Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused prosecutors on Monday of misleading him and “setting a trap” during his cross-examination, as his attorney Amit Hadad began the final stage of questioning in Netanyahu’s long-running criminal trial.
The exchange, at the Tel Aviv District Court, centered on Case 2000 and quickly became a dispute over what Netanyahu had been shown during the prosecution’s questioning - and whether the defense could now place fuller excerpts before him.
“I am a trainee lawyer in this absurd process,” Netanyahu told the judges. “They present me with a false picture... They set a trap, and I fall into it.”
Netanyahu said prosecutors had caused him to give answers that could be portrayed as inconsistent, despite what he said was a clearer picture in the underlying testimony and records.
Monday marked the start of Hadad’s questioning after the prosecution completed cross-examination last week. The defense’s questioning is formally limited to matters raised during cross-examination that require clarification.
Questioning in Case 2000
Case 2000, one of three cases in Netanyahu’s trial, centers on recorded conversations between Netanyahu and Arnon “Noni” Mozes, the publisher of Yediot Ahronot and Ynet.
According to the indictment, Netanyahu and Mozes discussed possible steps that could restrict Israel Hayom, then Yediot’s principal competitor. In return, Mozes allegedly offered more favorable coverage of Netanyahu and more negative coverage of his political rivals.
Netanyahu is charged in the case with fraud and breach of trust, while Mozes is charged with offering a bribe. Both deny wrongdoing.
Hadad first sought to revisit whether Netanyahu had met with Mozes while serving as finance minister in 2003.
During the prosecution’s cross-examination, Netanyahu said he did not remember such a meeting. Hadad argued that prosecutors had cited only part of Mozes’s police testimony, while leaving out passages in which Mozes himself said he could not remember and was unsure whether the meeting had taken place.
Judge Oded Shaham said Netanyahu had already answered that he did not remember, and that there was no need to reopen the issue.
Judge Moshe Bar-Am added that the relevant question was whether Netanyahu’s answer had resulted from a misleading presentation; Hadad insisted it had.
Netanyahu: Prosecutors asked misleading questions
The argument later moved to testimony by Nir Hefetz, Netanyahu’s former spokesman and a state witness. Hadad said the prosecution had suggested that Hefetz described a “cease-fire” between Netanyahu and Mozes during the 2009 election campaign.
According to Hadad, the fuller testimony placed that period of relative calm after the election, between May and September 2009. The distinction, he argued, mattered because Netanyahu had initially said such a cease-fire was “possible” before later rejecting the premise.
Netanyahu seized on the point, saying prosecutors had made it appear that he had changed his version.
“They mislead me here and make me give two answers in court,” he said. “Then they will say there are two versions, that perhaps I did not tell the truth.”
Prosecutor Alon Gildin objected that once Netanyahu said he did not remember the events, the answer was clear. Re-examination, Gildin said, was not meant to allow the defense to search for documents or details that could refresh the witness’s memory.
Netanyahu also faces charges in Case 1000, involving alleged gifts from wealthy businessmen, and Case 4000, concerning alleged regulatory benefits for Bezeq in exchange for favorable coverage on Walla. He denies all charges.