Mr. Caspit testified to me that the interview was conducted following the petition signed by the prosecutor, which spoke about the danger inherent in the judicial reform initiated by the government: "The Israel Security Prize laureates said it would endanger Israel's security" (p. 5, lines 15-22; p. 6, lines 16-17, lines 21-22). Mr. Caspit described his acquaintance with the plaintiff, his history and his special relationship with the prime minister, and added: " And what I understood, and this ordinary listener, did not understand because he does not know this history, that in fact, the prosecutor, out of very, very deep concern and anxiety for our fate, is turning to the prime minister indirectly, Bibi, also open your eyes... and tell him to stop, because this thing is possible, as he has emphasized 100 times, God forbid, and God forbid, taking us to a civil war, this is what I understood... That he is not just one, he is someone who isin front of Netanyahu many times and spoke to him with the whites of his eyes." (p. 9, lines 22-32).
Mr. Caspit further testified that he thought the interview was very good, since the plaintiff conveyed the main points he believes in, about the danger to national security: "After the interview, I wrote him my opinion about the interview, which was very good, he writes to me, hoping that according to me you will have a pathetic certificate of how your colleague tried to climb on me, that's more or less. The Honorable Judge Vered: Why did you think the interview was good? Because he conveyed in it the main points that he believes in about the danger to the State of Israel, its security." (p. 7, lines 20-30).
Mr. Caspit added that he recognized that his colleague, Mr. Magal, had tried to extract from the plaintiff a statement that he was calling for a civil war: "... I recognized how my colleague, who is not here to interview with me and represents a certain other side of the political map, actually tried to extract from him with all his might... to say that he is calling for a civil war when in fact his message is the opposite." (p. 7, lines 30-32, p. 8, line 1).