Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has two weeks to reach a plea deal. The reason is not just the end of the term of office of the ombudsman at the end of the month. In two weeks, state witness Shlomo Pilber is expected to begin testifying, after state witness Nir Hefetz’s testimony has long since ended. The question that hovers over all this accusation: Will he repeat in his testimony in court what he claimed to the police: that he received an instruction from Netanyahu to do good with Shaul Elowitz or not.
Since signing the state witness agreement, Pilber has sent quite a few hints against the prosecution and against the indictment thesis – some blatant and some even more blatant. After Pilbar testifies in court, it will become clear whether the prosecution has enough evidence to establish awareness of the bribery relationship between him and Elowitz, when Pilber is supposed to testify about the return Netanyahu gave to the Bezeq group for Elowitz.
Will the balance of power change?
The current point in time is a point at which it is convenient for both parties to stop in a plea bargain. Mandelblit waives the bribe clause, which has not yet been proven, and is unlikely to be proven in the future, while Netanyahu admits to breach of trust in order to spare himself the fear that Pilber will establish the bribe clause. Once Pilber testifies, the balance of power will change in favor of one of the parties and the current proposal will no longer be relevant.
In light of the significant time that has elapsed between the testimony in the police and the Securities Authority, Pilber conducted a refresher testimony in the State Attorney’s Office, as conducted by his predecessors and as is customary in all criminal cases. If Pilber had provided a new and different version of the version he had given as a state witness and returned a substantive specification in it, the prosecution would have had to send him immediately for a police investigation in order for him to hand over his new version there. This, in light of the breach of a state witness agreement signed by him that obliges him to testify as he testified to the police after signing the agreement.
Since Pilbar did not find himself in a police investigation, the obvious conclusion is that he adhered to his version that he received a directive from Netanyahu. All this does not contradict the fact that Pilber in his testimony, will celebrate on the head of the State Attorney’s Office, the police and officials of the Ministry of Communications, Haim Saban, officials of the State Comptroller, as his predecessor Nir Hefetz also celebrated when he testified in court.
And here’s an interesting example of a point to be made that Pilber will testify in court if and when he is summoned. As you may recall, one of the significant points that established the suspicion against Pilber was the fact that he acted as director general of the Ministry of Communications with Bezeq behind the backs of his office staff, isolated them and even sent emails from his private account and not from the government account. In order to get on well with defendant Elowitz, and against the background of defendant Netanyahu’s directive, Pilber promoted the abolition of the structural separation in the Bezeq Group. “This process was secretly preceded by Pilber, in cooperation with Bezeq staff, defendant Elovich, Stella Handler and Sharon Fleischer, contrary to the position of the professional and legal bodies in the office and without consulting them.”
In light of the conduct of Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, on the direct and hidden channel with former Prime Minister Netanyahu, it should be estimated that Pilber will testify when asked about the hidden channel in front of the Bezeq Group: The indictment in the 2000 case and the removal of the bribery clause in the 4000 case.
And indeed the conduct of the ombudsman in this plea agreement is puzzling. Even more puzzling is the conduct of the ombudsman and former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, who decided to appeal when he pleaded for Netanyahu with Mandelblit in order to agree to the plea agreement proposed by Netanyahu. Barak’s status in this case or in the judicial system today does not exist, his familiarity with the case is based at most on reading the press, he was not present at any of the hearings and was not exposed to the evidence. Netanyahu took advantage of the public and legal status of the Barak Authority to serve as a mediator on his behalf.
So far only the shell is used
Barak’s reasoning for his consent is particularly puzzling: “I will not deny that when I turned to Mandelblit, Benjamin Netanyahu’s contribution to the country kept running through my head – not only his great achievements over the years, but especially, until his trial, he was one of the greatest defenders of the Israeli legal system. “. I wonder what Attorney General Aharon Barak, who coined the term “Buzaglo test” when he prosecuted Asher Yadlin, would have said if a former ombudsman had approached him to make it easier for him in light of the defendant’s past defense of the justice system.
On the other hand, the 85-year-old Barak is of the opinion that Netanyahu should be disgraced. The strange and puzzling channel of Netanyahu-Barak-Mandelblit is being conducted while Adv. Yehudit Tirosh and Dr. Alon Gildin, the actual case managers, do not know at all about the actual conduct of the negotiations. So is Deputy State Attorney Momi Lemberger and so are all the Deputy Attorney General.
So far, Netanyahu and Mandelblit have been dealing with the envelope: which clause will remain, which clause will be deleted, the issue of defamation and what punishment will be imposed on Netanyahu under the amended arrangement. Theoretically it was possible to make do with it. To file an amended indictment identical to the original indictment and only to delete from it the 2000 affair and remove the bribery clause from the 4000 affair. In practice, this is not what will happen. Netanyahu’s defense attorneys will not agree that there will be any doubt as to whether the court will approve the very lenient punitive arrangement reached by the parties, and will therefore require drastic change and deletion of the facts of the indictment so that it embodies much less severity than the original indictment. Even if Mandelblit manages to persuade the attorneys below him to remove the offense clause and agree to an almost symbolic sentence of several months of community service, he will have a hard time convincing them to cut the meat and distort the facts of the indictment as originally filed. It seems that the bulk of Mandelblit’s war with the prosecution will be exactly on point. if and when.
The fact that the 2000 case against Benjamin Netanyahu will be closed, according to the arrangement, does not mean that the 2000 case against Moses will be closed. Noni Mozes is charged with bribery, and the evidence against him is based on a recording that constitutes gold evidence. Defense attorneys Noyet Negev and Iris Niv-Sabag have long suggested that Mozes admit to aiding and abetting breach of trust. Mandelblit declined the offer. If the case against Netanyahu is closed, it will be even more difficult to reach a compromise of “aid for breach of trust”, since Netanyahu will not be accused of breach of trust at all. So it is very doubtful whether Mandelblit would agree to close a settlement with Moses with a peculiar clause of aiding and abetting breach of trust, when in fact it is a bribe offer and there is no factor that has breached a trust.
The investigation in the 2000 case began in June 2016. The investigation in the 4000 case opened in early 2018. In January 2020, Netanyahu, Mozes and the Elowitz couple were prosecuted. Two whole years have passed since then. We are now already in January 2022, and yet, Mandelblit has not yet decided whether to prosecute the corporations Yedioth Ahronoth, Bezeq and the Walla website. Any explanation given for dragging his feet by Mandelblit is embarrassing and deserves not to be said or explained. This is a scandal, and any conspiracy that goes up in the world following dragging its feet – reaches Mandelblit.
Mandelblit is also interested in closing the investigation file against former minister and MK Yaakov Litzman. This is despite the position of the State Attorney’s Office, which recommended that Litzman be prosecuted in two cases. Mandelblit is expected to make a final decision on whether to close or file the indictment in the coming days. Will Mandelblit have the power to close the case against Litzman on the head of the State Attorney’s Office, after weakening, reducing and closing almost all cases of elected officials during his time against the State Attorney’s Office: Haim Katz, Aryeh Deri, Balad and now Netanyahu. Will Litzman pay the price Of the Speaker before the State Attorney’s Office? We will wait a few more days to find out.
*** Presumption of innocence: It should be emphasized that even after the indictment was filed against them, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Shaul and Iris Elowitz and Arnon (Noni) Mozes deny what was attributed to them, were not convicted of an offense, and have the presumption of innocence.