Sharp Exchange Erupts in Netanyahu Trial as Defense Attorney Clashes with Prosecution

A heated debate erupted in the Jerusalem District Court on Wednesday during a crucial hearing concerning the scope of questioning for former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Benjamin Netanyahu trial. The Prime Minister's defense attorney, Amit Haddad, sought to expand the examination of Mandelblit to include issues of concealed information, investigative failures, and the approval of state witness agreements. However, the judges repeatedly pressed Haddad to clarify the legal basis and direct relevance of his questions, while prosecutor Judith Tirosh directly intervened to deny his claims.

The confrontation intensified when Haddad argued that police investigators possessed crucial exculpatory information in real-time that indicated significant problems with state witness Shlomo Filber's testimony. He contended that this data was not presented to Mandelblit before he approved the indictment. Tirosh interrupted Haddad's presentation, stating, "That is not true." Haddad responded with surprise to Tirosh's interjection and the prosecution's disagreement. The panel of judges then halted the exchange, asking Haddad to continue his line of argument, focusing on what the defense team aimed to prove by questioning Mandelblit. Haddad reiterated that critical information was withheld from the sole authority legally empowered to approve the indictment against the Prime Minister, asserting this was a fundamental fact with decisive weight.

One of the judges clarified that the point about withheld information was understood. However, Haddad insisted on emphasizing that these were not general claims but a solid factual basis that the defense could prove through official documents and testimonies. Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned Haddad whether the defense was claiming "defense from justice," to which Haddad affirmed. Haddad cited legal precedent, arguing the court can examine severe administrative flaws in the indictment process, especially when they violate principles of justice and fairness.

Haddad further claimed that Mandelblit was not merely providing legal guidance but actively involved in the practical management of the investigations. He cited testimony from an investigator, stating Mandelblit was the decisive factor in approving significant investigative actions. Judge Bar-Am pressed for the practical legal consequence, and Haddad identified investigative failures, citing the unperformed examination of Hadas Klein's phones as an example, allegedly due to Mandelblit's refusal to approve it. Haddad asserted the defense's right to question Mandelblit directly about this decision.

The argument also extended to state witness agreements. Haddad's attempt to delve into Mandelblit's involvement in approving these agreements was cut short by a judge. When Haddad tried to expand his argument to the Basic Law: Government, concerning indictments against a prime minister, the judges noted that attorney Jacques Chen had already addressed much of this topic and asked Haddad to be concise.

Towards the end of his arguments, Haddad presented a fundamental stance: the defense never committed to limiting Mandelblit's testimony solely to formal approvals. He explained that Mandelblit was summoned as a witness without prior restrictions, and given his involvement in key investigative decisions, the defense must be allowed to question him on all revealed issues and failures. The hearing concluded without a definitive judicial ruling, as the court continues to demand solid proof of the direct legal relevance of each question posed by the defense.