Latest news with #Tadmor
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Netanyahu in cross-examination: I was ‘political carcass' from 1999 to 2002
The prosecution's questioning, led by attorney Yehonatan Tadmor, focused on the depth and extent of Netanyahu's friendship with Arnon Milchan. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a 'political carcass' between 1999 and 2002 - meaning that his friendship with billionaire Hollywood producer-turned state's witness Arnon Milchan was purely personal, the prime minister argued against the prosecution's notions, at the cross-examination hearing of his criminal trial testimony on Wednesday. The prosecution's questioning, led by attorney Yehonatan Tadmor, focused on the depth and extent of Netanyahu's friendship with Milchan, at the hearing in the Tel Aviv District Court. The prosecution's thesis is that this friendship had political manifestations, laying out the basis for Case 1000 - one of the three cases levied against the prime minister - while Netanyahu insisted that the friendship was deeply personal, and that the insinuation that it was political is beneath it. Unlike on Tuesday, the prosecution on Wednesday moved its questioning further along and got more of them in, though the defense objected wherever it could. The judges showed a little less leniency towards the delays on Wednesday, preferring in most cases to move the questioning along. In Case 1000, or the 'Illegal Gifts' affair, Netanyahu is on trial for advancing legislation favorable to Milchan, while receiving gifts from him in the form of cigars and champagne, worth thousands of shekels. Tadmor asked about what was dubbed the 'Bibi Law,' which was passed in 2002 and permitted the running of politicians who had previously served as prime ministers. At the time, this would only have been applicable to Netanyahu. However, the coalition at the time fell soon after, making the law irrelevant. In what became a common objection, every time the prosecution tried to present new information with which to base questions off of to Netanyahu, the defense objected on the same legal grounds as on Tuesday: The materials were contradictory and external to those already presented in the case, and so are invalid. Judge Oded Shaham insisted that the decision issued on the matter on Tuesday - 'which we all remember clearly' - specified that submitting evidence during cross-examination is not within the accepted legal framework. The judges later permitted the presentation of such materials, not to be submitted as evidence, but rather only presented to gauge an answer from Netanyahu, starting from next week. What is valuable to the prosecution here is Netanyahu's answer, less the materials themselves. Tadmor argued that the 'Bibi Law,' which was proposed as an amendment to Basic Law: The Government, was advanced with Netanyahu in mind. It passed initial readings in the Knesset on December 18, 2000, in a 63-45 vote. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon won the elections that came shortly thereafter. Tadmor explained that Netanyahu was the only relevant public figure it would have related to at the time. The question then, regarding those years, was the relevance of the friendship with Milchan at that time, around 1999, when it would have carried political consequences. Tadmor asked Netanyahu what he knew of the public's perception of the law itself. 'I understood at the time that some people wanted me back, but I knew that I had no such intention, a sentiment I shared with Milchan.' He added, pointedly, 'I said this to you yesterday: I had no intention to return to politics.' He explained, 'From 1999 until 2002, I was out of the political picture, both because I couldn't get back in, and because I didn't want to.' Tadmor pointed out that Netanyahu viewing and calling himself a 'political carcass' throughout this series of questions is not an account he told police in his interrogations, and also that one month after he lost the Likud primaries in 2002 to Sharon, he was made foreign minister and finance minister in his government - so how could he have asserted that his political career was over when he jumped right into it? Netanyahu insisted that between 1999 and 2002, he never wanted to return to politics, and that this was clear to his close circles, to people like Milchan. Tadmor insisted, in turn, that this simply wasn't true specifically in 2002, around election time. Netanyahu explained that he had no political horizon to return to. 'Israel was in its worst financial position it had been in years. I knew that these positions would bury me, and even more than that - I never stood a chance to become prime minister.' He continued, 'So I asked myself: If I were to become prime minister again, why would that be? The answers for me were the financial mess and Iran, though I knew that the price for it would be massive. But, I figured I would fulfill at least one of my goals - to shift Israel financially.' He added that he knew, going into it, that it was political suicide. What this does is underscore the prosecution's position, that his political reality changed or was influenced by his friendship with Milchan. In 2005, Netanyahu was elected as opposition head, a position he served in until 2009, when he became prime minister. Tadmor proposed that being an opposition head is not a 'political carcass,' and that he had indeed planned his return to politics, in what was presumably an attempt to show inconsistencies in Netanyahu's character as a witness. 