Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Uncertainty Over Key Witness Testimony Approval
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit expressed uncertainty about approving the investigation of key witness Hadas Klein in Case 1000. During a court hearing, Mandelblit stated he did not recall personally approving Klein's testimony, which significantly impacted the evidence assessment. His attorney questioned the scope of the investigation, citing a limited prior approval email. The hearing ended without a clear decision on whether Klein's testimony was formally approved.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit stated he doesn't recall approving key witness Hadas Klein's testimony in Case 1000.
- Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned Mandelblit on the specific approval for Klein's investigative actions.
- Mandelblit admitted Klein's testimony significantly changed his assessment of evidence in the case.
- The prime minister's attorney presented an email suggesting limited prior approval for investigations.
- The hearing concluded without a definitive ruling on the legality of Klein's testimony acquisition.
During a hearing, attorney Amit Haddad, representing the prime minister, questioned the approval process for obtaining testimony from Hadas Klein, a central witness in Case 1000. Judge Moshe Bar-Am pressed former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit on whether Klein's investigation was conducted under a pre-approved scope.
Mandelblit responded with uncertainty, stating, "I did not approve an investigative action on Hadas Klein, I don't remember it, maybe I am mistaken about this." He explained that while a general approval existed for examining gifts from wealthy individuals, Klein's testimony significantly altered his assessment of the evidence, leading to the formation of reasonable suspicion against the prime minister.
Haddad challenged Mandelblit's account, presenting an email from June 2016 that documented a limited approval to take testimony from Ari Harow solely regarding recordings, with no mention of Milchan or gifts. Haddad directly asked if investigators pursued avenues not explicitly approved, to which Mandelblit replied, "It could be," but maintained his recollection of a general examination scope.
The court session concluded without a definitive ruling on whether Klein's testimony was obtained under formal prior approval or if it exceeded the authorized scope at the time. Case 1000 reportedly relies heavily on Klein's testimony, which allegedly transformed the case and formed the basis for bribery and fraud charges. Mandelblit's admission of not recalling specific approval for this crucial investigative step, and his reliance on a vague general approval, could provide the defense with grounds to argue procedural irregularities.
