Ex-AG Mandelblit Faces Tough Questions in Netanyahu Trial
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial, facing defense claims that his signature on an amended indictment was copied. Mandelblit admitted he doesn't recall signing the amended document and confirmed not all investigative actions were brought to his approval. He also revealed ordering a wiretap stopped and criticized interrogation tactics, which the defense argues shows procedural flaws. Mandelblit affirmed his personal decision to indict Netanyahu.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in Benjamin Netanyahu's trial, facing questions about his signature on an amended indictment.
- Mandelblit admitted he does not recall signing the amended indictment and rejected the defense's claim of a copied signature.
- He confirmed that not all investigative actions were brought to his approval, and some were conducted without his explicit knowledge.
- Mandelblit revealed he ordered a wiretap on Natan Eshel stopped after learning of it, calling the action "infuriating."
- The defense attorney argued that Mandelblit's testimony indicates significant flaws in the investigation and indictment process.
- Mandelblit stated he personally decided to indict Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit returned to the witness stand in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing intense questioning from Netanyahu's defense attorney, Amit Haddad. The defense attorney challenged Mandelblit on his signature on the amended indictment, suggesting it was copied from the original document. Mandelblit admitted he doesn't recall signing the amended indictment but rejected the defense's conclusion.
Mandelblit also confirmed that not all investigative actions were brought to his approval, revealing an instance of wiretapping he ordered stopped, and criticized interrogation tactics used against state witnesses. The defense aims to use these points to argue that investigative procedures were flawed, potentially impacting the admissibility of evidence.
A key point of contention was the amended indictment filed in January 2021, following a court order for the prosecution to detail Case 4000 allegations more precisely. Haddad presented the original and amended indictments, highlighting the identical ink smudge on the initial letter of Mandelblit's signature in both documents, implying the signature was transferred rather than re-signed.
Mandelblit acknowledged that investigators sometimes acted without his explicit knowledge, stating he requested to be involved in major decisions but not every individual action. He confirmed that while investigators must seek his consent for new suspicions, he is unaware of cases where investigations began without his approval.
He further disclosed that he was only informed after the fact about a wiretap on Natan Eshel, a Netanyahu confidant, and ordered it halted, expressing anger over the action. Mandelblit stated he chose not to open a police investigation into the matter to avoid harming the Netanyahu case.
The defense also raised concerns about interrogation tactics used against state witness Nir Hefetz, with Mandelblit criticizing some actions as improper. He confirmed he was unaware of a prosecutor's involvement in a February 2018 meeting discussing a search and interrogation of a Hefetz associate, an omission he felt should have been reported to him. Mandelblit maintained his personal responsibility for the decision to indict Netanyahu, calling it his own decision.
Mentioned
