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 scrutiny over investigation approvals for Case 4000. Mandelblit admitted to documentation issues and investigators exceeding their mandates. Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, argued that investigators gathered evidence prematurely and that Walla's coverage was not properly examined. The hearing involved disputes over decision records, investigator authority, and the handling of influence claims, concluding with a heated exchange.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu trial regarding Case 4000 approvals.
- Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, questioned investigators' actions and documentation of decisions.
- Mandelblit acknowledged difficulties in documenting some decisions and investigators potentially exceeding their scope.
- The defense argued investigators gathered evidence before explicit approval to probe Netanyahu.
- Disputes arose over the examination of Walla news site coverage and influence claims.
- The hearing concluded with a sharp exchange between Haddad and prosecutors.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing sharp questioning from Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, regarding approvals for Case 4000 investigations. Mandelblit acknowledged difficulties in documenting some decisions and admitted that certain investigative actions were not brought to his attention. Haddad argued that investigators exceeded the scope of their approvals and questioned whether the coverage on the Walla news site was adequately examined. The hearing also saw disputes over decision documentation, the investigators' authority, and how claims of influence on Walla's reporting were handled.
A central point of contention involved the timing and specifics of Mandelblit's approval to investigate Netanyahu. Haddad presented documents suggesting the approvals were not explicit regarding Netanyahu, though Mandelblit explained the investigation concerned bribery suspicions related to him. Mandelblit conceded he couldn't recall the exact dates of all discussions, referring to a "glitch in the document." He also acknowledged that perhaps more of the redacted material should have been revealed.
Haddad focused on investigative actions taken before explicit approval to investigate Netanyahu, alleging investigators gathered and reviewed materials concerning the Prime Minister and Walla's coverage prior to this. This included examining a diary from another investigation for meetings between Netanyahu and Shaul Elovitch, and reviewing communications from Walla in Shlomo Filber's investigation. Mandelblit acknowledged potential issues with how these actions were conducted, suggesting extension orders should have been sought.
The discussion also touched upon the recruitment of Shlomo Filber as a state witness, with Haddad presenting a conversation suggesting a negotiation over his testimony. Mandelblit denied approving such contacts. He also admitted to previously suspecting a leak from within the prosecution but stated he lacked evidence for an internal investigation.
When asked about the specific suspicion against Netanyahu on February 5, 2018, Mandelblit paused before explaining it involved a relationship where Netanyahu received influence over a media outlet in exchange for benefits to its owner, extending beyond favorable coverage to political influence. Prosecutors objected to Haddad questioning Mandelblit's discretion in filing the indictment, arguing a prosecutor cannot be cross-examined on their assessment of evidence. The heated session concluded with an argument over Haddad warning Mandelblit not to discuss his testimony.
Mentioned
