Netanyahu Trial: Defense Claims Political Motives Influenced Indictment Timing
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
During the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his defense lawyer questioned former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about alleged political considerations influencing the indictment's timing. The defense sought to prove that fears of a "governmental upheaval" and other extraneous factors, not just evidence, led to the charges. Mandelblit confirmed discrepancies in the bribery warnings given to Netanyahu in Case 4000, stating he did not recall examining the legal significance of these gaps.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer questioned former AG Mandelblit about political motives behind the indictment.
- The defense claims fears of a "governmental upheaval" influenced the indictment's timing.
- Mandelblit confirmed discrepancies in the bribery warnings given to Netanyahu in Case 4000.
- A judge questioned whether extraneous considerations are relevant to the indictment proceedings.
- The prosecution argued that personal deliberations of the AG are not subject to trial review.
A heated exchange occurred during the third day of testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Jerusalem District Court. Netanyahu's defense lawyer, Amit Haddad, sought to question Mandelblit about alleged statements regarding fears of a "governmental upheaval" and claimed that political and state considerations influenced the timing of the indictment against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The prosecution objected, arguing that the former attorney general should not be questioned about his considerations in bringing charges. However, Judge Oded Charm Bar-Am pressed the issue, asking if extraneous considerations are irrelevant to the proceedings and posing a hypothetical scenario where personal animosity could lead to an indictment.
Haddad aimed to establish that Mandelblit had expressed concerns about Netanyahu potentially causing a "governmental upheaval" and had compared Israel's situation to countries like Poland and Bulgaria. Prosecutor Judith Tirosh objected, stating that the criminal proceedings were not the appropriate forum to examine the former attorney general's internal deliberations or personal statements.
Additionally, Haddad questioned Mandelblit about discrepancies between the warnings given to Netanyahu during investigations in Case 4000 and the charges filed. Specifically, he highlighted that the explicit wording of Netanyahu receiving benefits "for actions" and knowing it was bribery was not present in the original warnings read to him. Mandelblit confirmed this omission and stated he did not recall examining the legal implications of this gap or being presented with the difficulty.
The defense also raised the issue of investigators refusing to provide Netanyahu with a copy of the warning read to him in July 2018, citing procedure. Mandelblit testified he was unaware of this request at the time and did not order the document to be provided retroactively, explaining he did not follow investigations in real-time. The court ultimately rejected the defense's attempt to compare this refusal to a case involving the former Supreme Court president.
Mentioned
