(Par. p. 449, paras. 4-14)
- Shteif explained that this broadcast was made in accordance with gag orders issued by the court. According to her: "I was in contact with police investigators and they told me when I could publish and when they would come to court, they told me when the arrest was made, when they would come to court, I was subject to the court's instructions when it was possible to publish and that is what we did, only as soon as the court approved it we published what the court approved" (para. p. 174, paras. 5-8). When asked what the purpose of the broadcast was, she explained: "I reiterated that the material that came into my hands was material that paralleled the Watergate affair, and everything was a corruption in my eyes by the judicial system. We don't bury a story like this, everything we were allowed to publish we published according to a court order" (par. p. 174, paras. 12-14).
- Nose Shachar explained that "we knew that a police statement was going to be issued and that some of the things would be allowed to be published, it is clear that as soon as everyone is allowed to publish a police statement, then we are also allowed" (par. p. 296, paras. 2-3). According to her, the broadcast was not approved by the legal counsel because "it is a police statement, it is a press release. I do not need the permission of the legal advisor to publish a police statement. I have not spoken to any legal counsel at this stage" (par. p. 296, paras. 7-8).
- Similar things arose from the testimony of Adv. Blumenfeld, who explained that at the time of the broadcast "I was at the station and I had already returned to Israel, things happened that morning quickly because the undercover investigation that had taken place until then became public, it was a spontaneous broadcast, I was not consulted before and I do not give advice to live broadcasters, we gave a sweeping instruction to adhere to the gag order and this also applies to a broadcaster in such cases" (Par. p. 362, paras. 15-20).
- The second part of the broadcast began at 11:03 a.m., during which the defendants revealed various details of information, which they learned from examining the contents of the devices. Among other things, the broadcast stated as follows: