Judge Reprimands Former AG Mandelblit During Netanyahu Trial Testimony

A tense exchange occurred in the Jerusalem District Court during the fifth day of testimony by former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Benjamin Netanyahu trial. The confrontation arose when Mandelblit interrupted a question from the Prime Minister's defense attorney, Amit Haddad. The judge intervened sharply, instructing Mandelblit to "listen to the question until the end" and even suggested he use paper and pen to note his points.

The dispute began when Haddad questioned whether Mandelblit had required police investigators to obtain his personal approval before questioning individuals during preliminary checks related to Netanyahu. The defense attorney claimed that, contrary to Mandelblit's previous testimony, the approvals given to investigators were specific and included exact lists of names of those to be questioned.

Mandelblit attempted to respond before Haddad finished his question, prompting the judge's repeated admonishment. When Mandelblit continued to interject, the judge stated, "Finish the question and then say what you want." Mandelblit expressed his visible displeasure, arguing that "before every question there is a long preamble that presents incorrect things as the basis for the question." The judge clarified that he must allow the attorney to complete his question before addressing its content.

The judge then offered Mandelblit paper and a pen to help him remember his points, an offer Haddad joined, though he doubted its effectiveness. Haddad then reiterated his central question: whether Mandelblit had provided specific approvals for questioning certain individuals, contrary to his earlier statements that he only approved the examination of general issues. Mandelblit responded that he did not recall his exact previous statement and was unsure if he had provided a list of names, admitting it was possible but that the primary goal of approvals was to allow examination of specific topics.

Haddad pressed further, asking if Mandelblit had requested and received lists of names before individuals were questioned. Mandelblit again stated he did not recall this with certainty, suggesting that while a list of names might have been presented, the intention was still to investigate topics. He recalled approving investigations into several key issues, including receiving benefits from businessmen.

Later, Haddad asserted that Mandelblit had demanded prior approval for every action and every investigation of any person, whether a witness or a suspect. Mandelblit responded briefly, "I don't remember that." The article notes this confrontation is part of an ongoing dispute over the scope of approvals granted to the police during the initial stages of the Netanyahu investigations, with the defense seeking to demonstrate that Mandelblit had limited investigators to specific actions and individuals.

The discussion also touched upon recordings presented to Mandelblit, with Haddad referencing a protocol where Mandelblit had referred to transcripts, stating he was presented with an "inaccurate picture." When asked about specific recordings, Mandelblit recalled hearing conversations between Netanyahu and Noni Mozes but not others at that time. Haddad linked these recordings to information allegedly provided by journalist Ben Caspit to the police, suggesting they could clarify which topics were approved for investigation behind the scenes. This issue joins other pointed questions raised by the defense regarding the nature of investigators' actions, the official approvals granted, and the information presented to the Attorney General in real-time.