Netanyahu says ‘ridiculous’ indictment shows he acted neutrally, not due to bribes
In his sixth day of testimony, PM argues the charge sheet against him shows he authorized regulatory permits even before alleged quid pro quo deal with businessman
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued in court on his sixth day of testimony in his criminal trial that regulatory decisions he approved prior to an alleged illicit quid pro quo agreement with a news website owner proved that the indictment regarding subsequent authorizations was baseless.
The prime minister maintained that he approved all of these regulatory decisions, which are at the heart of the allegations against him, as a pro forma step of a bureaucratic nature and that he had no idea at the time of their significance to businessman Shaul Elovitch.
Elovitch owned both Bezeq and the Walla news site at the time the indictment says the two men entered into their agreement, in which the prosecution alleges Walla gave Netanyahu favorable coverage in return for his assistance on regulatory matters.
Netanyahu is giving testimony in the Tel Aviv District Court on charges of bribery and fraud and breach of trust in Case 4000, involving Walla, Elovitch and his business interests, which has been the single focus of the prime minister’s defense attorney since Netanyahu began testifying last week.
During Tuesday’s hearing, defense attorney Amit Hadad asked Netanyahu about two regulatory decisions he approved in 2010 and 2011, which the prosecution included in the indictment against the prime minister and said were of great economic importance to Elovitch.
Netanyahu’s attorney brought up those decisions since they preceded the period in which the prosecution alleges there was an illicit quid pro quo agreement between the two men, which the indictment says began after a meal held by Netanyahu and his wife for Elovitch and his wife at the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem in 2012.
The indictment ostensibly included the pre-2012 regulatory decisions in the indictment to demonstrate a longstanding relationship between Netanyahu and Elovitch. But Netanyahu argued in court that the earlier decisions demonstrated that his signature both then and in 2014 was nothing more than a bureaucratic step in a purely regulatory decision taken on a purely professional, and not illicit, basis.
“It shows how ridiculous the charges are, and even negligent,” said Netanyahu. “I didn’t have any bribery relationship with Elovitch. I don’t remember signing permits in 2010 and not in 2014,” he told the judges.
On Monday, Netanyahu said that when he approved the regulatory decisions mentioned in the indictment in 2014 he did so in a perfunctory and automatic matter after they were brought to him, as were hundreds of others, for his signature by his staff after passing several layers of professional and legal approval.
The two earlier regulatory steps were a permit Netanyahu signed in 2010 along with then communications minister Moshe Kahlon that allowed Elovitch to become the controlling shareholder in Bezeq.
The second measure was an authorization signed by Netanyahu allowing the B-Com company, which was controlled by Elovitch, to fall below the minimum percentage of holdings in Bezeq shares, which the indictment says was also important to the businessman.
“Both these first permits are more significant, those made before I entered the position [of communications minister in 2014] or before the ‘understanding’ with Elovitch, they were more important economically,” Netanyahu argued to the judges, and insisted that since they were made before the alleged agreement they are “evidence of acquittal.”
After Netanyahu signed off on the 2010 decision, Elovitch purchased Bezeq for NIS 6.8 billion ($1.9 billion). In 2014, after Netanyahu signed a permit for the sale of the Yad2 sales website owned by Elovitch, the businessman sold it for NIS 800 million ($220 million).
Judge Moshe Baraam asked Netanyahu directly whether he knew Elovitch back in 2010, and the prime minister said, as he has previously testified, that they did not have a personal relationship and that he only knew him from the forum of businessmen Netanyahu would convene as prime minister, and after Elovitch came to the shiva for Sara Netanyahu’s father in November 2011.
Along with the bribery charges against Netanyahu in Case 4000 involving Elovitch’s business interests and Walla’s media coverage are a charge of breach of trust, which alleges that since the two men formed a personal relationship at one stage Netanyahu was legally prohibited from making any decision which affected Elovitch.
“The procedures which I signed off on were automatic,” Netanyahu said in reference to the pre-2012 decisions. “If one of the legal professionals would have said there was a problem the authorization would not have got to me.”
During the course of Tuesday’s hearing, Hadad returned to evaluating the list of 315 examples cited in the indictment of instances in which Netanyahu, his family members, or associates demanded improved coverage from Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua.
One of those articles was a report that Netanyahu’s son Yair was dating a non-Jewish woman, which the indictment alleges Sara Netanyahu’s friend Zeev Rubinstein demanded directly from Elovitch that he remove it from the news site.
The item was removed 10 hours later after Elovitch asked Yeshua to do so, but Netanyahu, as he has repeatedly insisted, said he wasn’t involved in the request, maintained that he could call Elovitch directly if he wanted to — as he did do on some occasions — and pointed out that Rubenstein’s initial request demonstrated he had direct access to Elovitch.
Hadad also highlights another example cited by the indictment as evidence of special treatment by Walla to Netanyahu, two opinion pieces published in January 2014 which Elovitch himself ensured were removed.
But the opinion pieces were not negatively disposed toward Netanyahu, but rather to former prime minister Ehud Barak and the actions he took against Netanyahu. Hadad noted that former Walla employee and commentator Yinon Magal actually testified that it had been Barak who requested the op-eds be removed, leaving Hadad to wonder why the indictment included it in its list.
And Hadad emphasized further problems with the indictment regarding an alleged request by Sara Netanyahu to Elovitch’s wife Iris that Walla remove an article about the former manager of the prime minister’s residence suing Netanyahu, and which the indictment says was indeed removed.
The item was not removed and was hostile to the prime minister, leading Netanyahu to quip that this was “one mistake among many.”
Hadad also highlighted another example brought by the indictment in which Netanyahu personally called Elovitch to ask him to remove an article about a new lawsuit against the prime minister.
Netanyahu conceded that it was likely he had called Elovitch about that particular article, but insisted that it demonstrated that he could call the Bezeq and Walla owner himself and did not need Rubinstein or anyone else as an intermediary. According to Netanyahu, this reality undermines the prosecution’s allegations he was involved in the numerous requests by Rubinstein and others for better coverage from Walla on his behalf.
“When I want to talk with Elovitch I speak with Elovitch, not through Rubinstein.”
The charges against Netanyahu
Netanyahu is on trial in three corruption cases. He faces charges of fraud and breach of trust in Case 1000 and Case 2000, and charges of bribery, as well as fraud and breach of trust in Case 4000.
Case 1000 revolves around allegations that Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, received expensive gifts illicitly from Hollywood media mogul Arnon Milchan worth some NIS 700,000, and that Netanyahu violated conflict of interest laws when he provided Milchan with assistance in renewing his long-term US residency visa and sought to help him with tax issues.
In Case 2000, the prime minister is accused of fraud and breach of trust over his alleged attempt to reach a quid pro quo agreement with the publisher of the Yedioth Aharaonot newspaper Arnon (Noni) Mozes, whereby Yedioth would give the prime minister more positive media coverage in exchange for legislation weakening its key rival, the Israel Hayom free sheet.
Case 4000, also known as the Bezeq-Walla case, is the most serious the prime minister faces, in which he is accused of authorizing regulatory decisions that financially benefited Bezeq telecommunications giant shareholder Elovitch by hundreds of millions of shekels. In return, Netanyahu allegedly received favorable media coverage from the Walla news site, which Elovitch also owned.
Netanyahu denies wrongdoing and says the charges were fabricated in a political coup led by the police and state prosecution.
