Netanyahu-Mozes Tapes Delivered by Harow Associate, Ex-AG Mandelblit Testifies

An associate of Ari Harow provided recordings of conversations between Benjamin Netanyahu and Noni Mozes to then-State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan, which led to the indictment in Case 2000, according to former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu trial that a representative of Harow contacted Nitzan with "significant material" to transfer, indicating an intention to negotiate a state witness deal. After reviewing the transcript and listening to the two recordings, an internal discussion led to a decision to investigate the matter.

Mandelblit stated he deliberated on the recordings' implications, acknowledging they raised suspicions of bribery offenses by both parties. However, he noted that Netanyahu's initiation of the recording made its intended realization uncertain, though this did not negate the suspicion of an offense. He also testified about the initial stages of Case 1000, mentioning allegations of primary election fraud against Moshe Feiglin, double campaign financing, "Bibi Tours" funding of overseas trips, and receiving benefits from businessmen. These were initially at a stage of examination, not a full investigation, requiring further reports before a decision.

While election-related issues were disproven, other suspicions were approved for continued examination, not yet a full investigation, which only began after Hadas Klein's testimony. Mandelblit confirmed he was unaware that "Bibi Tours" had been examined as early as 2011 and that his predecessor, Yehuda Weinstein, decided in 2014 not to open an investigation. He also stated he did not know that former Lahav 433 head Roni Ritman claimed Netanyahu fabricated a sexual harassment case against him, nor that journalist Ben Caspit had provided information against Netanyahu to the police.

Mandelblit emphasized that investigations are initiated based on concrete information, not mere speculation, and require review by the Attorney General. He affirmed that information often arises incidentally or from third parties. During the trial, a dispute arose over defense attorney Amit Haddad's attempt to question Mandelblit about his motives for filing the indictment. The defense argued the questions were relevant, while the prosecution contended a prosecutor cannot be questioned on their considerations. The judges decided to allow limited questions on the matter after the factual basis is established, acknowledging the difficulty in questioning a prosecutor on their motives but allowing for claims of "justice from the side" if improper considerations are alleged.