Lawyer Claims Investigators Demanded 'Goods' From Netanyahu's Ex-Chief of Staff
Translated & summarized from 0404 by baba
Attorney Amit Haddad revealed during the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit that investigators demanded "goods" or a list of "improper things" from Ari Harow, former Chief of Staff to Benjamin Netanyahu, in exchange for closing his case. Haddad argued this demand exceeded the investigation's scope. Mandelblit stated he did not recall if he approved Harow becoming a state witness before his first statement.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Investigators demanded "goods" from Ari Harow, ex-chief of staff to Netanyahu, for a deal, attorney Amit Haddad revealed.
- The demand for a list of "improper things" exceeded the investigation's permitted scope, Haddad claimed.
- Former AG Avichai Mandelblit stated he did not recall approving Harow as a state witness early on.
- The head of Lahav 433's serious crimes unit asked Harow for an "inventory list" of wrongdoing.
- Haddad questioned if Mandelblit authorized a state witness deal before Harow's initial testimony.
Attorney Amit Haddad presented during the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit excerpts from the investigation of Ari Harow, former Chief of Staff to Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the presented transcript, investigators demanded Harow provide information on criminal events and improper actions as part of negotiations for a deal with him. Koresh Barnor, head of the serious and economic crimes unit (יאח״ה), told Harow, "I want a list. An inventory list, what were the improper things? To know what goods you have." Barnor added, "I'm going with a deal with you. I'm giving you something heavy! I'm going to close a case for you. I want to know what you're giving."
Haddad argued that the demand for Harow to provide a general list of issues exceeded the scope of the investigation permit granted by Mandelblit. "This is exactly what is forbidden according to our method and exceeds the permit," Haddad stated. Haddad further questioned whether Mandelblit authorized offering Harow state witness status before Harow had even given his first statement. Mandelblit responded, "I don't remember." Haddad contended that according to regulations, a state witness agreement is a last resort and the initiative should come from the investigated party. When asked if he objected to Harow becoming a state witness, Mandelblit replied, "I don't remember anything like that that I didn't want."
