Netanyahu's Lawyer Accuses Prosecutors of Lying in Court

A heated exchange erupted in the Jerusalem District Court on Tuesday during the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, accused prosecution representatives of not telling the truth to the court regarding investigation approvals. Haddad claimed that police gathered information on gifts and cigars as early as 2015 without proper authorization, demanding, "Reveal everything! Don't hide!"

The confrontation began when Haddad sought to question former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about investigative actions and information gathering by police in 2015 and early 2016, prior to Mandelblit's tenure. Prosecutor Alon Gildin objected, stating the court had already set boundaries on discussing the "old Case 1000." Haddad retorted that the prosecution was not being truthful, pointing to a documented meeting in November 2015 between the head of the National Fraud Unit and journalist Ben Caspit, where they allegedly discussed the gifts affair, including cigars and champagne, without legal approval.

Haddad argued that a subsequent approval in January 2016 was narrowly limited to investigating two flights in the "Bibi Tours" affair and did not grant authority to investigate gifts from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer. The prosecution insisted this was an attempt to re-examine issues already blocked by the court, distinguishing between legitimate intelligence gathering and overt criminal investigation requiring explicit approval.

Mandelblit testified that he was not updated on these actions preceding his role and stated, "No one updated me, I don't know." He claimed he was only aware of the "Bibi Tours" matter and was not informed of anything beyond that. He also stated he was unaware of a document attributing the renewal of the investigation to former Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein.

Towards the end of the confrontation, Judge Oded Shaham accepted the prosecution's objection, ruling that certain topics were not relevant to Mandelblit's cross-examination. The judge clarified that the court had not yet determined if the actions constituted a flawed investigation or permissible intelligence activity, but allowed the defense to ask specifically if formal approval was given for meetings between senior police officers and external parties seeking to advance complaints against the prime minister.