Mandelblit Accuses Netanyahu's Lawyer of 'Ugly Insinuations' in Court
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and Amit Haddad, attorney for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, engaged in a heated exchange during cross-examination in Netanyahu's trial. Mandelblit accused Haddad of "ugly insinuations" regarding the investigation into Case 2000. Mandelblit testified that he received recordings and transcripts of Netanyahu-Mozes conversations from former State Attorney Shai Nitzan before police involvement. He admitted he did not know where documentation of the contacts with the informant's attorney was located.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Avichai Mandelblit accused Netanyahu's lawyer Amit Haddad of "ugly insinuations" during trial testimony.
- Mandelblit testified that former State Attorney Shai Nitzan presented him with recordings of Netanyahu-Mozes conversations.
- The materials were reportedly received before police were involved in the investigation of Case 2000.
- Mandelblit acknowledged deliberations over potential bribery offenses but focused on evidence and public interest.
- Mandelblit stated he did not know where documentation of contacts with the informant's attorney was kept.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit clashed with Amit Haddad, attorney for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during cross-examination in the prime minister's trial on Tuesday. Mandelblit accused Haddad of making "ugly insinuations" regarding the early stages of the investigation into Case 2000, which involves alleged dealings between Netanyahu and Arnon (Noni) Mozes, owner of Yedioth Ahronoth. The exchange became heated, leading to a sharp confrontation in the courtroom.
Mandelblit testified that former State Attorney Shai Nitzan had presented him with recordings and transcripts of conversations between Netanyahu and Mozes before police involvement. He recalled that Nitzan had been approached by the attorney for Ari Harow, a former Netanyahu aide who was a suspect in another case at the time. Nitzan informed Mandelblit about the materials, which suggested potential bribery offenses by both parties, and Mandelblit confirmed he had deliberated significantly over the implications of these recordings.
The former Attorney General stated that while he recognized the suspicion of bribery, the decision to open an investigation hinged on the potential for a criminal offense based on the evidence and public interest. When Haddad questioned the process, Mandelblit responded that the deliberation was not about the suspicion itself but about the potential for a criminal offense, and he accused Haddad of making "ugly insinuations." Haddad, in turn, challenged Mandelblit, asking if he was sure he wanted to proceed in that direction, prompting a heated debate that required prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh to intervene.
Haddad also pressed Mandelblit on how the recordings came into the prosecution's possession, questioning why Harow's attorney approached Nitzan rather than the police. Mandelblit confirmed that Nitzan had updated him on the contact, which was aimed at advancing discussions for a state witness agreement and transferring the materials. He recalled seeing transcripts and hearing the recording but was unsure of the exact sequence of events. Mandelblit acknowledged that contacts concerning a potential state witness agreement should be documented and involve the police, but when asked where such documentation for the contacts with Harow's attorney was, he replied, "I don't know."
Mentioned
