Lawyer Questions Former AG's Testimony in Netanyahu Trial
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Lawyer Eyal Basarglik criticized former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's testimony in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial, questioning the legality of investigations and the admissibility of evidence. Basarglik argued that key investigations, including bribery allegations, may have lacked necessary legal approvals from the Attorney General, potentially invalidating all evidence. He also expressed concern over the prosecution's apparent disarray and the broader implications for citizens facing the legal system.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Lawyer Eyal Basarglik questions former AG Avichai Mandelblit's testimony regarding investigation approvals in the Netanyahu trial.
- Basarglik claims the bribery investigation may have proceeded without the required Attorney General's approval.
- Evidence obtained without the AG's approval could be deemed inadmissible, potentially invalidating the case.
- The prosecution appears 'panicked' due to changes in its legal team, Basarglik stated.
- Basarglik raised concerns about investigative methods and their impact on ordinary citizens.
- Former Police Commissioner Roni Alsheich is expected to testify on investigative practices.
Lawyer Eyal Basarglik, who knows former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit personally, expressed confusion over Mandelblit's testimony in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Basarglik described Mandelblit as intelligent and meticulous, making his alleged difficulty in answering key questions about the investigation's approvals and the indictment "incomprehensible." Basarglik specifically questioned whether approvals were sought for the bribery investigation, stating that "it turns out that approvals were not requested for the bribery investigation." He noted that while former Police Commissioner Roni Alsheich's approval was not legally sufficient for investigating a prime minister, the Attorney General's approval is a legal requirement.
Basarglik challenged testimony from a senior investigative official, Eran Kamin, who reportedly met with journalist Ben Caspit for a preliminary inquiry that did not require AG approval. Basarglik argued that even preliminary checks concerning a prime minister necessitate such approval. He warned that investigations conducted without proper authorization could render all evidence inadmissible, citing the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine and a specific Israeli law stating that evidence obtained without the AG's approval is void.
Further criticizing Mandelblit's testimony, Basarglik raised doubts about his involvement in reviewing the charges before the indictment, questioning how he could sign off on it without understanding basic concepts like "sympathetic coverage" or reviewing the 315 alleged instances of bribery. Basarglik suggested the prosecution appears "panicked" due to changes in its legal team, with key figures like Liat Ben-Ari and Shai Nitzan no longer involved, leaving only Yehudit Tirosh. He anticipates Alsheich will also be called to testify regarding investigative practices during his tenure, including alleged pressure tactics on suspects and witnesses.
Basarglik extended his criticism beyond the Netanyahu trial, expressing concern that the investigative methods revealed in this high-profile case are indicative of broader issues within law enforcement. He stated that while many professional individuals work in the prosecution, their voices are not heard enough, and questioned the implications for ordinary citizens facing the legal system without adequate resources.
Mentioned
