Mandelblit Faces Scrutiny Over Investigation Approvals in Netanyahu Trial

During testimony by former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense attorney Amit Haddad challenged Mandelblit regarding approvals for investigative actions. Haddad argued that if Mandelblit did not properly authorize certain actions, it could constitute a "defense from justice" and lead to the dismissal of charges.

The defense presented original protocols, claiming that some investigative steps were not only unapproved but explicitly forbidden by Mandelblit. This contrasted with the prosecution's reliance on a letter from Mandelblit detailing the dates of approvals after the fact. The defense also raised questions about the "illegal" or at least "improper" tactic involving Nir Hefetz, a confidant of Netanyahu, and the police's attempt to persuade suspect Alovich to change his lawyer.

Mandelblit explained that he chose not to transfer the Hefetz incident to the Police Investigations Department to avoid disrupting the prime minister's investigation, which had top priority. He acknowledged a "mistake" in this regard and also in the investigators' attempt to influence Alovich. Mandelblit did state that he successfully prevented wiretapping of Natan Eshel, a Netanyahu associate.

Haddad further pressed Mandelblit on whether he had personally reviewed the amended indictment, which included 315 communication events related to "Walla's" unusual responsiveness to Netanyahu, as ordered by the judges. Mandelblit appeared flustered at times, with Haddad framing the situation as investigators "galloping into areas you did not approve."

The defense's line of questioning suggested that Mandelblit was either primarily responsible for investigative failures or was misled by others. The article draws a parallel to Netanyahu's own situation, where he is either the main responsible party or was led astray by others, questioning the leadership in both scenarios.