Netanyahu's Lawyer Confronts Former AG Mandelblit With 2016 Search Warrant
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, presented a 2016 search warrant for Ari Harow, alleging bribery and fraud, to former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit during testimony. Mandelblit, surprised, stated he did not recognize the warrant and could not explain its basis if reasonable suspicion had not yet formed. The defense used the warrant to suggest law enforcement acted with questionable legal grounds in the early stages of the Netanyahu investigations.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer presented a 2016 search warrant alleging bribery and fraud to former AG Mandelblit.
- Mandelblit stated he did not recognize the warrant and questioned its legal basis.
- The warrant concerned Ari Harow, former head of Netanyahu's bureau, in relation to the Netanyahu cases.
- The defense argued the warrant indicated deeper suspicion than Mandelblit claimed existed.
- Mandelblit's unfamiliarity with the warrant supported claims of independent investigator actions.
During testimony in the Jerusalem District Court, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, presented a critical search warrant from July 2016 concerning Ari Harow, former head of Netanyahu's bureau. The warrant, which Haddad presented to former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, cited serious offenses including bribery, fraud, and forgery.
Mandelblit expressed surprise upon seeing the warrant, stating he did not recognize it and questioning if it related to Case 2000 or another matter. Haddad clarified it was directly linked to the Netanyahu cases, not Harow's personal affairs. Mandelblit responded that if there was no reasonable suspicion at the time, he would not justify the warrant.
Haddad pressed Mandelblit on how such a warrant, alleging bribery and forgery, could be issued when Mandelblit had previously claimed that reasonable suspicion for a full investigation into the Prime Minister had not yet formed in July 2016. Mandelblit admitted he could not explain the circumstances or legal basis for the warrant's issuance, suggesting it might have been for Harow to provide testimony, but he was uncertain.
The defense argued that the issuance of a search warrant, especially one alleging serious crimes, necessitates a reasonable suspicion. The presentation of this warrant, alongside a prior directive from Mandelblit to begin investigating Harow in Case 2000 without formal warning, aimed to demonstrate that law enforcement agencies may have operated in ambiguous legal territory or exceeded established standards at the time. Mandelblit's stated unfamiliarity with the warrant further supported the defense's claim that investigators sometimes acted independently without his precise approval.
