Netanyahu's Lawyer Reveals 'Market-Like' Negotiations With State Witness Ari Harow
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Netanyahu's defense team presented transcripts showing investigators negotiating with former aide Ari Harow, a state witness, using language likened to a "market." The defense claims this was an improper "fishing expedition" for information, while the prosecution argues it was a standard part of state witness negotiations. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified that the broad scope of questioning presented was not something he had considered when granting initial approvals, seemingly supporting the defense's claims of investigators exceeding their mandate.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer presented transcripts of investigators calling negotiations with state witness Ari Harow "like a market."
- The defense claims investigators conducted an improper "fishing expedition" for information on Netanyahu.
- The prosecution argues the statements were part of standard, advanced state witness negotiations.
- Attorney General Mandelblit stated the broad questioning scope was not considered during initial approvals.
- The court heard testimony on July 14, 2016, regarding Harow's interrogation.
During the fifth day of testimony at the Jerusalem District Court, the defense team for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented transcripts from July 14, 2016, detailing the interrogation of Ari Harow, a former head of staff for Netanyahu and a state witness in Case 2000. The transcripts, presented by Netanyahu's lawyer Amit Haddad, revealed investigators pressing Harow for information on others during his tenure.
One investigator, Koresh Barnor, is quoted as saying, "I'm going to close your case, I want to know what you give," and likened the negotiation to a "market." The defense argued these were unlimited "fishing expeditions" to gather information on Netanyahu beyond approved parameters. The prosecution countered that these were standard, advanced negotiations for state witness testimony, taken out of context.
Haddad highlighted that Harow held a sensitive position, and the investigators' broad demands for information spanning a decade constituted a significant deviation from the initial investigation mandate. He questioned Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about whether such extensive information gathering was approved.
Mandelblit testified that the specific phrasing presented by Haddad was unfamiliar and that the possibility of such broad, cross-cutting discussions with Harow was not considered when initial investigation approvals were granted. This admission appeared to bolster the defense's claim that investigators acted with excessive independent authority.
The prosecution, represented by attorney Gildin, argued that Haddad's presentation was misleading and fragmented, omitting the full context. Gildin explained that Harow was initially questioned in an open testimony format for Case 2000, later being investigated under caution for matters leading to Case 1000. The prosecution asserted that the "market-like" statements were made during advanced negotiations for a state witness agreement, where it is common and necessary for potential witnesses to "open their cards" to assess the value of a deal.
Mentioned
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Right 1Haredi 1
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