'My understanding at the time, at least during those first two years [1999-2001], was that my political life span was over. It took time for that to change,' explained Netanyahu. Tadmor presented a poll from the time showing that Ehud Olmert's party, Kadima, was sinking. Olmert won the elections in 2006 and served as prime minister until 2009. One year before the elections, a Smith Institute poll commissioned by Ynet found that Netanyahu was 'the most appropriate figure to lead the country,' Tadmor showed. Netanyahu dismissed it, saying that other polls showed the exact opposite and that, in fact, Kadima bounced back. 'My friendship with Milchan was completely disconnected from politics and had no effect or was affected by any of my political ups and downs!' Netanyahu charged. The prime minister insisted that politically, he was beaten from 2006 to 2009, and that his friendship with Milchan stayed even stronger throughout these 'intense political losses.' Netanyahu moved to attack Tadmor, saying that he was pushing a specific narrative that doesn't exist. Netanyahu's outburst gave Tadmor the invisible point he really wanted - calling his reliability into question. 'This whole narrative line is absurd,' said Netanyahu. Tadmor said, 'The way in which you describe your closeness and the development of your friendship doesn't reflect reality.' Netanyahu responded, 'The opposite is true: We had a true and real friendship right off the bat, a friendship that bled into our family relations as well.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
First day of cross-examination: Prosecution calls Netanyahu testimony consistency into question
The prime minister insisted that whenever he said he 'didn't remember,' he truly didn't remember - and was not trying to get out of a question or use the response to avoid telling the truth. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took breaks in his own police interrogation sessions to speak to his legal defense team - in the early days of the questioning that led to the indictment against him, prosecution representative attorney Yehonatan Tadmor charged in the Tel Aviv District Court on Tuesday, the first day of cross-examination. The 36th day of the criminal trial hearings took place on the 606th day of the Israel-Hamas War. The cross-examination is the long-awaited moment for the prosecution to levy all its weight against the prime minister, in criminal cases that have altered the country. 'I am reminding you: The instruction to tell the whole truth is in effect until the end of the trial,' said lead Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman to Netanyahu. Tadmor's general approach seemed to be to point out inconsistencies in the prime minister's testimony, presumably to call his reliability as a witness into question. The questions on Tuesday focused on Case 1000, or the 'Illegal Gifts' affair, where Netanyahu is on trial for advancing legislation favorable to his former friend-turned state's witness - Hollywood producer and billionaire Arnon Milchan - while receiving gifts from him in the form of cigars and champagne, worth thousands of shekels. Zeroing in on the original summons for questioning by the police, Tadmor asked whether the police coordinated the interrogation with Netanyahu. 'Yes, they did; that is what the routine is, there is no other way,' he said. Netanyahu insisted that he even went the extra mile to clear out his schedule for those initial interrogations. Tadmor cited a transcript from a January 2, 2017 interrogation - the first one - where Netanyahu said, in English, '[This] can't be open-ended forever.' 'First of all, clearly I was mistaken, this has clearly gone on forever,' said Netanyahu on Tuesday. Tadmor insisted on those differences: Either the prime minister prepared as much as he could and cleared out his schedule, or he was so busy with his other dealings that he couldn't have prepared properly - it can't have been both. The prosecutor referenced questioning protocols by lead Netanyahu defense attorney Amit Hadad, dated the 9th of April this year, where Netanyahu stated that he knew ahead of time that the interrogations were coming. 'I didn't think it actually had any substance at all, so I didn't pay any mind to whether it would focus on me or anyone else,' Netanyahu said, when Tadmor asked him to specify what his expectations of the interrogation were. Tadmor referenced that after the second interrogation, police officers searched the room itself afterwards for cigars, champagne, and jewelry. Netanyahu said that he understood from the protocols presented to him on Tuesday that his lawyers must have been concerned with an unlawful search, but that he didn't remember exactly what police asked to document. It was in this context that he said he couldn't remember - when Tadmor insisted that evidence suggests he asked for breaks in his own interrogations to seek legal counsel from his defense team during those initial interrogations. The prime minister denied the accusation. The