Netanyahu Trial Judge Questions Prosecutor on Ignoring Illegal Actions Testimony

By נטעאל בנדל

Translated & summarized from Ynet by baba

CenterNeutral tone

Hebrew · 5 newsrooms covering

In the Netanyahu trial, the prosecution opposed questioning former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about investigative actions post-approval, fearing a precedent. Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned this, asking how to ignore testimony on potentially illegal actions. Prosecutor Judith Tirosh argued such questioning is outside the scope of the trial. Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman noted Mandelblit's testimony included unreviewed items, and Bar-Am suggested a factual gap could arise if further questioning is blocked.

The story in 5 lines · by baba

Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned the prosecution's objection to questioning former AG Avichai Mandelblit on illegal actions.
The prosecution argued against questioning Mandelblit on investigative actions taken after he granted approvals.
Prosecutor Judith Tirosh warned of setting a dangerous precedent by allowing such questioning.
The defense has focused its questioning of Mandelblit on actions prior to his approvals.
Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman noted Mandelblit's testimony included unreviewed materials like transcripts.

Netanyahu Trial Judge Questions Prosecutor on Ignoring Illegal Actions Testimony — Editorial illustration generated by baba News, not a photograph of the event.

During the trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, the prosecution objected to questioning former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about investigative actions taken after he had granted approvals. Prosecutor Judith Tirosh warned that allowing such questioning would set a dangerous precedent. Judge Moshe Bar-Am, however, questioned the prosecution's stance, asking how they could ignore testimony from the former Attorney General himself regarding potentially illegal investigative actions. The defense has so far questioned Mandelblit only on actions taken up to the point of his approvals.

Tirosh argued that the court's duty is to limit questioning to the most essential matters, specifically the approvals Mandelblit granted. She stated that in any case, defense teams can claim "defense from justice" and question prosecutors about what they knew, but the Attorney General's office, like any prosecution body, operates with teams and should not be treated as a specific individual. She cited legal precedent that generally rejects questioning prosecutors on factual matters related to their work processes, emphasizing that the Attorney General's signature on an indictment against the Prime Minister is similar to any prosecutor's signature.

Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman noted that Mandelblit had mentioned things he had not reviewed, such as transcripts. Judge Bar-Am added that Mandelblit's testimony contained potentially relevant information for a "defense from justice" claim, and failing to question him on these points could result in a factual gap in the proceedings.