The decision to transfer investigative materials to the defense team indicates a desire to clear the area of the prosecution's failures • Does this lead to the dismissal of the indictment?
Very early to assume so • Opinion
The court demonstrates a willingness to go far regarding the rights of the Prime Minister as a defendant
Photography:
Amit Shabi / Paul
If it is true that Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit consulted, among others, Prof. Menachem Mautner and the late Prof. Ruth Gavison, then he must have heard very critical opinions about the entire criminal and legal proceedings against the Prime Minister.
Both were not far from the position of the Prime Minister's Advocates - without any connection between the parties.
When in the first place there is such severe criticism of the form of interrogations, including severe violation of the rights of interrogees and suspects, it is not surprising that the court goes towards the defense attorneys who demanded all the interrogation materials hidden from them.
Prof. Gavison went so far as to cast doubt on the possibility that in the current atmosphere in the country and in which the justice system is affected, Prime Minister Netanyahu can win a fair trial.
The judges' decision to hand over the attorney general's approvals to conduct the investigations, noting that "we do not accept the accuser's position on the 1000, 2000 and 4000 cases," shows that the court understands the great sensitivity and problematic nature of prosecuting the prime minister.
But in any case, in light of the public sensitivity, the court demonstrates that it is willing to go as far as possible regarding the rights of the prime minister as a defendant.
Prof. Manny Mautner expressed in an article in Haaretz from July 2019 and in several harsh criticism interviews against the State Attorney's Office and against the way the investigations are conducted.
"Woe to us, then, for investigating a prime minister," was the title of his article.
To the extent that the legal and police reporters in the media expressed the positions of the State Attorney's Office and the police, then this is probably extremely problematic and perhaps baseless.
"In my opinion, Netanyahu acted in a matter-of-fact manner and certainly was not involved in a bribery deal here," Mautner wrote of the Milchen helicopter affair.
In News 12 this was presented as a clear bribery case, following the disclosure of the transcript of Cyrus Bernor's investigation against the prime minister.
"What I found in the transcript is an investigation that is all verbal violence ... When I saw the aggressive way in which Bernor interrogated Netanyahu I cringed ... So Prime Minister interrogates, how do other human beings interrogate? The incessant questions were thrown at him, without allowing him to finish even half a sentence, "Prof. Mautner noted.
The revelations about the investigation of Uzi Arad, which was a fishing trip following offenses, the torture of Nir Hefetz and the exercises against Elovich and his son, also join the investigations of the Soviet secret police, which were carried out as described by Mautner.
Does this lead to the place that Netanyahu's lawyers are leading to, of dismissing the indictments?
It is very early to assume so.
This does indicate that the judges take the allegations seriously and want to clear the area before the substantive hearing begins.
In any case, the question marks that arise in court are there to convict the dismissive approach taken by political leaders against Prime Minister Netanyahu.
In light of what has been revealed, how party leaders in a democracy are prepared for a legal captain, senior as he may be, to overthrow a government.
In these cases a mistake is not an extreme case in the realm of probability, but is highly probable.