Lawyers for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and co-defendants in two of his corruption cases submitted requests Sunday for hundreds of pages of material from the investigations, saying some of it could lead to the exoneration of the prime minister.
Judges in the trials had earlier ruled that Sunday would be the deadline for such requests.
LISTEN: Why did Israel let 70 evangelicals flout its COVID-19 travel ban?
Boaz Ben Zur and Amit Hadad say some of the material they are requesting will lead to the prime minister’s acquittal in Case 2,000, involving alleged quid-pro-quos with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes.
They are requesting documentation regarding approval for the investigation, which they say the Attorney General’s Office only gave three months after police began investigating Netanyahu in March 2016.
The lawyers also contend that although available material indicates that former Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua was acting as a police informant in Case 4,000 (the Bezeq-Walla case), they never received any documents that clarify his status in the investigation.
- Israel's Attorney General Knows Netanyahu Can't Stay. Soon He Will Have to Make the Call
- Netanyahu on Trial: Everything You Need to Know
- Netanyahu's Campaign Against Law Enforcement Has Paid Off. Now He Wants to Complete It
Lawyers for Arnon Mozes separately requested documents and other information relating to the circumstances under which Netanyahu’s close aide Nathan Eshel was placed under electronic surveillance.
Navit Negev-Ram and Iris Niv-Sabag have also asked for material from the cellphone of state’s witness Ari Harow, who had recorded Mozes and Netanyahu discussing their alleged deal. They also seek additional information about conversations between the prosecution and Sheldon and Miriam Adelson before they came to give evidence to the police.
Attorneys for Shaul and Iris Elovitch, who are implicated in Case 4,000, also said that a lot of material had never been made available to them, particularly documents relating to what they called controversial investigation methods and pressure that was exerted on those turning state’s evidence.
Jacques Chen and Michal Rosen-Ozer said they had never received sufficient documentation of the course of events that led to the alleged intimidation of state’s witness Nir Hefetz, in which a female acquaintance of his was summoned for questioning so that he’d think that his relationship with his family was at risk.