Netanyahu Trial: Mandelblit Faces Sharp Cross-Examination on Investigation Approvals

The third day of testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Benjamin Netanyahu corruption trial saw a heated confrontation regarding the investigation approvals granted to the Prime Minister, the wording of his warning in Case 4000, and defense claims of ulterior motives in the indictment.

During cross-examination, Mandelblit acknowledged that Netanyahu was not explicitly warned of bribery suspicions in Case 4000. Defense attorney Amit Haddad argued that the indictment was filed with the aim of causing a change in government. The exchange began with disputes over documents submitted to the court concerning Mandelblit's approvals for opening investigations against Netanyahu.

Haddad presented a heavily redacted document from February 5, 2018, questioning its implications for the scope of approvals. Prosecutor Judith Tirosh objected to Haddad's method of questioning Mandelblit via documents, stating an agreement that Mandelblit would testify about his approvals, not be cross-examined on documents submitted later by the prosecution.

Mandelblit recalled approving warnings for Netanyahu in Cases 1000 and 2000, and later in Case 4000, on two separate occasions, for offenses related to public integrity. However, he could not recall if the term "bribery" was explicitly used in the Case 4000 approval. Haddad countered that the term "public integrity" did not appear in the visible parts of the presented protocols, which Mandelblit attributed to relying on his memory.

The discussion shifted to the specific wording of the warnings given to Netanyahu and Shaul Elovitch in Case 4000. Haddad highlighted differences, noting Elovitch's warning mentioned benefits for actions related to the Prime Minister's role, while Netanyahu's stated he "requested and received" benefits "in connection with your public role." Mandelblit conceded the phrasing was different, calling Netanyahu's warning "convoluted," and later agreed there was a "flaw" in the wording, admitting Netanyahu was not explicitly warned of bribery suspicions. He did not recall if this issue was raised before the indictment was filed.

Haddad then attempted to introduce claims of Mandelblit's alleged personal animosity towards Netanyahu, suggesting the indictment was politically motivated. He questioned Mandelblit about a supposed conversation with Tirosh where Mandelblit allegedly spoke of Netanyahu leading a "regime change" and asked if she preferred prosecuting a case that "saves democracy" or one in a "dictatorship." Tirosh strongly objected, arguing the questions were irrelevant to the investigation's approval and aimed to attribute political motives to the prosecution. Judge Moshe Bar-Am remarked that an indictment filed out of hatred for the Prime Minister would be problematic, though he made no such finding in this case. Tirosh defended the indictment decision as having been made through a professional process by numerous prosecution officials, based on objective considerations.