Netanyahu Trial: Defense Claims State Presented Contradictory Legal Stances
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
In the Netanyahu trial, defense lawyers for Arnon Mozes argued the state presented contradictory legal stances regarding the Prime Minister's authority over newspapers. They claim the state previously stated the PM had no such authority, contradicting the basis of Case 2000. The defense wants to question former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about this discrepancy, arguing it undermines the charges. The prosecution maintains the current trial is not the place to re-examine the indictment's foundations.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Defense in Netanyahu trial claims state presented contradictory legal stances on PM's authority over newspapers.
- The defense argues a previous state position contradicts the premise of Case 2000 charges.
- Attorneys for Arnon Mozes want to question former AG Avichai Mandelblit on the alleged discrepancy.
- The prosecution contends the current trial is not the venue to re-examine the indictment's basis.
- Mandelblit previously admitted he believed Netanyahu did not intend to fulfill the alleged deal.
During the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense attorneys for Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, argued that the state has presented contradictory legal positions in separate proceedings. Specifically, they claim that in a case related to journalist Ruvik Drucker, the state asserted that the Prime Minister lacks governmental authority over newspapers. This directly contradicts the premise of Case 2000, which alleges Netanyahu had such authority to benefit Yedioth Ahronoth at the expense of Israel Hayom.
The defense is demanding to question former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about this alleged discrepancy. They argue that if the state previously stated the Prime Minister has no authority over newspapers, then the basis for the charges of fraud and breach of trust against Netanyahu, and the bribery charge against Mozes, is undermined. The defense seeks to establish that Mandelblit was aware of this contradiction when he approved the indictment.
The prosecution, led by attorney Judith Tirosh, countered that the current trial is not the appropriate venue to re-examine all the considerations that led to the indictment. They contend that Mandelblit's questioning should be limited to the statutory requirements for opening an investigation against a prime minister, not to a review of legal opinions and professional decisions made during case management.
The defense rejected this, asserting that Mandelblit has already testified on matters directly related to the defendants, thus granting them the right to complete their factual inquiry. They aim to prove that the indictment was constructed on an artificial and contradictory legal framework, which they argue constitutes a serious flaw in the prosecution's conduct and supports their demand for the charges to be dismissed.
This argument gains significance as Mandelblit previously admitted during his testimony that he believed Netanyahu did not intend to fulfill the alleged deal discussed with Mozes. While this admission relates to Netanyahu's intent, the defense believes the contradictory state positions further weaken the prosecution's case.
Mentioned
