PM Netanyahu’s Case 4000 twists and turns!

PM Netanyahu’s case 400 takes an interesting twist. The prime evidence against PM Netanyahu, was proven wrong. The supposed meeting between PM Netanyahu and Filber, seeking favourable news reporting at Walla, did not match phone records and conflicted with the Prime Minister’s schedule. This should lead to Case 4000 being dismissed.

No problem for the prosecution, they change the time and dates for the meeting! Didn’t the prosecutors get evidence and confirm the details before the trial began. Surely they must. This is common standard practise.

This Case 4000, sounds like the Kavenaugh/Ford case. All four witnesses denied the evidence against Kavanaugh, including Ford’s best friend. No problem for the prosecutors, they added another witness. This new witness, which has no name and no evidence to support the details, was not a deterrence for the prosecutors. Is this law, or lawfare?

Are PM Netanyahu’s prosecutors making the story up as they go along? We have to wonder. This new, ridiculous and non legal evidence being presented by prosecutors, looks more and more like a made up story.

Rick Joyner and the late Pat Robertson believe, the Israeli “Deep State” are targeting PM Netanyahu. How long is this ridiculous case going to go on for? Prosecutors and accusers, are losing credibility daily! I guess for the public, this will improve PM Netanyahu’s credibility and work in his favour for the elections. We pray so!

Lets keep praying for PM Netanyahu and his defence team.

1. Lord give PM Netanyahu and his defence team wisdom to confound the enemy

2. Encourage and strengthen them to endure false accusations and attacks

3. Confound the enemy, bring division in their camp and failure of all their evil plans

JPost:

Netanyahu denies wrongdoing and has repeatedly rejected the prosecution’s characterisation of the meeting, calling it either non-existent or stripped of the meaning prosecutors ascribe to it, and insisting he never gave Filber instructions aimed at helping Elovitch.

The timing of that meeting has become a central dispute in the case. The indictment originally framed it as occurring shortly after Filber’s appointment, but the defence has argued that the state’s timeline does not align with call records and schedules, a disagreement that has previously led prosecutors to seek amendments to the indictment’s time frame. Read more …