Netanyahu Lawyer's Quip Amuses Judges in Corruption Trial
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
During the Netanyahu corruption trial, lawyer Amit Haddad and prosecutors debated the scope of investigation approvals in Case 1000. Haddad argued investigators exceeded their mandate by questioning witnesses about gifts, while prosecutors maintained broad approval was given. A witty remark by Haddad about an undisclosed email amused the judges, including Judge Oded Shaham, before the defense presented evidence of limited initial authorization.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer Amit Haddad and prosecutors argued over investigation scope in Case 1000.
- Haddad claimed investigators exceeded their mandate regarding gifts to the Netanyahu family.
- Prosecutors stated former AG Avichai Mandelblit approved broad investigation into significant benefits.
- A remark by Haddad about an undisclosed email amused the judges.
- Judge Moshe Bar-Am acknowledged a dispute over the interpretation of investigation approvals.
A sharp exchange occurred in the Netanyahu corruption trial on Sunday, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, clashed with prosecutors over the scope of initial investigation approvals in Case 1000. Haddad argued that investigators exceeded their mandate, questioning witnesses Hadas Klein and Jonathan Hasson about gifts to the Netanyahu family, even though the approval presented pertained only to examining businessman James Packer's luxury apartment. The prosecution, represented by attorney Keren, countered that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit had granted broad approval to investigate suspicions of receiving significant benefits.
Haddad presented excerpts from witness testimonies, asserting that police investigators expanded their inquiry beyond the explicitly authorized scope. He claimed the questions about gifts from Packer and Arnon Milchan to the Netanyahu family were not covered by the specific approval for investigating Yair Netanyahu's use of the apartment. The prosecution strongly objected to this portrayal, leading the judges to temporarily remove Mandelblit from the courtroom for a heated debate on the legal interpretation of the investigators' authorizations.
The prosecutor insisted Mandelblit had testified that he gave general approval for investigating substantial benefits, accusing Haddad of distorting the picture. She clarified that a specific directive against pursuing a certain line of inquiry related only to cigars and champagne, while a broader approval for gifts was given. Haddad vehemently rejected this, referring to previous protocols that he claimed supported his interpretation. Judge Moshe Bar-Am intervened, stating, "There is a dispute."
Despite the judge's intervention, Haddad continued his argument, referencing documents and prior discussions. When the prosecutor reiterated her point about the misrepresentation of the approval, Haddad retorted with a pointed remark to the prosecution: "Like the email they didn't tell about." This quip elicited laughter from Judge Oded Shaham, who humorously cautioned Haddad. Following this brief comedic interlude, Haddad presented an internal email stating the Attorney General had only agreed to a check with hotel management regarding the apartment's legal status, emphasizing the discrepancy between the limited approval and the investigators' subsequent actions.
Mentioned
