Netanyahu's Lawyer Presents Evidence of Withheld Information in Corruption Trial

During the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Jerusalem District Court, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, presented documents from 2017 related to the early stages of Case 4000. One document explicitly stated that there was no basis at that time to expand the investigation against Netanyahu. Mandelblit acknowledged that he was unaware the section was blacked out from materials provided to the defense. He clarified that the presented documents did not constitute his personal approval to open an investigation against Netanyahu, though he maintained he had given approval later. The prosecution strongly objected, arguing that a partial and misleading picture was being presented.

The document in question, dated September 25, 2017, concerned findings from a rapid investigation by the Israel Securities Authority and the question of expanding the probe to additional suspicions. Haddad claimed that significant portions of the document were blacked out in the version given to the defense in 2021, with only a few lines initially visible. The visible text stated that while there was a basis to investigate Shlomo Filber, the former Director General of the Ministry of Communications, "there is no place for an investigation against the Prime Minister and others on broader suspicions raised by the Securities Authority." Mandelblit confirmed he did not know this section was blacked out and stated he did not perform the redactions himself.

Mandelblit also confirmed that documents presented did not constitute his personal approval to launch a full investigation against the Prime Minister at that point. However, he insisted he remembered giving approval for an investigation, even if he couldn't recall the exact date. He agreed that the documents did not represent a personal approval for a "real investigation" against the Prime Minister at that stage, but maintained that he had approved a preliminary examination and that the possibility of a full investigation developed later. The prosecution, represented by prosecutor Liat Tirosh, vehemently opposed the defense's presentation, arguing that isolated segments were being presented out of context.

Further documents discussed included an email from October 2, 2017, referencing the Attorney General's approval to proceed according to a plan proposed by the State Attorney. Mandelblit recalled the case and the suspicions presented regarding Filber's actions and Netanyahu but struggled to pinpoint the exact date of approval. Haddad pressed, noting the email stated "as is known, the advisor approved to act," and questioned where his personal approval was. Mandelblit assumed the matter was discussed in a meeting with the State Attorney, but Haddad emphasized it was an email from the State Attorney's office, not the original approval, and asked for the meeting's protocol, which Mandelblit did not recall.

The defense also raised issues regarding the handling of witness Nir Hefetz and an interrogation tactic that Mandelblit found problematic. He acknowledged that he did not know the full details of the pressure exerted on Hefetz at the time and described an event that disturbed him greatly, which he considered improper. While the possibility of a criminal or disciplinary inquiry was considered, he decided against it at that stage to avoid harming the Netanyahu investigation. The court also addressed the scope of protocols provided to the defense, with Haddad claiming only a fraction of relevant meetings were documented. Mandelblit explained that meetings documenting decisions on opening investigations were selected, and his assistants and the lawyers handling the cases were involved in choosing the material.