Court rejects Netanyahu’s request to strike many examples of alleged news intervention from indictment

The Jerusalem District Court rejects a request by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defense attorneys to remove dozens of examples of alleged news coverage interference from the indictment against him.

The request came after Netanyahu’s lawyer Amit Hadad called into question, during the prime minister’s testimony in December, 141 examples of 315 listed in the indictment of alleged intervention or attempted intervention by Netanyahu or his associates and family members in the Walla news website’s coverage of the prime minister and his family.

According to the prosecution, this was part of an unlawful quid pro quo agreement with Walla owner Shaul Elovitch, in return for Netanyahu approving regulatory measures that benefited Elovitch’s other business interests.

The prime minister is accused of accepting a bribe in the form of more positive news coverage.

Hadad pointed out that in the 141 examples in question, the indictment does not actually allege that Netanyahu himself was involved in the request for better coverage, or was even aware that a request had been made to improve the coverage.

The Jerusalem District Court decides, however, to accept the prosecutor’s contention that Netanyahu had general knowledge and awareness of a broader framework within which requests for improved coverage were made by his family members and associates to senior Walla staff and to Elovitch or his wife.

The court says prosecutors “are not alleging active awareness of every example [of alleged news coverage intervention],” and adds that responses Netanyahu gave to the indictment made clear he understood the prosecution was alleging general awareness of the alleged agreement with Elovitch, and not awareness of every single request.

During Netanyahu’s testimony, he and Hadad have spent much time going through each of the examples listed and arguing that either Walla did not change its coverage in specific news items following a request, or that it did so in a very minor manner, and that in general Walla’s coverage was very hostile to the prime minister during the relevant period.