Former State Comptroller Eliezer Goldberg, in a recent interview he granted Yediot Acharonot upon ending his seven-year term in the post, said he did not understand why the investigation of Sharon's Kfar Malal activities was taking so long. Goldberg himself investigated this issue in the past, and found that Sharon had "acted directly to promote a decision regarding farmland that led to a personal benefit for him and his relative."
Arutz-7's Shimon Cohen, who spoke with the police source, said that the policy outlined by the source explains the enthusiasm with which the Prosecution is pursuing a plea-bargain deal with MK Omri Sharon, the Prime Minister's son. Much evidence, including documents, affidavits, recorded testimony and admissions, has been amassed showing that Omri activated fictitious associations to help his father beat Ehud Olmert in the Likud primaries of 1999. Despite this, and contrary to accepted practice, the Prosecution made great efforts to reach a plea bargain deal - which may even be finalized as soon as today.
The fact that the Prosecution pursued a plea bargain deal, despite the relative ease with which it could have achieved a conviction, raised eyebrows in many legal circles. The deal stipulates that Omri Sharon will confess to a series of minor infractions, in exchange for the erasure of the heavier accusations against him.
Two legal experts consulted by Arutz-7 differed on the ramifications of this development. One said that it appears that the Prosecution's enthusiasm for a plea bargain appears to be based on the fear that a trial will raise genuine doubts regarding the manner in which Prime Minister Sharon reached the position of Likud Party Chairman. This is an extension of the policy not to risk the toppling of the government "merely because of criminal cases."
Another legal expert said that though he agrees that the Prosecution, for political reasons, has no interest in toppling the government, "the fact is that most cases end in a plea bargain agreement." He said, therefore, that the agreement made with Omri does not in itself prove the Prosecution's political leanings.
The Supreme Court itself, when it reviewed Attorney General Menachem Mazuz's decision not to indict PM Sharon regarding the Greek Island affair, admitted that political considerations were central. Acknowledging that Sharon received different treatment than that which a regular citizen in a similar situation would have received, the Court justified this by stating that "the indictment of a Prime Minister would lead, probably immediately, to changes in the government order in the country, which would be liable to have a dramatic influence on the policy."
The Supreme Court judges made this ruling despite admitting that Sharon's "explanations during the police investigation did not correspond with facts about which there is direct evidence."
"Prosecution Policy: Donīt Topple the Government"
A senior police officer speaking with Arutz-7 on condition of anonymity says there is enough evidence to indict and convict PM Sharon, but "it's unreasonable to topple a gov't over criminal cases."
The source said that incontrovertible evidence exists against the Prime Minister in more than one case, but that the decision was made, together with the State Prosecution, not to pursue the cases. The cases in question concern the $1.5 million loan by South African millionaire Cyril Kern to Sharon's sons, Kfar Malal (see blelow), and others.
The source said that police investigators were made to understand that the policy is not to delve into cases that might incriminate the Prime Minister, in order not to destabilize the regime in Israel.
Former State Comptroller Eliezer Goldberg, in a recent interview he granted Yediot Acharonot upon ending his seven-year term in the post, said he did not understand why the investigation of Sharon's Kfar Malal activities was taking so long. Goldberg himself investigated this issue in the past, and found that Sharon had "acted directly to promote a decision regarding farmland that led to a personal benefit for him and his relative."
Arutz-7's Shimon Cohen, who spoke with the police source, said that the policy outlined by the source explains the enthusiasm with which the Prosecution is pursuing a plea-bargain deal with MK Omri Sharon, the Prime Minister's son. Much evidence, including documents, affidavits, recorded testimony and admissions, has been amassed showing that Omri activated fictitious associations to help his father beat Ehud Olmert in the Likud primaries of 1999. Despite this, and contrary to accepted practice, the Prosecution made great efforts to reach a plea bargain deal - which may even be finalized as soon as today.
The fact that the Prosecution pursued a plea bargain deal, despite the relative ease with which it could have achieved a conviction, raised eyebrows in many legal circles. The deal stipulates that Omri Sharon will confess to a series of minor infractions, in exchange for the erasure of the heavier accusations against him.
Two legal experts consulted by Arutz-7 differed on the ramifications of this development. One said that it appears that the Prosecution's enthusiasm for a plea bargain appears to be based on the fear that a trial will raise genuine doubts regarding the manner in which Prime Minister Sharon reached the position of Likud Party Chairman. This is an extension of the policy not to risk the toppling of the government "merely because of criminal cases."
Another legal expert said that though he agrees that the Prosecution, for political reasons, has no interest in toppling the government, "the fact is that most cases end in a plea bargain agreement." He said, therefore, that the agreement made with Omri does not in itself prove the Prosecution's political leanings.
The Supreme Court itself, when it reviewed Attorney General Menachem Mazuz's decision not to indict PM Sharon regarding the Greek Island affair, admitted that political considerations were central. Acknowledging that Sharon received different treatment than that which a regular citizen in a similar situation would have received, the Court justified this by stating that "the indictment of a Prime Minister would lead, probably immediately, to changes in the government order in the country, which would be liable to have a dramatic influence on the policy."
The Supreme Court judges made this ruling despite admitting that Sharon's "explanations during the police investigation did not correspond with facts about which there is direct evidence."
Posted by IceViking at July 26, 2005 07:23 AM