Beinish: Katsav abused his power

The High Court of Justice on Wednesday morning resumed its discussion of the petitions filed against the controversial plea bargain signed between former President Moshe Katsav and the State Prosecutor's Office.

Supreme Court President Dorit Beinish replied, "That may be true, but this accident happened. It came out of somewhere."

In an attempt to explain the decision to sign a plea bargain, Nitzan told the judges, "The version provided by A from the President's Residence was that she could not face Katsav, that she did not agree to anything that happened, while Katsav's version was that nothing happened.

"But there is other evidence. She said that she had two friends in New York, and one of them told us that she was in love with him and that they had a temperamental affair… We call witnesses from the President's Residence, and there an older lady also tells us that she was in love with him and that she was obsessively jealous."

At this point Beinish interfered and said, "So she knows what is happening there, she knows what she is talking about. And this is what the entire ruling referred to as 'taking advantage of authority'… You limited yourselves to something objective. A girl works and gets promoted, and therefore you decided to go for a consensual relationship, assuming there was an affair."

Kinneret Barashi, A's lawyer said in response to Nitzan's remarks, "This is not true." Beinish hushed her and Nitzan continued, "And then they say that she could not bear the fact that the president was having an affair with another woman in the building. They spoke about obsessive jealousy."

Attorney Nitzan said that he was "aware of the ruling" and described what had happened nine years ago, according to the testimonies.

"When the first A fell (due to lack of evidence), it was much more difficult to go for the case of A from the Tourism Ministry," he explained. "There were witnesses who said that she looked in love."

"Why is this relevant?" Justice Beinish interrupted him. "These are terms of rape that have already disappeared from the world."

'Reasonable possibility for a colossal acquittal'

In last week's court hearing, Justice Beinish said that the indictment filed against Minister Haim Ramon was more severe than the indictment against former Katsav. In an unusual remark, Beinish added that "the acts described in Katsav's indictment are not considered sex offenses."

An expanded five-judge panel found it difficult to express its surprise over the plea bargain.

Deputy State Prosecutor for Criminal Matters Yehoshua Lamberger said during Wednesday's hearing, "When we came to examine this case, when the evidence started pouring in, we understood that this was a difficult case, almost a tragedy.

"There are two dissonances here: First there are a number of complainants, but with many difficulties, and the second dissonance is that there are doubts in the testimonies of each one. There were many meetings and discussions and examinations, and at a certain stage I was convinced that there is no case in the matter of A from the President's Residence.

"The court must trust us that what was done is legitimate, fair and appropriate. All the real-time evidence does not support severe things, does not support what she says… She can't remember a great part of the rape. 'I don’t remember how I reached the floor.' She can't remember 80 percent of it, and officially she did not tell anyone. There is a reasonable possibility for a colossal acquittal."

Katsav's lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, said during the hearing that "the president was stoned. And if we were at a different period of time, I would say that the president was dragged in the streets by horses. You don’t know him, we do, and you don’t know how significant this was for him. He was thrown out. He had hoped to end his term with dignity."

Complete agreement over plea deal

At the start of the court hearing, attorney Nitzan made it clear that members of the State Prosecutor's Office and the attorney general's office were in complete agreement over the plea bargain.

"There was no one on the team – and we are talking about an expanded and very experienced team – who thought that we should reject the proposal and file an indictment. And I believe this is an indication. There is an indication that something happened. There were disagreements among the team members, but no one believed that we should not go for a plea bargain."

The deputy state prosecutor also explained that some of the a number of clauses regarding the offenses allegedly carried out against A from the Tourism Ministry had become invalid by virtue of the statue of limitations.

"There was a problem, and what became invalid was forbidden sexual intercourse while abusing authority… There was a situation in which we could have filed an indictment on rape or on nothing."

The High Court discussion is expected to be longer than usual. The judges are expected to examine the possibility of allowing the State Prosecutor's Office to present evidence regarding the file.