Netanyahu's Lawyer Grills Ex-AG Mandelblit Over Redacted Documents
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
During a court hearing, Prime Minister Netanyahu's attorney, Amit Haddad, cross-examined former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit regarding a redacted 2016 protocol. Haddad highlighted discrepancies between alleged oral approvals for investigations and limited written documentation, suggesting a lack of broad authorization. Mandelblit struggled to recall specifics but maintained oral instructions were given. The court debated the disclosure of further documents, with a final decision pending.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer questioned ex-AG Mandelblit over redacted 2016 investigation approval documents.
- Haddad presented evidence suggesting limited written approval contrasted with alleged oral instructions.
- Judge Bar-Am noted discrepancies between Mandelblit's testimony and written records.
- The court debated the disclosure of additional documents to the defense.
- Mandelblit stated he did not recall authorizing specific actions like Hadas Klein's testimony.
- The defense questioned the scope of police investigation approvals in Case 1000.
During the fourth day of cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit at the Jerusalem District Court, attorney Amit Haddad, representing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, focused on a 12-page protocol from June 2016, parts of which were heavily redacted. Haddad sought to clarify the scope of police investigation approvals granted during a crucial meeting on June 26, 2016, presenting discrepancies between oral instructions and a limited email sent afterward.
Mandelblit struggled to recall specific details from meetings a decade prior, asserting that oral approvals were given for various investigation directions, including suspicions that became Case 2000, election fraud, parallel campaign activities, flights and hotels, and gifts. Haddad emphasized that a subsequent email only documented approval to obtain a statement from Ari Harow regarding recordings, suggesting a step-by-step approach rather than a broad authorization.
Judge Moshe Bar-Am noted that additional oral approvals described by Mandelblit were not reflected in the email. The discussion also touched upon the identity of speakers in redacted protocols and the questioning of recordings. Haddad presented a statement attributed to Mandelblit stating, "I didn't say no to investigating, the question is how and when," implying careful control over investigation stages.
Further contention arose over the extent of material disclosure, with the defense demanding full documentation to clarify the boundaries of initial approvals. Haddad presented a July 2016 protocol where Mandelblit allegedly told police, "You are starting a completely different investigation into matters I did not approve, we said to focus on these issues." Mandelblit confirmed he remembered saying this, indicating his awareness of investigations proceeding beyond his explicit approvals.
The prosecution, represented by Jonathan Gildin, argued that the presented excerpts lacked full context and could be misleading, suggesting the statement referred to a different matter. A dispute ensued over whether Mandelblit should review additional prosecution-submitted documents, with Haddad objecting to the witness seeing material not shared with the defense.
Haddad also raised claims about how police obtained documents in Case 1000, alleging that Hadas Klein was sent to retrieve them under the pretense of a "stock count" for businessman Arnon Milchan. Mandelblit stated he did not recall authorizing this specific action, though he believed police operated within general approval to investigate gift suspicions. The defense also questioned search warrant approvals, with Mandelblit stating he did not recall authorizing a specific warrant for an individual identified only by initials, and that not every investigative action required his personal approval.
Mentioned
