu’s claims that he is the one who went crazy.
From Ben Caspit’s full column published in the “Weekend” issue