Ex-AG Mandelblit Continues Testimony Amid Sharp Challenges in Netanyahu Trial

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit is set to continue his testimony for a fourth day in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, following three days of intense hearings marked by revelations and sharp confrontations. During his previous testimony, Mandelblit confirmed that Netanyahu was not explicitly warned about bribery suspicions in Case 4000, raising significant questions about the indictment's basis and the validity of investigation approvals.

Mandelblit's cross-examination by Amit Haddad, Netanyahu's lawyer, has exposed discrepancies between Mandelblit's memory and official documents. Key issues raised include the lack of explicit warnings regarding bribery in Case 4000, the circumstances under which investigation approvals were granted, and instances where police actions were taken without Mandelblit's prior knowledge. He also testified that he did not identify any criminal suspicion against Netanyahu in Case 3000 and was unaware of police directing the investigation towards the Prime Minister in that case.

During the proceedings, Mandelblit acknowledged that some investigation actions were carried out without his explicit approval, though he distinguished between routine and dramatic actions. He also admitted that he ordered the cancellation of an attempt to wiretap Natan Eshel due to concerns about improper political interference. Furthermore, it emerged that Mandelblit did not fully grasp the details of an investigation exercise conducted on an associate of state witness Nir Hefetz.

Questions were also raised about Mandelblit's signature on the amended indictment against Netanyahu. While Mandelblit recalled signing the original indictment, he had no certain memory of signing the revised version, which Haddad suggested might indicate a copied signature. Mandelblit also confirmed he did not personally review all 315 additional coverage events added to Case 4000, relying instead on the prosecution team's assessment.

Mandelblit denied claims that the prosecution deliberately concealed information from him, stating that the prosecution served as a loyal professional arm. However, he conceded that if information was indeed withheld, it would be a serious matter. He agreed that explicit approval should have been sought for expanding Bezeq tests but argued that such a procedural flaw would not automatically invalidate the evidence. He also acknowledged that oral approvals could have been better documented but firmly rejected claims of undue pressure on his professional decisions.

The defense has used these points to challenge the early stages of the investigations, citing a lack of organized documentation for approvals and discrepancies in the warnings given. Mandelblit, however, continues to defend his decision-making principles, rejecting claims of intentional concealment and emphasizing his professional integrity. The current proceedings are expected to further reveal the behind-the-scenes decision-making processes within the prosecution and the Attorney General's office.