Judge Questions Prosecution Over Alleged Illegal Actions in Netanyahu Trial

A dispute arose in the Netanyahu trial on Wednesday between the prosecution and the defense regarding the scope of the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. The prosecution sought to prevent the defense from expanding the questioning to include actions taken by investigators after Mandelblit had granted approvals for investigations. However, the judges raised concerns about the relevance of this information to the defense's claims.

The core of the debate centers on whether Mandelblit can be questioned solely on his approval of investigations against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or if his subsequent involvement and oversight should also be examined. Until now, the defense's cross-examination focused on decisions made and circumstances surrounding the approvals themselves. The defense lawyers now wish to scrutinize the investigative actions that followed these approvals.

Prosecutor Judith Tirosh argued that questions to Mandelblit should be limited to essential matters, primarily the approvals he granted. She warned that broadening the inquiry into the prosecution's internal work processes could set a precedent affecting other criminal cases. Tirosh explained that prosecution decisions are made by professional teams, not solely by one individual reviewing every document, thus questioning the need to interrogate the former Attorney General on every detail of the investigation materials.

Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned how Mandelblit's cross-examination could be limited when his testimony already touched upon the legality of investigative actions. "How can we ignore that the Attorney General comes here and testifies about allegedly illegal actions?" Bar-Am asked. Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman noted Mandelblit's testimony that he had not reviewed certain materials, including specific transcripts. Bar-Am added that the testimony could be relevant to the defense's claims of "justice from the court," suggesting that preventing further questions might leave gaps in the factual picture before the court.

Tirosh countered that a distinction must be made between questions concerning the Attorney General's decisions and the investigation activities carried out by police investigators. She stated that any claims about improperly documented investigative actions should be directed to the investigators themselves. This dispute follows Mandelblit's previous testimony, where questions arose about the boundaries of his approvals for the investigation into Netanyahu, particularly in Case 1000. He clarified that his approvals pertained to "topics for investigation" rather than specific offenses or actions, and that while he maintained professional contact with investigators, he expected to review key investigative steps before their execution.