Former Barak Aide: Mandelblit Testimony Could Be Dramatic If Key Facts Emerge
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Former aide to Aharon Barak, Dr. Yaakov Ben Shemesh, stated that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's testimony could be dramatic if key facts emerge regarding investigative approvals. He cautioned that public outrage over revealed conduct might not translate into legal grounds for disqualifying evidence or aiding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense. Ben Shemesh emphasized that the defense must prove a link between improper investigative methods and the Attorney General's approvals. The testimony is ongoing, with the defense seeking more time for cross-examination.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Former aide Yaakov Ben Shemesh warned Mandelblit testimony could be dramatic if key facts emerge.
- He cautioned public outrage over revealed conduct may not be legally significant for Netanyahu's defense.
- The defense must prove a link between improper investigative methods and AG approvals, Ben Shemesh said.
- Basic Law: The Government requires AG approval to investigate a prime minister, he noted.
- Ben Shemesh stressed the difficulty of using investigative flaws to disqualify evidence.
- Mandelblit's testimony is ongoing, with the defense seeking additional days for cross-examination.
Dr. Yaakov Ben Shemesh, a former aide to Aharon Barak, analyzed the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, warning of a gap between public outcry and legal significance. While acknowledging the "public atrocity" of revealed conduct, Ben Shemesh expressed doubt that the exposed failures would be sufficient to disqualify evidence or aid Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense.
Ben Shemesh distinguished between the severity of revelations on a public level and their legal impact. He explained that for the defense, the focus is not on the problematic conduct itself, but on whether investigators can link the opening of investigations, evidence acquisition, and use of improper means to the approvals given by the Attorney General. "He needs to show, I think, things concerning the connection between opening investigations, obtaining evidence using improper means, and the Attorney General's approvals," Ben Shemesh stated.
Regarding the approval to investigate a prime minister, Ben Shemesh cited Basic Law: The Government, which stipulates that no investigation against a prime minister can be opened without the Attorney General's consent. If the defense can demonstrate that certain investigative actions or evidence were obtained without the required approvals, they might attempt to use this to argue for the disqualification of such evidence. However, Ben Shemesh stressed that this is a complex legal maneuver, not yet established and not guaranteed to succeed.
Ben Shemesh also noted that Mandelblit's testimony is ongoing, with lawyer Amit Haddad seeking several more days for cross-examination. He clarified that for the defense, the crucial question moving forward is less about further public revelations and more about whether new material can support a legal argument that impacts the admissibility of evidence or the trial's proceedings. This, he concluded, highlights the difference between public perception and potential courtroom outcomes, as even publicly damaging revelations do not automatically alter Netanyahu's legal standing.
Mentioned
