Judge Questions Former AG on Investigation Approval Process in Netanyahu Trial
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about the approval process for investigations in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Bar-Am expressed confusion over Mandelblit's explanation of when separate approvals were needed for expanding investigations. Mandelblit stated that while routine actions didn't require new approval, new suspicions or directions did. The judge's persistent questioning highlighted a key legal dispute over the scope of the initial investigation approval.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned former AG Avichai Mandelblit about investigation approvals in the Netanyahu trial.
- Bar-Am expressed confusion over the distinction between general and specific investigative approvals.
- Mandelblit stated investigators needed to present new suspicions and directions for approval.
- Netanyahu's lawyer argued investigators exceeded the scope of initial approvals.
- The core dispute concerns whether investigators needed explicit approval for new lines of inquiry.
During the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Judge Moshe Bar-Am pressed former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit on the scope of approvals granted for the investigation into alleged gifts. The judge expressed confusion regarding the distinction Mandelblit made between a general approval to examine significant benefits and the need for separate authorization to expand the investigation.
Mandelblit explained that while a specific approval wasn't required for every routine investigative action, investigators were expected to present new suspicions and investigative directions to him in advance during regular status meetings. However, Judge Bar-Am struggled to grasp this explanation, repeatedly asking for clarification on what constituted an "expectation" and expressing his own bewilderment.
The exchange began after Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, questioned the investigators' actions, arguing they had exceeded the explicit approvals by questioning individuals like Jonathan Hason, an aide to Arnon Milchan and James Packer, and Hadas Klein about gifts. Haddad contended that a specific approval presented only concerned Yair Netanyahu's use of Packer's apartment.
Mandelblit maintained that he had given a general approval to investigate suspicions of receiving significant benefits from businessmen, and that the investigation itself never ceased. He clarified that while the general approval exempted police from seeking permission for every technical action, it did not permit them to act independently without presenting new investigative directions.
The core legal dispute highlighted by the judge's questions revolves around whether the initial approval for investigating benefits was broad enough to cover all subsequent investigative actions, or if investigators were obligated to seek explicit permission from Mandelblit before expanding their inquiry into new individuals and subjects. Judges Rivka Friedman Feldman and Oded Shacham are also part of the panel hearing the case.
Mentioned
