Judge Moshe Bar-Am lost his patience on Wednesday during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s testimony at his ongoing trial, sharply rebuking prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh after she repeatedly asked Netanyahu whether he or his spokespeople had requested that articles on the Walla news site be removed or promoted during election periods.

Bar-Am exploded: “We’ve exhausted this issue! I swear, let’s move on. I swear, we can’t continue like this!”

The claims that Walla provided favorable coverage to Netanyahu in exchange for favors have been completely disproven in court. This is especially significant since the claims are part of Case 4000, the most serious of the cases against Netanyahu, as it involves bribery charges.

In a court hearing a year ago, the judges scoffed at the charges of bribery, even snapping at the prosecutor that “the court recommended you drop the bribery charges.” [In June 2023, the Jerusalem District Court recommended that the prosecution drop the bribery charges, warning that a conviction was unlikely.]

Shortly later, Attorney Liat Ben Ari, a senior prosecutor in the State Attorney’s Office who led the witch hunt in indicting Netanyahu, resigned from her position.

In the period prior to the indictments filed against Netanyahu, then-Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit said that “without a bribery charge, there are no indictments.”

Mandelblit felt like the other charges brought against Netanyahu were insubstantial.

The bribery charge against Netanyahu is not the only one that has been disproven in court. A serious charge was withdrawn earlier this year, in the same month that former Israel Police Chief Roni Alsheich admitted that the goal of the indictments against Netanyahu was to compel him to resign from politics.

Read Channel 14 journalist Yinon Magal’s transcript of parts of the testimony regarding Walla, entitled “The Comedy Of The Netanyahu Trial.”

Part I:

Investigator Habkin admits: “We didn’t investigate ‘irregular responsiveness’—I don’t even know what that is.”

Netanyahu’s lawyer. Adv. Amit Hadad: Confirm for me that the basis of the case was that Netanyahu received favorable coverage from the Walla news site.

Habkin: Yes, we investigated favorable coverage.

Hadad: Only favorable coverage?

Habkin: Yes.

Hadad: And did you investigate “irregular responsiveness”?

Habkin: What is ‘irregular responsiveness’?

Hadad: You never investigated irregular responsiveness?

Habkin: I don’t know what that is. Irregular responsiveness has to be measured against something.

Hadad: Confirm for me that you never investigated and never attempted to establish a basis of comparison—not against other channels, not against other politicians?

Habkin: Never.

Part II:

Habkin admits, “We never examined the 315 incidents listed in the indictment. We didn’t investigate them in real time, and I was completely unaware of them during the investigation.”

Hadad: In your summary, you didn’t include any of the 315 incidents that constitute the alleged bribe?

Habkin: Correct.

Hadad: Not even 100 incidents?

Habkin: Around 10–15 cases.

Hadad: You never investigated 315 cases?

Habkin: Correct.

Hadad: I’m saying that the Prime Minister was never presented with 315 cases, nor with 15. We counted 10 cases. Why didn’t you present the Prime Minister with 315?

Habkin: Because I didn’t know about the 315 in real time. We never examined the 315 incidents in the indictment. We didn’t investigate them in real time, and I was completely unaware of them during the investigation.”

Hadad: You weren’t aware of them, and you encountered them for the first time when the indictment was filed?

 (YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)