Ex-AG Mandelblit Testifies in Netanyahu Trial
Translated & summarized from Srugim by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial, stating Netanyahu was not explicitly warned of bribery suspicions. Defense counsel questioned the investigation's wording, while Mandelblit cited a need for discretion between bribery and breach of trust. The court also addressed a prosecutor's alleged personal bias, with the judge noting such a motive would be serious and the prosecution objecting to such lines of questioning.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Former AG Avichai Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu trial regarding bribery warnings.
- Mandelblit stated Netanyahu was not explicitly warned of bribery during his investigation.
- The defense questioned the investigation's wording, arguing it didn't explicitly mention bribery.
- Mandelblit explained the wording allowed discretion between bribery and breach of trust.
- A judge commented that a prosecutor indicting someone due to hatred would be serious.
- The prosecution objected to questions about a prosecutor's alleged personal motives.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified Tuesday in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating that the prime minister was not warned during his investigation that he was suspected of bribery. Defense attorney Yaron Hadded presented the wording of the initial warning in Case 4000, which stated Netanyahu "requested and received undue benefits from Shaul Elovitch in connection with your public role and thereby acted to advance the interests of the benefit provider in severe conflict of interest and breach of trust." Hadded emphasized that the word "bribery" was not used and questioned the phrase "in connection with your role," which he argued does not constitute a crime. Judge Moshe Bar-Am asked Mandelblit if the "convoluted wording" used in Netanyahu's investigation was appropriate. Mandelblit explained he wanted to leave room for discretion between bribery and breach of trust, adding that the wording was more fitting for breach of trust but could lead to other conclusions. Hadded also questioned Mandelblit about an alleged conversation with prosecutor Adv. Judith Tirosh, asking if Mandelblit told Tirosh that Netanyahu would lead to a "regime coup" like in Hungary and Poland, and if she preferred to be on a case that "saves democracy" or prosecute in a "dictatorship." Tirosh vehemently objected, stating the prosecution would oppose any questions not related to the Attorney General's approvals for opening investigations, as previously agreed. She asserted, "This is not an inquiry committee for the prosecution." Judge Bar-Am commented that, in principle, if a prosecutor files an indictment because they "hate the prime minister," he would not ignore it. Tirosh objected, arguing that questioning a prosecutor's personal motives for filing an indictment would open a Pandora's box, and that the current proceedings were limited to discussing the Attorney General's approvals and legal clauses.
Mentioned
