Ex-AG Mandelblit Calls Netanyahu's Police Interrogation Warning 'Twisted'
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit described the police warning to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "twisted phrasing," stating he authorized an investigation into bribery but it wasn't explicit. During testimony in Netanyahu's trial, Mandelblit and defense counsel Amit Haddad debated the exact wording of the warning. Haddad argued Netanyahu was never explicitly warned about bribery, only fraud and breach of trust, and that Mandelblit's memo lacked specific details. Mandelblit acknowledged the wording allowed for discretion between charges.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit called the police warning to PM Netanyahu "twisted phrasing."
- Mandelblit testified he authorized an investigation into Netanyahu on suspicion of bribery.
- Defense counsel Amit Haddad argued Netanyahu was never explicitly warned about bribery.
- Haddad claimed the term "moral turpitude" used in the warning was an "invention."
- Mandelblit stated he wanted to retain discretion between bribery and breach of trust charges.
- The warning to Netanyahu differed from that given to Shaul Elovitch regarding bribery.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit described the warning given to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his police interrogations as a "twisted phrasing." Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu trial, stating that he had authorized an investigation into Netanyahu on suspicion of bribery, though this was not explicitly stated in the warning. During cross-examination by defense counsel Amit Haddad, Mandelblit acknowledged that while he authorized investigations into "moral turpitude" in Case 4000, he couldn't recall if he explicitly approved the use of the word "bribery" in the warning. Haddad argued that the term "moral turpitude" was not used in the protocols or warnings, calling it an "invention." He also contended that Netanyahu was never explicitly warned about bribery, but rather about fraud and breach of trust, and that the wording of the warning was intentionally vague to allow for flexibility between bribery and breach of trust charges.
Mandelblit agreed that the warning to Netanyahu differed from that given to Shaul Elovitch, which explicitly mentioned bribery. He explained that he wanted to retain discretion between bribery and breach of trust, and that the phrasing used for Netanyahu was more aligned with breach of trust but could lead to other conclusions. He also stated that he was not influenced by any pressure in his decisions regarding the Netanyahu cases and was unaware of any Securities Authority investigations concerning Netanyahu.
Haddad presented Mandelblit's own memo, which stated he authorized investigations into moral turpitude for Netanyahu and bribery for Elovitch, but noted that the memo did not specify the exact wording of the warning. Mandelblit conceded that the distinction was significant. He also mentioned that the accompanying prosecution was supposed to ensure that investigations did not exceed his approvals. Regarding Case 1000, Mandelblit suggested that while he might have previously stated the maximum suspicion was related to the Gifts Law, the actual investigation under his approval was for fraud and breach of trust, as evidence unfortunately emerged to support these suspicions.
Mentioned
