The first day of Pilber’s testimony was indeed dramatic. The goods were delivered, and by and large. As written here two weeks ago, if something unexpected happens, next May the negotiations for a plea bargain between the parties will resume. This will probably happen after the testimony of Hadas Klein. If so far we are talking about intangible financial matters, matters of regulation and procedure, then from now on they will talk about hedonism, pigs, favors, cigars, champagne and jewelry and especially about the endless demands for the supply of these goods all year round.
After all this, it is not clear to me how much the heads of the General Prosecution system (Attorney General Gali Bahrav-Myara and State Attorney Amit Isman) will be interested in a plea deal. The defendant will be interested. It happens over and over again, but it is not yet the face: the longer you linger, drag your feet and succumb to the social pressure (not to mention family) exerted on you, the greater the price you will be required to pay at the exit.
Shlomo Pilber tried to run between the drops and finished with a flood. From the first moment he tried to go with and feel without. The fact that he signed a state witness agreement in a flash, almost without hesitation, severely damaged his image as Netanyahu’s confidant, as a fiery ideologue, as someone who would not hesitate to sacrifice himself for the boss, because without him there is no state, no Zionism, no Jews, there are only oranges.
So this is, no. Pilber is an opportunist in an ideologue robe. He was a corrupting tool in Netanyahu’s service. As he testified during the testimony, he does not need long and detailed explicit instructions from Netanyahu. They understand each other in a flash of two words, or a syllable and a half. If it reminds you of Mafia movies, it’s your responsibility. But next to this brotherhood, make no mistake: whoever did not hesitate to sell his ideological patron Uri Elitzur a minute after his death (remember, Pilber signed an article published in “Nakuda” in which it was implied that the GSS was responsible for Rabin’s assassination.
- Warriors needed: The exceptional request of a company commander in reserve in the Armored Corps
After Elitzur passed away, Pilber claimed he only signed the article, the one who wrote it is Elitzur), would sell anything to save his skin. For the past two years he seemed to have somewhat forgotten his condition. His tweets have become more blunt, more resolute, competing with the frantic conspiracy theories of the margins of bibism. On Wednesday it was time to get back to reality.
Pilber gave everything he needed to give. Sometimes he stuttered a little, sometimes he hesitated, sometimes he pulled the handbrake, but hurried to release it when he realized he was getting into Corals who was finally awaiting an indictment. He confirmed the existence of a “facilitation meeting.” He tried to downplay the importance of the same directive he received from Netanyahu to do good with Bezeq, but when Adv. Tirosh made it difficult for him, he fully admitted that Netanyahu’s directive was the most dominant reason that made him act as he did.
How did he act? Like a thief in the night. He used to meet Bezeq executives or their publicists in hiding apartments, pass on documents and drafts, have a secret relationship (if it is legal, why is it secret?) With a huge company that is actually its regulator. This is not just a breach of trust. Pilber above in the trust of us all. He admitted that Netanyahu’s directive was not “thematic” (that is, relevant to the issues at hand) but “personal,” that is, to do good with Shaul Elowitz. He also confirmed the “reprimand call” in which Netanyahu scolded him and pressured him to fire one of the deputy directors in the Ministry of Communications who continued to make it difficult for Bezeq. And most importantly: he announced, more than once, Or in his own words, “every word.”
Almost everyone in the courtroom came out feeling that the panel of judges was convinced of Pilber’s credibility. If this is true, this is very bad news for Netanyahu. If Pilber is credible, then his testimony and statements are also credible. Almost everyone in the hall came out feeling that Pilber convinced those present how much he admired and loved Netanyahu. If this is true, this is also bad news for Netanyahu. If, despite the fact that he loves and admires Netanyahu, he decided to say what he said to the police, a sign that this is the truth and the reality.
It seems to me that at this stage it is possible to bet with a high degree of certainty that the judges will believe the Pilber version, according to which there was a “instructions talk” with Netanyahu, and not the Netanyahu version, which denied the very existence of this meeting. Reminder: Pilber repeated the meeting and its main points in a note he wrote for himself in his own handwriting, a note seized by Securities Authority investigators and constitutes the “something else” required to obtain the state witness’ testimony on the way to conviction.
I’m not jealous of Netanyahu’s lawyers. They now have to decide on a strategy: Will they go for Pilber on the head? In this case, he may turn over them even more. Will they praise him, pet him and try to manipulate him, as they tried to manipulate Nir Hefetz? I appreciate that. What will they get out of it? It is not clear. The obvious should be emphasized: Pilber’s opinion on the indictment is irrelevant. Pilber’s opinion on the bribery offense is irrelevant. Even if Pilber tells Netanyahu’s attorneys that he is a person innocent of any crime beyond any shadow of a doubt, it has no evidential value. The only thing Pilber is supposed to bring, or not bring, is the directive he received from Netanyahu. This is what the prosecution needs to prove the fabric of the bribe.
In other words, that clients from my profession: Pilber is not the commentator of the event, he is the reporter. He is not the one who gives the interpretation, but the one who brings the basic facts. In our case, the basic fact, which is supposed to establish the offense of bribery. No, I do not know if there will be a conviction for bribery here. There is still a long way to go. The bag is complex and tangled and not built on a gold sight or a smoking gun. I do know that in a lawsuit they can mark a “V” on Pilber, at least in their part. By the way, in my opinion they would have preferred him to be declared a hostile witness. He prefers it a little less.
Let’s assume that a miracle will happen and there will be a credit for the bribe. There is no sane jurist who does not know that a conviction for fraud and breach of trust already exists here, anyway. And in the upper severity bar of the offense. The statistical table shows that in recent years it has been customary to send convicts of this type and severity to imprisonment. There is no shortage of examples. The lesser known is the example of the former chairman of the Ashdod Port Workers’ Committee, Alon Hassan. This is what he wrote to me recently:
The state appealed and I was convicted by the Supreme Court of breach of trust. The court treated this offense as if I had killed someone, and all this because I was invited to a meeting where my friend’s brother was present … The courts take the offense of breach of trust today very seriously, I say this without agreeing with it, at that meeting to which I was summoned by The management of the port of Ashdod sat a brother of my friend, he did not say anything at the meeting and neither did I, according to them I committed a criminal offense because when I saw him I had to leave the meeting and send a friend to replace me. I can not enter the port of Ashdod today. “Netanyahu has hundreds of offenses, according to his confession, at the top level.”
Hassan’s sentence was commuted to six months’ imprisonment, which was converted into community service. It’s about one meeting where he said nothing. Now you will adapt it to the conflicts of interest and breaches of trust that are scattered in Netanyahu’s cases in commercial quantity and you will reach the obvious conclusion: the negotiations for a plea bargain are about to make a glorious comeback, on steroids.
And if we are dealing with a plea agreement, then one of these has already been obtained in the 4000 case but has passed under the radar: a plea agreement between the State Attorney’s Office and Eurocom (in bankruptcy proceedings), formerly owned by Shaul Elowitz. Well, Eurocom thanked for the bribe as part of a plea deal, in which it was stated that the criminal responsibility of the company stemmed from the criminal acts and thought of Elowitz, who was an officer in it. In engineering and accounting problems it is customary to write now Mishal. What was to prove.
[email protected]