Netanyahu trial: Court hearing PM's motion to dismiss corruption charges

• Date: 06 December 2020
• Author: YONAH JEREMY BOB
• Published date: 06 December 2020
• Publication title: Jerusalem Post, The: Web Edition Articles (Israel)

One point which clearly disturbed Judges Mosh Bar Am and Oded Shoham was the claim of Netanyahu's lawyers, Boaz Ben Tzur and Amit Hadad, that the evidence listed in the various cases was too non-specific for them to properly defend.

The defense argued that for each alleged illegal gift or illegal act of media bribery, the exact time and date and exactly how it was connected to other illegal actions must be shown.

Bar Am and Shoham both appeared sympathetic to these arguments but it was unclear how presiding judge Rivkah Friedman-Feldman viewed the dispute.

The prosecution responded to the defense's challenge, saying that they had given extensive specific details, but that at a certain point the indictment is a road map for a trial, and that they do not need to provide the level of detail that the defense is asking for before witnesses are called.

In addition, the prosecution said that regarding Case 1000, the Illegal Gifts Affair, they know what gifts were given, their value and a general period of years when they were given, but they do not have exact dates.

If the court requires the prosecution to give further details at this pretrial stage, it could delay the calling of witnesses, currently set for February, until March or possibly later.

Another major issue the sides fought over was what the prosecution must prove to convict Netanyahu of media bribery in Case 4000, the Bezeq-Walla Affair.

The defense said that the prosecution must show how each individual claim of media interference was illegal and problematic.

By contrast, prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh said they need only prove a critical mass of unusual requests from Netanyahu and his aides.

These requests would show a general level of control and interference in the Walla media outlet that goes beyond standard negotiations between the press and politicians over access for coverage.

Hadad tried to restore Netanyahu's claim of parliamentary immunity.

Rejecting claims that the removal of his parliamentary immunity was done improperly, the prosecution noted that Netanyahu himself had withdrawn his claim of immunity.

They also drew attention to the unexplained passage of almost a year since that time before Netanyahu suddenly decided to raise the issue now.

The prosecution rejected his substantive immunity claim that he undertook actions discussed in the indictment in his capacity serving the state, saying his immunity does not permit him to simply violate laws such as by committing bribery and fraud.

...