Netanyahu Trial: Defense Claims Former AG Mandelblit Was Deceived
Translated & summarized from Kikar HaShabbat by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where defense attorney Amit Haddad accused investigators of acting without proper authorization and potentially deceiving Mandelblit. Haddad presented evidence suggesting investigative actions in Case 4000 predated approvals and questioned Mandelblit about his awareness of a key Haaretz article that allegedly spurred the investigation. Mandelblit acknowledged not knowing all details but denied intentional concealment by the prosecution, though he did not entirely rule out the possibility.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Defense attorney Amit Haddad accused former AG Avichai Mandelblit of being deceived in the Case 4000 investigation.
- Haddad claimed investigators took actions before receiving authorization to probe Prime Minister Netanyahu.
- Mandelblit acknowledged not being aware of all investigative details presented to him.
- The defense questioned Mandelblit about a Haaretz article that allegedly triggered the investigation.
- Mandelblit denied intentional concealment of information by the prosecution but did not rule it out.
During the second day of testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Jerusalem District Court, defense attorney Amit Haddad, representing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, focused on actions taken by Israel Securities Authority investigators in the Bezeq affair, which led to Case 4000. Haddad alleged that some investigative actions were carried out before authorization was granted to investigate the Prime Minister. Mandelblit acknowledged that he was not aware of all the details presented to him.
Haddad presented a memo dated October 2nd, suggesting that investigative units had already taken actions "behind his back" without approval to develop Case 4000. He questioned Mandelblit about whether approval to investigate Case 4000 was granted in June 2017, to which Mandelblit responded, "It's logical from the memo that there wasn't."
The defense attorney also questioned Mandelblit about a Haaretz article by Gidi Weitz published in October 2015, which raised claims about a connection between Walla!'s coverage of Netanyahu and regulatory benefits granted to the website's owner, Shaul Elovitch. Mandelblit stated he heard about the article but didn't recall reading it at the time, only learning later that it served as a catalyst for the investigation. When asked if he had previously called journalists Gidi Weitz and Ravev Drucker "great enemies" of the Prime Minister, Mandelblit responded, "It's possible."
Haddad further probed whether a conflict of interest arrangement for Netanyahu stemmed from the article. Mandelblit denied this, explaining the arrangement was based on information presented to the legal counsel regarding the connection between Netanyahu and Elovitch, and that Elovitch's name was not in the original arrangement, necessitating further review.
Later, Haddad accused Mandelblit of being "set up" and not receiving full information about the investigation's actions, suggesting "things they didn't reveal to you." Mandelblit expressed surprise at the implication of intentional concealment by prosecution officials, stating, "You're claiming the prosecution deliberately hid things from me. The prosecution accompanied these cases." He added, "I would be very surprised if this turns out to be true, I don't know of a situation where things were hidden from me. It's possible, but I'm still not convinced."
In background context, Mandelblit had previously confirmed that some serious investigative actions were not approved by him, but argued that the law does not require his approval for every police action. He also described an investigative tactic used against state witness Nir Hefetz as improper, preferring to avoid questioning investigators to prevent harm to the Netanyahu case.
Mentioned
