Ex-AG Mandelblit Clashes With Netanyahu's Lawyer Over Investigation Tactics

A sharp confrontation erupted in Jerusalem's District Court between former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's attorney, Amit Haddad, during Mandelblit's testimony in Netanyahu's corruption trial. Haddad accused investigators of Case 4000 of conducting investigative actions related to the Prime Minister without Mandelblit's approval and of intentionally concealing information from him.

Mandelblit acknowledged that a deliberate search for suspicions against the Prime Minister requires the Attorney General's approval and that such an action without it is improper. However, he rejected the claim that investigators deliberately hid actions from him, stating he would be surprised if that were the case and was not convinced by the assertion. He emphasized that while discovering unrelated findings during a search is permissible, any suspicions concerning someone requiring the Attorney General's approval must be brought to his attention.

Haddad pressed Mandelblit, suggesting he was "tricked" and that information was withheld from him. He presented a search warrant from the original Bezeq investigation, implying it focused on Bezeq's financial matters and not on coverage by the Walla news site, as alleged in Case 4000. Haddad also claimed that investigators obtained articles related to the Prime Minister from the Walla site in July 2017, before approval for Case 4000 was granted, and that these documents were mislabeled as being produced later. Mandelblit stated he was unaware of these specific actions and did not give approval for obtaining such articles in July 2017. He also clarified that he was not involved in the original Bezeq investigation, which was a financial inquiry by the Israel Securities Authority. The heated exchange, particularly Mandelblit's admission that a deliberate search for suspicions against the Prime Minister without the Attorney General's consent is "not okay," provides the defense with a key argument to challenge the investigation's validity. The defense aims to prove that investigators exceeded their authority and used the guise of a financial probe to gather evidence against Netanyahu before legal approval, pointing to allegedly backdated documents.