Former AG Mandelblit's Testimony Could Be Decisive in Netanyahu Trial

The upcoming testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit is expected to be a pivotal moment in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, potentially determining the case's outcome. Mandelblit's testimony is considered unique in Israeli criminal law, as it marks the second time a former Attorney General will testify in a criminal trial, following Yehuda Weinstein. The core of Mandelblit's testimony will likely focus on his approval of the investigation that led to Netanyahu's indictment.

Legal experts suggest that Mandelblit's role is crucial due to a specific clause in Israel's Basic Law: The Government, which states that a criminal investigation against the Prime Minister can only be opened with the Attorney General's consent. This provision distinguishes the Netanyahu case from typical white-collar crime proceedings, where evidence admissibility is often debated based on procedural fairness rather than strict legality. Any investigative action taken without Mandelblit's explicit approval could be deemed illegal and automatically void.

The article highlights numerous alleged investigative irregularities in the Netanyahu case, including claims of illegal wiretapping, pressure on witnesses, and the use of questionable interrogation tactics. It notes that witnesses like Nir Hefetz and Momo Filber are suing the state for millions, allegedly due to these issues. The prosecution's handling of evidence, such as alleged inconsistencies in timing related to key meetings, is also questioned.

Mandelblit will face questions regarding his oversight of the investigation, whether he approved specific actions, and how he allowed an indictment to be filed despite alleged evidentiary shortcomings. The defense is expected to probe why certain individuals, like Ilan Yeshua and Hadas Klein, were not indicted despite their alleged involvement in criminal activities, and to confront Mandelblit with his own past statements about not filing a bribery charge if he knew there was no bribery involved.

The testimony is framed as a potential turning point. If Mandelblit confirms he approved all investigative actions, he would bear responsibility for any discovered failures or offenses. Conversely, if he denies approval, it could prove the investigation was unlawful. This event is anticipated to reveal significant details about the conduct of the investigation and prosecution, potentially impacting the entire legal process.