Efi Naveh Slams Ex-AG Mandelblit's Testimony on Netanyahu Investigations
Translated & summarized from Srugim by baba
Lawyer Efi Naveh described the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit regarding investigations into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "amazing, disturbing, and shocking." Naveh claimed Mandelblit testified that he did not approve investigations into Netanyahu on integrity matters. Naveh alleged the investigations were intended to remove Netanyahu from power, accusing investigators of acting as they pleased.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Lawyer Efi Naveh called former AG Mandelblit's testimony on Netanyahu probes "amazing, disturbing, and shocking."
- Naveh claims Mandelblit testified he did not approve Netanyahu probes on integrity.
- Naveh alleges the investigations aimed to remove Prime Minister Netanyahu from power.
- Naveh accused investigators of acting without proper approval and dictating events.
- Naveh stated investigators succeeded in "framing" Netanyahu but not removing him.
Lawyer Efi Naveh sharply criticized the investigations against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reacting to the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. Naveh, who attended Mandelblit's testimony, told Doron Cohen on "Evening Journal" that the proceedings were "amazing, disturbing, and shocking." He claimed the investigations were driven by a clear objective: to remove Netanyahu from power.
Naveh stated that a key point in Mandelblit's testimony concerned approvals for Netanyahu's investigation. According to Naveh, Mandelblit was asked directly if he had approved investigations into Netanyahu regarding integrity issues and replied that he had not. "They asked him if he approved investigating PM Netanyahu on integrity, and he answered no," Naveh recounted.
Naveh also addressed Mandelblit's explanations regarding responsibility for managing and overseeing the investigation. Naveh said Mandelblit attributed oversight to other law enforcement officials, specifically the State Prosecutor's Office and investigators. However, Naveh found these explanations insufficient, alleging that investigators acted as they pleased, with or without approval, and dictated the course of events.
Concluding his remarks, Naveh escalated his criticism from the investigation's conduct to its alleged motives. "It's not interesting, there is a goal: to frame a case, to remove the Prime Minister. To frame, they succeeded, but fortunately, they did not succeed in removing him," Naveh stated.
