It's difficult to know where to start with this surreal interview with @EVKontorovich, who's a very clever man and one whose intellect I respect... but is being shameless here.

THREAD https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/1198876866960076800

1. Here's how Kontorovich characterises the charges: "Simply discussing favourable media coverage... is itself the taking of a bribe." No, that's obviously false. That's the "pro quo". Netanyahu is being charged because of suspicions he gave a "quid" for that quo.

2. Case 4000: Netanyahu suspected of giving *$500m of regulatory benefits* to a communications baron in exchange for that favourable coverage. AG says there was a clear "give and take relationship" in which each man understood the other could advance his interests.

3. Now, you can argue that trade wasn't explicit so doesn't amount to bribery. That might be a good defence case. But it's shameless to ignore that little fact of $500m of regulatory benefits in the background of the two men "simply discussing favourable media coverage".

4. (Also Netanyahu didn't just discuss "favourable media coverage", also adding content to smear his rivals.)

5. As for Case 2000, AG does *not* say "simply discussing" media coverage was bribery. He dropped bribery charge. Allegation is Netanyahu was offered a bribe and misled his interlocutor into thinking that he, the PM, was open to being bribed. (That's the "fraud" charge.)

6. And then this nonsensical argument that AG made decision "at most sensitive time". Would it have been less sensitive while Gantz still held the mandate? Or when it was still Netanyahu's? Or before the president decided? Or at any point between May and September?