Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only didn’t request to change coverage of him on the Walla news site, but the coverage itself of other politicians was inconsistent in its favorability to them, he charged in his testimony in his criminal trial hearing on Monday in the Tel Aviv District Court.
This line of questioning, which will continue for about a week, is part of his main defense portion of the trial, before it heads into cross-examination by the prosecution. This questioning is being done by the lead defense attorneys of other defendants listed in the indictment: Iris and Shaul Elovich, and Arnon “Noni” Mozes.
The hearing was cut short by two hours on Monday due to a security consultation, the prime minister said he had. He also asked to shorten today’s hearing in advance, ahead of other already-scheduled security-related matters.
The attorneys of the Elovich couple and Mozes are questioning Netanyahu – the primary defendant – on behalf of their clients, in two of the three cases levied against the prime minister.
In Case 4000, the “Walla-Bezeq Affair,” Netanyahu is on trial for allegedly promising to advance regulatory changes beneficial to the Elovich’s business interests, in exchange for positive coverage on the Walla news site, which Shaul owned along with communications conglomerate Bezeq.
Netanyahu was charged with fraud and breach of trust
This case holds the weightiest charge of the three – bribery – as well as fraud and breach of trust. Elovich and his wife were charged with bribery, which is what Elovich's attorney, Jack Chen, is attempting to disprove.
In Case 2000, the “Netanyahu-Mozes Affair,” the relationship between the prime minister and the owner of Yediot Aharonot is under scrutiny. Allegedly, Mozes offered a bribe to Netanyahu: positive coverage of him and his family in the prominent daily and negative coverage of political opponents, in exchange for the advancement of legislation that would force restrictions on rival Yediot tabloid daily Israel Hayom.
Netanyahu was charged with fraud and breach of trust in Case 2000, while Mozes was charged with attempted bribery.
Throughout the questioning process, lead prosecution attorney Yehudit Tirosh objected several times to Chen’s questioning style, which she said summarized the questions too broadly and fed them intentionally to Netanyahu. Chen rephrased his questions.
Asked if he knew at all about the inner workings of the news team at Walla, Netanyahu said it never came up and he had no idea, nor that he knew of the hierarchy of relationships between the CEO and the editorial team.
Chen presented statistics numbering how many times Netanyahu received coverage on Walla from 2012 to 2017: 14,950 times, which was about 10 times more than any other rival politician on the scene at the time. “We have records of how many times I called [Elovich] – they don’t measure up to the sheer volume of coverage,” he said on Monday.
“I was treated uniquely in the other direction – consistent hostility – when it came to coverage!” Netanyahu charged.
Chen’s goal is to prove two things when it comes to the bribery charge: that nothing concrete actually happened in its service, meaning that Elovich didn’t give or receive anything, and that there was no intention to do so in the first place.
Chen presented texts sent from President Isaac Herzog in 2015 when he headed the Labor party and was in the opposition, where he wrote to Yeshua twice to get back to him about an idea he said he had. The day after the second text, an article was published in Walla that presents Herzog in a positive light, Chen showed.
A different text from Herzog to Yeshua was one in which he asked to meet. Netanyahu commented on Monday that heightened attempts to meet with journalists and media figures, especially around election season, are ordinary and common.
Chen asked if this type of activity by politicians – presenting coverage ideas in a way that serves them to journalists – was common; Netanyahu said on Monday that it was. What this does for Chen’s position is show that Walla was inconsistent in its coverage across the board, that Netanyahu wasn’t an exception, thereby theoretically undoing one of the basic assumptions of the alleged bribery in Case 4000: that there was a give-and-take, and that Walla broke its own coverage protocols when it came to the prime minister.
Chen attempted to show that Walla was both inconsistent in its management of coverage requests from other politicians, meaning that not only was there an irregularity when it came to Netanyahu, but that even if there was, the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. So, by that logic, Elovich didn’t do anything, so he definitely couldn’t have gotten anything for it.
In a different example of another politician, former prime minister Naftali Bennett, Chen presented texts that Bennett sent to Yeshua after Walla published unfavorable coverage of his political partner, Ayelet Shaked. “I saw your [Facebook] post [about the incident], please let’s talk,” wrote Yeshua to Bennett.
Netanyahu said on Tuesday that he had never received such treatment from the management at Walla. Chen attempted to show that these types of exchanges, especially when it came to elections and to anything financial that is tied to them – campaigns, flyers, etc. – are both ordinary and common.
Separately, representatives from the court spokesperson's office told journalists on Monday that any journalist who poses questions to the prime minister once he's in the room but before the judges enter, or during the breaks, would only be allowed into the courtroom after Netanyahu enters it himself on Wednesday.
The prohibition to pose questions to Netanyahu already exists in the form of a court decision. Journalists were furious at the Tuesday announcement, as it is a limitation on the press access journalists have to the prime minister, which is already severely narrow, as he generally does not grant interviews to mainstream media.
In general, audience members – journalists or otherwise – in a courtroom are forbidden from speaking while the judges are present. Anyone who is due in a courtroom is always subject to media volley questions once they are in the courthouse, but before any hearing actually begins.
Due to the sensationalism of this trial, questions at the start of the hearings became common, as did calls of support from admirers.
