Netanyahu's Lawyer Accuses Former AG Mandelblit of Double Standards in Trial
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, accused former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit of hypocrisy during Mandelblit's testimony in the Netanyahu trial. Haddad claimed Mandelblit used the same media communication tactics, including background briefings and interview draft reviews, for which Netanyahu is indicted in Case 4000. Mandelblit defended his actions as legitimate, while Haddad argued they involved evidence and demonstrated a double standard by law enforcement. The defense aims to show that the indictment is based on criminalizing routine media interactions.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer accused ex-AG Mandelblit of using same media tactics as the PM in Case 4000.
- Haddad claimed Mandelblit's background briefings and interview draft requests mirror Netanyahu's alleged offenses.
- Mandelblit defended his media interactions as legitimate and necessary for explanations.
- The defense argues the indictment criminalizes routine media practices used by law enforcement.
- The confrontation occurred during Mandelblit's testimony in the Netanyahu corruption trial.
During the fourth day of testimony by former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Netanyahu trial, his lawyer, Amit Haddad, accused Mandelblit of employing the same communication tactics for which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is indicted in Case 4000. Haddad argued that Mandelblit's actions, including providing detailed background briefings to journalists and requesting edits to interview drafts, mirror the alleged offenses of Netanyahu. Mandelblit, however, maintained that such briefings are legitimate and necessary as long as they do not involve direct analysis of evidence. The confrontation intensified when Haddad questioned Mandelblit about a background conversation he had with Channel 12 journalist Dana Weiss in January 2019, which preceded a report revealing internal details from the Attorney General's office. Mandelblit defended his actions, stating it is legitimate to brief journalists and explain matters without delving into evidence analysis. Haddad countered that the report contained intimate and precise details from internal discussions that the defense had not yet fully obtained, and that Mandelblit's actions did indeed involve evidence and details. The defense's core argument is that the indictment in Case 4000 criminalizes routine media practices, including those engaged in by senior law enforcement officials like Mandelblit himself, who approved the indictment. They contend that portraying contacts with media or requests for fair coverage as bribery and fraud is undermined by the reality of similar close contacts and influence over media narratives by officials for their own purposes.
