Mandelblit's Interview Practices Questioned in Court
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit was questioned by Prime Minister Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, about editing interview drafts. Mandelblit's hesitant responses and eventual recollection of a similar practice were used by the defense to argue against selective enforcement in Case 4000. The defense claims that actions deemed criminal for Netanyahu were treated as normal for Mandelblit.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit questioned on editing his own interview drafts.
- Netanyahu's lawyer suggested Mandelblit "wrote an interview with himself."
- Mandelblit recalled an interview related to the Israel Bar Association.
- Defense argues Mandelblit's actions mirror Netanyahu's in Case 4000.
- Defense claims selective enforcement and legal hypocrisy by prosecutors.
During testimony, former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit was questioned by Prime Minister Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, about whether he had previously received, edited, or requested changes to interview drafts before publication. Mandelblit repeatedly responded with "It could be," struggling to recall specific instances. This led to a pointed exchange where Haddad suggested Mandelblit might have "written an interview with himself."
Haddad pressed Mandelblit on whether he had edited his own interviews, requesting deletions or additions. Mandelblit's initial responses were evasive, stating "I don't remember, it could be." Haddad insisted on a more definitive answer, asking if he had "definitely" done so.
Later in the proceedings, Mandelblit recalled a specific interview related to the Israel Bar Association, which Haddad then linked to a publication on the "Walla" news site. The defense used this exchange to argue that such content coordination and requests for edits are standard practice for public figures and not inherently criminal.
The defense's argument is that Mandelblit's own testimony, acknowledging the legitimacy of background conversations, edit requests, and content coordination with media, undermines the prosecution's central thesis in Case 4000. They contend that the same actions, when performed by Prime Minister Netanyahu with "Walla," were classified as serious offenses like bribery and fraud, while similar actions by high-ranking officials, including the Attorney General himself, are treated as routine.
