Ex-AG Mandelblit Recalls Approving Netanyahu's Questioning Under Warning
Translated & summarized from i24NEWS by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified that he approved investigating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under warning in three corruption cases. Mandelblit recalled authorizing the probe for integrity of conduct offenses but was unsure about approving the term "bribery" in Case 4000. Netanyahu's lawyer presented documents and questioned the wording of the investigation notice, which Mandelblit described as "convoluted." The defense also revealed a document suggesting Mandelblit initially saw no grounds for investigation in early 2018.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified he approved investigating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under warning.
- Mandelblit recalled authorizing probes for integrity of conduct but was unsure about using the term "bribery" in Case 4000.
- Netanyahu's lawyer presented documents and questioned the "convoluted" wording of the investigation notice.
- Mandelblit agreed the wording was more suited to breach of trust than bribery.
- The defense revealed a document suggesting Mandelblit initially found no grounds for investigation in February 2018.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified on Tuesday in the "Cases of the Thousand" trial involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mandelblit stated that he remembers authorizing the investigation of Netanyahu under warning in Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000 for offenses related to integrity of conduct. However, he was uncertain if he approved the use of the term "bribery" in Case 4000.
Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, presented the wording of the warning for Netanyahu's investigation in Case 4000, which cited suspicions of fraud and breach of trust, not bribery. Mandelblit described the wording as "convoluted." Judge Bar-Am questioned the appropriateness of such phrasing towards the Prime Minister, to which Mandelblit responded that while the wording was more suited to breach of trust, it could lead to other conclusions.
Haddad pressed Mandelblit on whether he had previously stated that Case 1000 was at most a violation of the Gifts Law. Mandelblit acknowledged this possibility but reiterated that the investigation still focused on fraud and breach of trust, mentioning that "things were found" within a "prison model." Haddad then presented a document for Case 4000, which stated Netanyahu acted in conflict of interest and breach of trust while promoting the interests of those offering benefits. Mandelblit hesitated before confirming this applied to the latter part of the charge.
Further questioning by Haddad focused on Mandelblit's alleged admission in a recorded protocol that without the element of "quid pro quo," there is no bribery, and that this element was absent in Netanyahu's case. Mandelblit conceded that the wording in the document was more fitting for breach of trust but not necessarily for bribery, and agreed with Haddad that the phrasing was a "flaw" if the drafter did not understand the components of a warning.
The defense also presented a document, provided by the prosecution, which indicated that in February 2018, Mandelblit believed there was no basis for investigating the Prime Minister. The prosecution objected to revealing the name of the quoted speaker in the redacted portion of the document, and the judges accepted this objection, leading to the question being removed from the record.
