Netanyahu Trial: Ex-AG Mandelblit's Testimony on Bribery Probe Questioned
Translated & summarized from Mako by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu trial that he doesn't recall explicitly authorizing a bribery investigation in Case 4000. Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, accused the prosecution of filing the indictment to cause a "regime change." Prosecutor Judith Tirosh denied these claims, stating the prosecution's actions were based solely on evidence. The defense also questioned Mandelblit about alleged statements regarding Netanyahu potentially leading to a "state coup."
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit cannot recall explicitly authorizing a bribery probe in Case 4000.
- Netanyahu's lawyer accused prosecutors of filing the indictment to achieve "regime change."
- Prosecutor Tirosh denied political motives, stating the case was based on evidence.
- The defense questioned Mandelblit about alleged remarks on Netanyahu causing a "state coup."
- A judge deemed the defense's questioning about potential prosecution bias relevant.
During renewed testimony in the Netanyahu trial, former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit stated he could not recall if he explicitly authorized an investigation into bribery in Case 4000, suggesting the warning might have used a general "breach of probity" formulation. Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, challenged this, asserting that Mandelblit never used the phrase "breach of probity" in the warnings and that its inclusion was an invention. Prosecutor Judith Tirosh countered that the full warning might be in a redacted section of the protocol, a point Judge Moshe Bar-Am suggested was unlikely if it pertained to the investigation's nature.
Haddad accused the prosecution of filing the indictment to effect a "regime change" in Israel. Tirosh vehemently rejected this, calling it a "speech to the nation" and an attempt to attribute political motives to the prosecution, emphasizing that their considerations were based on evidence and involved legal professionals from diverse backgrounds. She argued that the prosecution's actions were based on evidence and that the legal team represented a broad spectrum of Israeli society.
Further questioning by Haddad probed whether Mandelblit had told Tirosh that Netanyahu would lead to a "state coup" similar to Hungary and Poland, implying a political motivation for the prosecution. Tirosh objected to the question, stating it was not an inquiry into the prosecution's motives. Judge Bar-Am, however, found the line of questioning relevant, suggesting that a prosecutor's personal animosity towards a prime minister could be grounds for review in an extreme case. Tirosh maintained that the prosecution's considerations were objective and subject to judicial review.
