Netanyahu Trial: Defense Claims Investigators Acted Without AG's Approval

During the second day of testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense attorney Amit Haddad alleged that investigators in Case 4000 conducted activities without Mandelblit's approval before he authorized the investigation into the Prime Minister. Mandelblit confirmed that no official approval was granted for the investigation until a memo dated October 2, 2017. Simultaneously, a heated confrontation erupted in the courtroom between the defense and prosecution.

Haddad presented to the court that Israel Securities Authority investigators carried out investigative actions related to the Prime Minister before the Attorney General's legally required approval was obtained. Mandelblit rejected the general claim of systematic activity behind his back but acknowledged that no approval was given for the investigation until the official memo of October 2, 2017. Later in the proceedings, a tense exchange occurred between Haddad and prosecutor Judith Tirosh regarding a 2015 article by journalist Gidi Weitz about Netanyahu's ties to the Walla news site and the timing of its arrival in investigators' hands.

Haddad pressed Mandelblit on actions taken before the October 2017 memo, suggesting the investigating unit acted "behind his back and contrary to orders" to build Case 4000 without prior authorization, a claim Mandelblit firmly denied. Mandelblit confirmed that while he later approved the investigation into the Prime Minister, no approval existed in June and July 2017, prior to the memo. The discussion shifted to the opening of a Bezeq investigation on June 20, 2017, which was initially economic in nature and did not directly involve the Prime Minister or Walla, and Mandelblit agreed such an economic probe wouldn't require prior AG approval.

Haddad then presented the 2015 article by Gidi Weitz, which Mandelblit stated he had heard of but did not recall details from. When Haddad attempted to link the article to an examination of Netanyahu's conflict of interest due to his ties with Bezeq's then-controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch, Mandelblit explained that legal advisors presented claims of a close connection, necessitating a conflict of interest review.

The proceedings saw further clashes, including Haddad questioning Mandelblit about his awareness of journalists' perceived biases and a dispute over when a specific article was present on an investigator's desk. The defense aims to prove that actions concerning the Prime Minister were taken without proper legal authorization, while the state maintains Mandelblit acted lawfully and approved key steps as required.