Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Netanyahu's Warning Was 'Twisted'

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit acknowledged during cross-examination in the Netanyahu trial that the wording of the warning given to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was investigated in Case 4000 was "twisted." Mandelblit agreed it was possible a mistake was made by not explicitly warning Netanyahu of bribery suspicions. The testimony came during questioning by Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Hadad, concerning approvals Mandelblit granted for the prime minister's investigation and the offenses for which he was warned.

Mandelblit stated he recalled approving investigations into Netanyahu under warning for Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000, specifically for offenses related to "integrity of public service." He added that in Case 4000, bribery might also have been a suspicion. Hadad presented protocols of these approvals, arguing that "integrity of public service" did not appear in the unredacted portions. This led to a dispute between the defense and prosecution over the blacked-out sections and the possibility of clarifying the exact approvals given to investigators.

Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned the meaning of the approval, asking what investigators were meant to do with the "integrity of public service" designation. Hadad pressed Mandelblit on a statement claiming the approval for "integrity of public service" was documented, and Mandelblit confirmed it was not in the unredacted part. He affirmed that no investigator received an open-ended approval for "integrity of public service," but rather for "very clear central issues and actions."

The main confrontation occurred when Hadad presented the warning given to Netanyahu in Case 4000, which stated he was suspected of "improperly requesting and receiving benefits from Shaul Elovitch in connection with your public role." Hadad asked if this referred to a breach of trust rather than bribery. Mandelblit called the wording "twisted." He confirmed that the word "bribery" was not explicitly used in the warning and later conceded it might have been a mistake. However, Mandelblit explained he wanted to leave investigators discretion between investigating bribery or breach of trust, depending on the investigation's progress, and the wording better suited breach of trust but did not exclude other suspicions.

Hadad inquired if the problematic wording of the warning was discussed before the indictment, and Mandelblit responded, "I don't remember." He also stated he did not recall discussions about the issue of Netanyahu not being explicitly warned about bribery, despite it appearing in later charge sheets. The defense aims to show a gap between Mandelblit's approvals and how the investigation was conducted, while Mandelblit maintains he approved the investigations and the central suspicions.