Ex-AG Mandelblit Testifies in Netanyahu Trial, Defends Investigation Approvals
Translated & summarized from Hamal by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial, defending his approvals for investigative actions in Cases 1000 and 2000. Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, presented documents suggesting investigators exceeded approved scopes. Mandelblit acknowledged some details were unclear but maintained his decisions were his own. He explained that preliminary checks are sometimes needed for senior officials to clear suspicions, even if they initially seem unlikely.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit testified in PM Netanyahu's trial, defending investigation approvals.
- Netanyahu's lawyer alleged investigative actions exceeded approved scopes.
- Mandelblit stated Case 2000 presented complex legal questions, potentially involving bribery.
- He explained preliminary checks are sometimes needed for senior officials.
- Mandelblit asserted all decisions in the investigation were his own.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit continued his testimony on Thursday in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing cross-examination by Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad. Haddad presented documents detailing internal legal system discussions, alleging that investigative actions exceeded the scope of approvals granted by Mandelblit. Mandelblit refuted some claims but admitted to not recalling all specifics.
The questioning focused on heavily redacted documents referencing recordings and investigative steps considered against Netanyahu. Haddad presented a document suggesting Ari Harow should be brought in to discuss recordings, prompting Mandelblit to assume they concerned conversations between Noni Mozes and Netanyahu. Further documents mentioned other recordings and transcripts, with Mandelblit stating he was presented with an inaccurate picture at one point but did not recall hearing recordings other than those involving Netanyahu and Mozes.
Haddad argued that documents indicated approvals for specific individuals, contrary to Mandelblit's description of the process. Mandelblit stated he didn't recall requesting a list of names but didn't rule out its presentation, explaining that key actions were brought for approval, including investigating allegations of receiving benefits from businessmen.
The defense lawyer also raised the name of Odelia Carmon, a former Netanyahu advisor, asking if recordings pertained to her. Mandelblit recalled her name but not specific recordings, remarking, "What came up there seemed quite far-fetched to me." Haddad also questioned Mandelblit about a public statement regarding the investigation and alleged inaccurate media reporting, including leaks and meetings between police investigators and journalist Ben Caspit. Mandelblit stated he was unaware of these meetings and did not track journalists involved in leaks.
Mandelblit explained that while initial suspicions in Case 1000 did not warrant a criminal investigation, Case 2000 presented more complex legal questions, and he had considered it might constitute bribery. He also addressed a 2019 report quoting him as saying early matters seemed trivial or gossip, but clarified that for senior public officials, some preliminary checks are necessary to avoid leaving a "cloud" over them, even if suspicions initially seem "far-fetched." He cited a ruling by Judge Nili Hendel supporting a different standard for public officials, a claim Haddad argued constituted prohibited discrimination. Mandelblit concluded by asserting that all decisions were his and that he had hoped suspicions would not escalate to a full investigation in the early stages.
Mentioned
