Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attorneys, Boaz Ben Tzur and Amit Hadad, today (Monday) filed a response to the amended indictment against him in which it was alleged that “Netanyahu is accused of acts that have not been investigated at all, a fact that proves how absurd the cases against the prime minister are.” Netanyahu is accused of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
In the case of the “4000 case”, the prime minister’s lawyers showed extensively that most of the referrals to Walla were routine and ordinary spokesperson work, for example press releases sent widely to the media, and regular and acceptable requests for comments. The prosecution apparently does not understand how the press works.
In the “2000 case”, his lawyers claimed that there was an unequivocal agreement that the prime minister had not received anything, and the argument against him was that he did not refuse Noni Mozes’ offer quickly enough. There is no such claim in the law book of the State of Israel. This is an invented and absurd claim that does not exist in Israeli law and is unprecedented. Once they invented a “positive coverage” offense and now they have invented an “insufficiently quick refusal” offense for an invented bribe offer.
In the case of the “1000 case”, the attorneys pointed out the close friendship between the Prime Minister and Arnon Milchen, including during the period when the Prime Minister was out of the political arena. In the case of Ruth David, the ombudsman himself ruled that accepting gifts from friends is permissible, and that is where it was an “indication of deep friendship.”
This fact joins in with the fact that last week it was discovered that the Prime Minister’s investigations were opened without the approval of the Ombudsman, as required by the Basic Law of the Government, which casts a very heavy shadow on the indictment and the entire procedure.
The few blackened correspondence provided shows that Case 1000 was investigated almost entirely without the consent of the Attorney General, and that police investigators used targeted approvals in Case 4000 to carry out various investigative actions, including unlawful intrusion and without order to phones and emails, without authority and without permission.
Meanwhile, Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Noni Mozes submitted his response to the indictment in the 2000 case. In his response, Mozes rejected the claim that he offered and promised bribes to Netanyahu. He said the statements recorded in their conversation were said as a legitimate dialogue between politicians and public figures and media.
Earlier, the Movement for the Purpose of Morality filed a formal complaint with the Ombudsman for State Representatives in the courts, retired Judge David Rosen, and against the background of the unreasonable delay in reaching a final decision against the defendants in the submarine and vessel case.
The complaint states that “more than a year has passed since the decision was made to prosecute those involved, subject to a hearing, and the hearing procedures for all the suspects in the case have not yet been completed.” Because the hearings will end in two months, which did not happen. This delay is particularly severe in light of the centrality of the 3000 affair in the public discourse, and the serious suspicions raised in its case. The continued delay also allows for an opening for various theories according to which the fear of opening a “Pandora’s box” at the beginning of the procedure, delays the final decision on the matter. “