prime minister insisted that whenever he said he 'didn't remember,' he truly didn't remember - and was not trying to get out of a question or use the response to avoid telling the truth. Tadmor stood on the differences between the prime minister's memory and his account of his trial preparation, including that he had, on occasion, brought in folders with physical papers into the courtroom. Netanyahu said that he wouldn't get into the folders' contents. Tadmor further pointed out that Netanyahu has said he 'doesn't remember' a total of 1,788 times in the interrogations on Cases 1000 and 2000. He also pointed out instances in the trial where Netanyahu's memory was quite accurate and 'phenomenal.' Narrowing in on the specifics of Case 1000, Tadmor focused his questions on the point of origin of the Netanyahu-Milchan friendship. Netanyahu testified that it solidified in 1999, while the prosecution charged that it formed three years earlier, in 1996. The significance of this difference is that in 1999, Netanyahu was out of politics (for a brief period, until he ran again in 2002). So his friendship with Milchan would have no bearing on him as a public official. If, as the prosecution is trying to prove, it began earlier while he was still in office, this could boost the foundation for Case 1000. Netanyahu said that their first meeting, though not the start of their friendship, was in 1996 at a premiere of one of the films Milchan produced with his wife, Sara, in New York. Milchan testified that he flew from Los Angeles specifically for this event, at Sara's request; Netanyahu has said he doesn't remember specifics. Milchan said that he bought Yair Netanyahu a Bugs Bunny doll, but that Sara insisted on a larger one. Tadmir quoted Milchan as saying that he 'ran all around New York looking for a massive Bugs Bunny doll,' that he got caught in the rain and struggled to get a cab, and that when he finally arrived, Netanyahu's security team was suspicious of him. Netanyahu said on Tuesday, 'I remember there being talk of a Bugs Bunny doll, I don't remember specifics.' Milchan testified in his interrogation that the three of them - himself, Neatnyahu, and Sara- had dinner together in July 1996. At a certain point, Milchan and Netanyahu were left alone. Tadmor suggested that the dinner was so effective that Milchan decided to visit Israel at his request. Netanyahu responded that he remembered none of the specifics. Flight logs show that Milchan arrived in Israel on September 8, 1996, about two months after the fateful meeting. Tadmor proposed that Milchan tried to get in touch with Netanyahu, but to no avail. Netanyahu pointed out that, per the evidence presented, Milchan entered and left Ben-Gurion Airport several times that summer, so there is no basis to establish the early September entry as significant. Zeroing in on the significance of the difference in the friendship origin point being in 1996 or 1999, Tadmor quoted from Netanyahu's own testimony: 'I met Milchan very close to the loss of the elections [in 1999]… I believe it was mere days after [the loss].' Netanyahu lost the elections that took place on 17 May 1999 to Ehud Barak. He insisted that he took an honest leave of absence from politics then, convinced, along with everyone else, he noted on the witness stand, that his political career was over, that he wouldn't be able to come back. 'When the time came and I was asked to come back [around 2001], I initially didn't want it,' he said. 'I thought political life was behind me, and I thought I wanted to keep it behind me,' he explained. In 2000, the Barak government fell, and special elections were called - elections for premiership and not for the Knesset. At the time, Netanyahu wasn't an MK and so couldn't run. Tadmor presented his thesis: The attempted amendment to Basic Law: The Government, which would have allowed for the election of a prime minister who had already been prime minister to run again, was advanced with Netanyahu in mind. The bill, dubbed the 'Netanyahu Law,' passed initial readings in the Knesset on December 18, 2000, in a 63-45 vote. In the end, Ariel Sharon won those elections, and the proposed amendment never saw the light of day. Tadmor explained that the law could have only applied to him, as he was the only relevant public figure it would have related to at the time. The question then, regarding those years, is the relevance of the friendship with Milchan at the time - around 1999, when it would have carried political consequences. Netanyahu responded that when he wrote in his autobiography, "Bibi: My Story" in 2022, that in 2002, he was certain he would return to politics, that it took time to understand that, and that in real-time, he truly believed he was out of politics for good. This was what he told his close friends, he added, including Milchan. The thesis of the prosecution is to show that essential to the nature of Milchan and Netanyahu's relationship was Netanyahu's powerful position and the governance role he held; that the fact that any types of related conversations with Milchan were being had while he was in a public post is already out of order. This bases the charges of fraud and breach of trust. Overall, the hearing was bogged down by technical objections and long waiting times.
