1. The political horizon opened to Netanyahu has two possible but contradictory directions of movement. The first removes the chance of a plea deal, the second improves his bargaining position for a better deal.
Read more in Calcalist:
Assuming that the prosecution’s position is that there will be no deal without disgrace and distance from politics, Netanyahu’s tendency is to agree to the deal as his chances of returning to power are removed. But, if he thinks the wheel is turning again, his propensity for a deal will probably dissipate. Sarah and Yair will also pressure him to focus on the next Silman and not on Bhavar-Miara.
1 View the gallery
Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in court last week
(Photo: Amit Shabi)
On the other hand, a plea deal in an improved political situation can increase his legal bargaining power for an improved deal if he decides to retire. In both situations, and unfortunately for defendant Netanyahu, Justice Minister Gideon Saar has already appointed a state attorney and legal adviser to the government, so he has already missed the opportunity for benevolent appointments – the kind of state witness Shlomo Pilber.
In the meantime, the trial will continue. His defense attorneys bought him time for the Pilbar Commission, which was supposed to end, is only halfway through – the end of the investigation by prosecutor Adv. Yehudit Tirosh in the 4000 case. On April 25, the cross-examination will begin, The Pilber.
2. Towards the end of his testimony the state witness allowed himself to drop a bomb. He knew he was already “vaccinated” from being declared a hostile witness, and Tirosh’s press also finished ironing him out. Then he said: “The interrogator came in and offered to bring me Netanyahu and Elowitz’s head. He suggested it without saying those words.” This publication, which was vehemently denied by the prosecution, was linked as a torch to the tail of MK Galit Distel Atbrian who was sent to light a fire in the fields. Which is the swallow that heralds Yair’s father.
Pilber’s attempt to blacken investigators, which has been evident in previous excerpts from his testimony, was built on three main legs: first, the fact that a prime minister was interrogated without the approval of the attorney general as required by law; Second, a kind of “extortion” is evident in the investigation; Third, the investigators are not interested in the truth of this story, but only Netanyahu.
3. This statement, “suggested, but did not say,” characterizes the ambiguity throughout the testimony. Complexity versus clarity. “Every time I try to explain the complexity of the situation, they do not want to accept it from me,” he testified in the courtroom. Every question is just yes or no. “
And alongside the complexity and clarity, the “kosher, but smelly”. The kosherness of his benevolent actions towards Bezeq, he claims, in the face of the smell that emerges from his conduct. “A lot of the moves I made were mostly professional, but I polluted them all because of the fact that it was already clear that in the end we must reach a positive result with Bezeq,” he said. Ask, Stella (Handler, CEO) and Kamir (Strategic Advisor) “.
4. This “kosher, but smelly” can be of great importance. Pilber is a state witness designed to establish the regulatory habit of the alleged bribe. In the absence of a smoking gun for a bribe transaction, it must be inferred from the circumstantial evidence that is supposed to coalesce into an unequivocal and unequivocal coherent picture of bribery. If Netanyahu “deviated from the line,” that is, gave Bezeq what it did not deserve in court – this is very strong circumstantial evidence against him. But, if Pilber’s position is accepted that he and Netanyahu only “corrected the injustice” that the ministry and CEO Berger did – then the bribery story weakens. Especially when the defense is trying to weaken the other side as well – the benefit received from Walla, Define an anomaly in relation to what?), A response supported by the appendix of 315 media events, most of which are legitimate, and in the full testimony of Ilan Yeshua, who generously pampered many others and even more than Netanyahu.
5. The core of Pilber’s testimony gave the prosecution what it wanted: “the directive call.” “I understood that Elowitz had approached him, and I had to talk to Elowitz,” Pilber said. Bezeq, for example, through the envelope of complaints about Walla headlines that Netanyahu asked him to pass on to the site’s leaders. The structure he promoted, but his connection to Elovich. It seems that in these things Pilber established the offense of breach of trust attributed to Netanyahu.
6. Netanyahu’s supporters celebrated the fact that Pilber did not remember for sure when the facilitation meeting was held. Sunday evening, Monday or Tuesday. This, combined with the lack of registration of its very existence, will allow Netanyahu to deny that it even existed. Reliable denial (e.g. the ability to prove a solid alibi regarding the three Arabs) can be a blow to the prosecution. But, if the judges believe Pilber, it will be a hard blow for the defense. Another option taken from rape trials: to admit to the meeting, but to deny its content. “I met with Pilber,” Netanyahu will say, “but I instructed him in general regarding the ministry’s goals. I intended that he promote them according to all the rules of good administration, including close accompaniment of legal advice …”.
Pilber will be listed as one of the complex state witnesses seen here. His testimonies went through three incarnations. The Securities Authority, the police and the courtroom. All evidence thickened, she added, changed from its predecessor. Only the police, he said, became aware of the bribery suspicions against Netanyahu. Tirosh contradicted and claimed that he knew about the lever of Elowitz’s sympathetic coverage of Netanyahu many months before he was questioned. Pilber explained the development in his versions not only in “complexity”, but in his desire to “maintain room for maneuver” and that until his testimony to the police he believed that his conduct in the Ministry of Communications was disciplinary, but not criminal.
7. Pilber began his testimony with a declaration of love for Netanyahu and ended it by describing the investigators’ eagerness to capture him. A story of love and darkness. Among them he tried to maneuver to the best of his ability. Between his loyalty to Netanyahu and his loyalty to himself, which saved him from conviction and imprisonment. Like Lipa the coachman in Yechiel Mohar’s poem: “You have to stretch the pull and take some back.” So he stretched Tiroche’s nerves and then took back. Thus he came almost to the declaration of a hostile witness but with the help of the judges survived, when they contented themselves with converting the polite primary investigation into the predation of the cross-examination. And now he is expected to be countered by defense attorneys who will make him miss Tirosh.