Judge Questions Bid to Limit Mandelblit Testimony in Netanyahu Trial

A court majority on October 28 accepted prosecutors’ objection to expanding the examination of former attorney general Avichai Mandelblit in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trial, despite Judge Moshe Bar-Am’s objections. The dispute concerned whether the defense could ask about investigative actions carried out after Mandelblit had given his approvals. Earlier questioning had covered actions before those approvals and the approval stage itself. Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh argued that the examination should remain focused on matters necessary to assess the attorney general’s approvals, rather than opening internal prosecution processes more generally. She said teams reviewed the investigative material and that questions about material missing from the investigation file should be directed to investigators, rather than treated as proof that Mandelblit had been misled. Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman responded that Mandelblit had said he had not reviewed some material, including transcripts. Judge Moshe Bar-Am said issues raised in the testimony appeared relevant to the defense’s abuse-of-process argument and that leaving them unexplored could leave a gap in the factual record. Bar-Am asked: “How can we ignore a former attorney general testifying about unlawful actions?” His question concerned the testimony before the court; it did not establish a finding that particular investigative conduct was unlawful. The majority ultimately blocked that line of questioning, with Bar-Am in the minority. After the decision, Netanyahu’s defense lawyer asked to end the hearing so the defense could prepare again. The exchange followed earlier testimony in which Mandelblit described approving subjects for investigation while maintaining a supervisory role. He said he expected significant investigative actions to be brought to him, while investigators retained discretion. Bar-Am had questioned whether more specific approvals would make the boundaries clearer. Wednesday’s dispute concerned how far the defense could examine the implementation of those approvals.