On Tuesday, another chapter will open on what has already been defined as the “trial of the year,” if not the “trial of the decade”: the first state witness in Netanyahu’s files, Nir Hefetz, will take his place on the witness stand and this is of great significance.
If Ilan Yeshua, who was defined as a key witness, one degree less than a state stumble, had to testify for about 30 meetings in a 4,000 case, then probably the fate of an object would not be different. Despite the length of the main investigation, the cross-examination and the completeness of the investigation that is still true for him afterwards, will probably provide no less headlines. Despite this, the glow of the specific testimony seems to have faded a bit.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s political situation is completely different from the situation he was in at the beginning of the trial. He is no longer coming as prime minister, but he is still the man who leads the polls and who promises to return to office. Preparations for Hefetz’s testimony will be increased, but the question is what the witness will say about the stand, which gave him the status of a state witness and the extreme agreement with the prosecution.
An equally big question is whether an object will be able to connect and paste all the puzzle pieces of the complex bag. There is no doubt that the names in his mouth will be extremely spicy, so at least it is expected of the man that some call him “the hyphen between capital and power.” In fact, he is the man who is supposed to draw the connecting line between Netanyahu and Shaul Alovich, and explain exactly what they asked on behalf of the former prime minister and what they gave on behalf of Walla and vice versa.
Despite the media preparations for the matter, the studios that will open and the big headlines that have come out of the main investigation, I think it is worth waiting for the cross-examination again. In this game of chess, the defense will once again try to crack the witness version and prove that these are independent and private initiatives. The burden on Hefetz’s shoulders is not easy, he will have to prove that Netanyahu was aware of the business and that it was really a bribe.
In recent days, by the way, opposite voices have also been heard, claiming that there is no object in the testimony of the smoking gun of the 4,000 case. Still, Hefetz will have to tell how the dish was cooked and what were the ingredients that prompted the prosecution to file an indictment, which affected not only legally but also publicly, for bribery against Netanyahu.
As someone who has accompanied the trial since the hearing in the prosecutor’s office, I see a balanced legal process and judges whose ears are called to all parties, but still seem to lack the same connecting thread between Elowitz and Netanyahu, the same connecting thread that Hefetz is supposed to present. The expectation from an object is to present a thick thread and not a thin line, if any, of Netanyahu himself for the story in the 4,000 case. Although this is not the first act, it is undoubtedly a high point in the plot of Netanyahu’s portfolios.
.