The Prime Minister’s Advocates Benjamin Netanyahu Today (Wednesday) denied the reports that Netanyahu is considering submitting another request for immunity, after the previous time he did not obtain a majority for it in the Knesset. This is after Netanyahu earlier today submitted a request to postpone the scheduled hearing for next week in his trial, in which he is supposed to submit his answer to the amended indictment filed against him.
“The prime minister did not ask for immunity,” Netanyahu’s lawyers said. “The reference to the issue of immunity is a technical matter that follows a legal issue that has arisen in recent days: Does the fact that the State Attorney’s Office has filed a new indictment require a new Knesset hearing? An answer has not yet been received and therefore the Prime Minister has not discussed the matter. “He waived his immunity even though he had the right to do so, in contrast to the misleading media campaign that claimed that he would not give up his immunity.”
Netanyahu in court. Photo: Reuters (Archive)
In the reasons for the request to postpone the hearing, Netanyahu’s lawyers note the isolation that some members of the legal team went through, the new allegations made in the amended indictment and the few working days that have passed since.
“In the circumstances, the applicant requires the minimum period of time required to properly prepare the answer to the charge. “Comprehensive to the investigative materials in the case, which are very extensive. Add to this the fact that the defendants may receive additional investigative materials, following the appeal filed) and subject to the decision of the Supreme Court,” the petition reads.
It is further stated that “in these circumstances, it will not occur to the defendants to bear the consequences of filing a missing indictment which impairs their ability to properly defend against the charges against them. The amended indictment and the new allegations cannot be answered within days, in a case containing tens of thousands of documents. Not more than that. It is easy and material while the applicant has not been questioned about most of the alleged incidents. “
“A tight deadline of a few days to prepare a response to the amended indictment – denies the applicant the right to conduct a fair trial and does not allow his attorneys to represent him as a defendant,” the prime minister’s lawyers continued.
Netanyahu, do not worry.
The courts will remain open – on me. https://t.co/xgiq04Lj6o– Benny Gantz – Benny Gantz (@gantzbe) January 6, 2021
In response to the request, Justice Minister Bnei Gantz tweeted on his Twitter account: “Netanyahu, do not worry. The courts will remain open – about me.”
Netanyahu will do anything to evade justice. The additional attempt to obtain immunity proves once again – the State of Israel is hostage in the hands of a criminal defendant.
This madness must end.– Avi Nissenkorn (@AviNissenkorn) January 6, 2021
Former Minister of Justice, Avi Nissenkorn, Tweeted on his Twitter account: “Netanyahu will do anything to evade justice. The additional attempt to obtain immunity proves once again – the State of Israel is hostage in the hands of a criminal defendant. This madness must end.”
Netanyahu’s attorneys asked the court to focus the upcoming hearing on their request for the complete dismissal of the indictment against him, noting: “To understand the absurdity of the indictment, it is enough to address the prosecution’s claim of the prime minister’s unusual involvement in media inquiries to Walla. Exception – downwards! “.
They also claimed that “out of 10,000 articles in the four years about the prime minister in Walla, most of them negative, the State Attorney’s Office stated that the Prime Minister contacted Walla’s publisher a total of ten times. That is: one in 1,000 articles, one in six months. The other 140 statements made by the State Attorney’s Office – in itself a small number in relation to any other politician – are routine speeches such as the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan or his speech against Iran in the US Congress – actions that the State Attorney’s Office defines as a “global criminal offense.”
Meanwhile, Netanyahu posted on his telegram account: “I wonder how many times the prosecutor’s office has approached publishers, editors and reporters in the last four years … It is clear to everyone that if it was any other citizen, except Prime Minister Netanyahu, a powerful right-wing prime minister, this absurd indictment It was not served at all. ”
“The ombudsman as if to say to the court: I know the law”
Meanwhile, attorneys Guy Bossi and Tomer Naor spoke today with Erel Segal and Avi Issacharoff on their program on 103FM. Adv. Bossi criticized the ombudsman’s conduct regarding the issuance of permits to open investigations, while Adv. Naor stated that it was ” A practice that is not something new in the State Attorney’s Office. “
Erel: Why was yesterday’s event dramatic?
ravine: “I do not know why yesterday’s event is dramatic, and I suppose the whole thing is dramatic, but let’s analyze for a moment what happened yesterday: it is clear to everyone that we are not dealing with what is happening in the Jerusalem District Court. We are dealing with the preliminary proceedings that led to this. States that in order to open an investigation against the prime minister, the consent of the attorney general is required. What the attorney general does is another thing – he adds some clarification that comes and says to the court ‘You do not know what the law is, I know what the law is, here is the verdict, and accept it See and sanctify. Why? Because all this matter of whether to give written or oral approvals was conducted in the district court, a hearing took place and at the end the decision was made. The court told the Attorney General ‘You must provide me with all the necessary approvals for case 1000, 2000 and “In the existing format. ‘No memorandum, no things in retrospect, and nothing else. The Attorney General does not comply with the court’s decision.”
Erel: Tomer What is your position or the position of the movement for the quality of government in this matter?
Tomer: “You opened and said it was a dramatic event, but unfortunately the rabbi is dramatic perhaps because it is a prime minister, and it is something that should not have happened, but this practice, and I will even call it this sick evil of decisions made orally is not something new in the prosecution. There are the rules of administrative law, the court reprimands the State Attorney’s Office for years and tells them that there is no such thing as written approval. ” (call disconnected)
Erel: Hoppa. call disconnected.
ravine: “Wait, but I can continue Tomer’s point: The Supreme Court has been saying for years to the Attorney General ‘Enough of these things by heart.’ All these things in writing. ‘Now, let’s understand the reasoning and logic, and now I quote the words of the Honorable Justice Dafna Barak Erez who says:’ A suspicious attitude towards an unjustified decision is required from life experience. So I really connect with the things Tomer said. “
Erel: Look Tomer he actually followed you.
Tomer: “This sick evil of the prosecution that makes oral decisions is something that must stop, and the administrative law obliges them to make written decisions. This is what I think should be and I certainly will not advocate here neither the prosecution nor the attorney general. Beyond that, Erel I really “Connects to what you said at the beginning – precisely because this is a case of a prime minister in Israel, they should have sat here seven clean as they should be, and made the decisions properly.”
Erel: Oh wow. Tomer you worry me. What will? AVI: Guy, so what do you say? There is consent, but it was not given in writing?
ravine: “I say what the Attorney General says. ‘I gave the oral consent during the hearings.’ He does not say ‘here is a document here that says he instructs to open an investigation.’ If you do not remember then the Attorney General turned to the public and said in his voice not This is an investigation but an investigation. ”
Tomer“The whole issue of pre-trial investigation is also some kind of sick evil that has come to the world’s air to serve all sorts of such and such politicians that God forbid the stain of the criminal investigation will stick to them. Nowhere has it been defined what an investigation is and what exactly it includes.”