3 View the gallery
Nir Hefetz provided a great deal of information about Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct. But was this information not provided in investigations?
(Oren Ben Hakon)
And here, it turns out that these three dramatic statements were not made at all by an object in his investigation by the Securities Authority and the police. “Yesterday,” said attorney Jacques Chen, “the prosecution first received things here that were not mentioned in the investigations, and they were covered in headlines in the press.” For connoisseurs, not the lawyer, it is a matter of the legitimacy of paving the witness for strong convicting determinations like the three headings above. All the pockets and nothing was said in them that has now been said for the first time. “
In testimony, it must be emphasized, the witness is obligated to tell the truth, only the truth and all the truth. Even if the things were not said before in the interrogations. But, if the witness now says for the first time things he did not say in a detailed two-and-a-half-hour interrogation last week, it is permissible to suspect his credibility, it is permissible to assume that the prosecution and the witness are making some dubious improvements here.
Read more in Calcalist:
And we must not forget who it is – for the state Nir Hefetz. Today he testified: “From the moment I signed the agreement until the state I went out of my way to tell only the truth.” In other words – the truth has never been a candle to my feet, at the moment it is not just a candle, it is a torch, but only because I am committed to the agreement until the state. And besides, people who tend to tell the truth are not supposed to “go out of their way” to meet this task. If this is a person’s perception of the truth, weight should be given to his testimony accordingly.
Another expression of Hefetz’s dissonance is his remark about the then Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua: “I trusted him and was disappointed.” Who finally saw the light met the truth and has not parted from it since.Until then the road is long.
It turns out that the Netanyahu family split on the question of their satisfaction with the treatment they received on the Walla website. Netanyahu was pleased, Yair really was not, and Sarah was in the middle, but later leaned towards the son’s position. “Until the election victory, there was Benjamin Netanyahu’s satisfaction with Walla, except for one incident, the interview with Dovi Gil-Har,” Hefetz testified. “The massive allegations began only after the election.
And this explains the split: the father is interested in the site only for election purposes, while the son and his mother also saw it as a personal platform, a stage to alleviate the pains of negative publicity, “paracetamol” as an object. “Yair, who starred through the skies of influence,” as Hefetz defines the son and his status as he soared after the election, “would say that his father gives so much and does not receive positive coverage, this was the center of Yair’s grievance to Walla.” And these things are reminiscent of a similar lament for Kobi Maimon’s white son while spending time together at the Tel Aviv Sin Club (“My father has now arranged $ 20 billion for you. Can’t you pay me NIS 400?”). The father arranges and the tidy-beneficiaries are forced to do good. Whether it’s Walla or Junior Financing.
On the declining importance of Walla after the election, Hefetz testified: “Yeshua asked that we also bring true news, along with the forced news that naturally would not have come in. The response to this was zero or close to zero.” Hefetz’s testimony concerns the recruitment of Walla by the Prime Minister and his entourage. It is intended to nail the awareness of defendant number one, Netanyahu, in favor of the enjoyment he received from the site.
For the sake of the alleged pleasure in the form of Walla, the testimony moved to the other side of the barricade – the alleged bribery. The conditionality of the coverage and its binding in return for consideration – their regulatory benefits were expected by Bezeq and the Elowitzes from Netanyahu. Sarah Netanyahu, who is neither a defendant nor a prosecution witness, was recruited to mediate between the two. Attorney Michal Rosen-Ozer quoted the Attorney General’s decision closing the case against Sarah on the grounds that she has no awareness of the connection between the coverage bias and the regulatory benefits. And if she has no awareness, how can she attest to her husband’s awareness of the main charge in the case.
3 View the gallery
Did Sarah Netanyahu try to intervene in favor of Bezeq?
(Photo: API)
3 View the gallery
Shaul and Iris Elovich and the regulatory tap
(Photo: Reuven Castro)
Hefetz: “Sarah asked me to meet with Pilber (former director general of the Ministry of Communications and a state court judge) and ask him to stop the regulatory tap for Elowitz and the Bezeq Group. It was but only Sarah and not Benjamin. It was out of great anger. “I have never received an instruction from Netanyahu to convey any message to Alovich on the regulatory issue.”
Hefetz conveyed the message to Pilber, “A rare case that I did without going through Netanyahu. My mistake. But I emphasized to Pilber that it was her and not Benjamin.”
Pilber, it turns out, was an appointment he wanted impulse and recommended. “I am a soldier for every mission,” Hefetz testified about Pilber’s response. “I understood that he is recruited and committed to everything.
Pilber, after taking office, replaced Hefetz with Elowitz’s list of favorites. “If until then, when Queen Elizabeth and I had arrived at the Bezeq offices, the red carpet would have unfolded at my feet, since Pilber came in they had quite forgotten me.” Hefetz puts Pilber in the picture, replacing him as Netanyahu’s executive-regulatory arm against Elowitz. Until Pilber, he was the address of the Alovichis for conveying requests and demands, from now on they have not the communications consultant but the director general of the Ministry of Communications.
And here came the dramatic part of the testimony. The famous disruption meeting in which Nir Hefetz arrived at the Alovich House, and informed them of an ongoing investigation into the matter of communications. Hefetz was wrong to think it was Walla, while it was Moses’ interrogation. And why was he wrong? The publication of Gidi Weitz’s research flooded Walla’s thesis of bribery. “At the time, it seemed absurd to me,” Hefetz testified, “and Netanyahu also canceled casually and said it was part of the pursuit of him.” But, the witness added, Netanyahu was aware that the matter might turn into a police investigation, but in a different story of conflicts of interest and gifts, not bribery.
Hefetz met with Adv. Yossi Cohen, who presented him with a list prepared by Netanyahu, including potential candidates for the investigation, including Elovich, Packer, Milchen and others. “The mistake that changed my life,” he lamented today as he choked back tears on the podium. Following the update, they decided to get rid of the “irons” (mobiles). And so the famous disruption meeting was born.
.