Netanyahu Lawyer Accuses Prosecution of Political Motives in Trial
Translated & summarized from N12 by baba
In the Netanyahu trial, former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified that he did not recall explicitly authorizing an investigation into bribery in Case 4000. Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, accused the prosecution of filing charges for political reasons to change the government. Prosecutor Judith Tirosh denied the accusations, asserting that the prosecution's decisions were based on evidence.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer accused the prosecution of filing charges to effect a change in government.
- Former AG Avichai Mandelblit could not recall if he explicitly authorized a bribery investigation in Case 4000.
- Mandelblit stated the warning issued was for 'breach of integrity,' not specifically 'bribery.'
- Netanyahu's lawyer claimed the 'breach of integrity' phrase was an invention not in the protocols.
- The defense questioned Mandelblit about allegedly telling a prosecutor Netanyahu would lead to a 'regime coup.'
During the renewed testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Netanyahu trial, his lawyer, Amit Haddad, accused the prosecution of filing charges to effect a change in government. Prosecutor Judith Tirosh vehemently denied this, stating the prosecution's considerations were based on evidence and that the defense was attempting to attribute political motives.
Haddad also questioned Mandelblit about whether he had explicitly authorized an investigation into bribery in Case 4000, with Mandelblit stating he did not recall if the specific term 'bribery' was used in the warning, only recalling a warning about 'breach of integrity.' Haddad countered that Mandelblit never used the phrase 'breach of integrity' and that it was an invention not present in the protocols or warnings.
Further escalating the confrontation, Haddad asked Mandelblit if he had told prosecutor Tirosh that Netanyahu would lead to a "regime coup" similar to Hungary and Poland. Tirosh objected to the question, calling it an inquiry into the prosecution itself, but Judge Moshe Bar-Am deemed it relevant, stating that if a prosecutor filed charges out of personal animosity, it would not be overlooked. Tirosh maintained that the prosecution's considerations were objective and would be examined by the court.
