Ex-AG Mandelblit Testifies Amidst Heated Courtroom Drama

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified this week in the Jerusalem District Court, facing intense scrutiny and accusations during the proceedings. MK Tali Gottlieb vociferously questioned his actions, while Netanyahu, present in the crowded courtroom, declared that "the truth is coming to light." The defense, represented by attorney Amit Haddad, accused the prosecution of "trapping the Attorney General," a claim prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh refuted, stating the "State Prosecution is not being accused here."

Mandelblit was questioned about his knowledge of investigators' actions at the time and what he approved versus what he learned later. He admitted to not being aware of significant details but maintained he exercised independent judgment and that the evidence justified the indictment. A key focus was Section 17 of the Basic Law: Government, which requires the Attorney General's consent to open a criminal investigation against the Prime Minister. The defense presented evidence of investigative actions taken before Netanyahu's investigation was officially approved, suggesting a pre-existing case was being built against him.

Mandelblit acknowledged that some actions were taken without his knowledge and that deviations from his instructions could be serious. He distinguished between information incidentally discovered during a legitimate investigation of another person and a deliberate investigation targeting the Prime Minister, which requires special approval. Questions also arose regarding interrogation methods, including Mandelblit's anger over wiretapping Natan Eshel and his admission that a pressure tactic used against Nir Hefetz was improper. He explained his hesitation to investigate those responsible for the latter, citing concerns about jeopardizing the main investigation.

The defense presented Mandelblit's disagreements with prosecutors, suspicions of leaks, and changes in the case team as evidence of pressure, which he denied, calling them signs of a healthy system. However, the article notes that unapproved actions and withheld information raise questions about his oversight. Mandelblit also conceded he did not review all 315 alleged coverage incidents in the indictment for Case 4000, relying on his staff, particularly concerning the alleged quid pro quo between Netanyahu and Shaul Elovitch regarding regulatory benefits for media coverage on Walla.

The testimony's impact remains to be seen, with the court potentially reducing or excluding evidence if procedural errors are found. The defense argues that the accumulation of alleged irregularities points to a systemic failure, while the prosecution contends that isolated flaws do not prove a fabricated case. The central drama, as described, lies in the tension between Mandelblit's self-perception as a gatekeeper who opposed improper actions and his admission of not always knowing what his subordinates were doing, leaving open the question of whether investigators targeted Netanyahu first and then built the case.