Ex-AG Mandelblit Denies Broad Investigation Approval in Netanyahu Trial
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu trial that a broad request for criminal information from former chief of staff Ari Harow was not part of his investigation approval. Defense attorney Amit Haddad presented interrogation excerpts where Harow was asked for extensive details, arguing it exceeded authorized scope. Judges intervened, and Mandelblit explicitly stated the broad inquiry was not within his contemplation or approval, bolstering the defense's claim of investigators exceeding their mandate.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Avichai Mandelblit stated a broad request from Ari Harow was not part of his investigation approval.
- Judges questioned Mandelblit directly on whether the broad inquiry was covered by his initial approval.
- Defense attorney Amit Haddad presented interrogation excerpts showing a wide-ranging request for information.
- Mandelblit's response of "no" significantly supports the defense's claim of investigators exceeding their mandate.
- The prosecution argued the interrogation was part of a legitimate state witness negotiation.
During the fifth day of testimony in the Netanyahu trial, former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit stated unequivocally that a broad request for criminal information from former chief of staff Ari Harow was not part of his approval for the investigation. The pivotal moment occurred when judges Moshe Bar-Am and Oded Shaham intervened in a dispute between the defense and prosecution.
Defense attorney Amit Haddad presented excerpts from Ari Harow's interrogation in July 2016, where a police officer, Koresh Bernor, asked Harow for a detailed list of criminal or improper acts he could report to close his case. Haddad argued this was an excessively broad request, far exceeding the scope of initial approvals for the investigation against Netanyahu, and questioned Mandelblit if he had authorized investigators to seek information from Harow covering a ten-year period.
The prosecution objected, claiming the excerpts were part of a legitimate negotiation for a state witness deal. Mandelblit was temporarily removed from the courtroom while the parties argued about whether the former AG could be questioned on the conduct of negotiations. Prosecutor Gildin contended that the Attorney General is not accountable for every minor detail of investigators' actions.
Upon Mandelblit's return, Judge Oded Shaham directly asked him if such a broad inquiry was within his contemplation or covered by his approval. Mandelblit responded with a clear "no." This testimony became central to Haddad's argument that police investigators acted independently and conducted intrusive investigations beyond their authorized mandates.
Mandelblit explained that while negotiations for a state witness deal can dynamically evolve, the presented request was indeed very broad. He clarified that the specific wording presented was not his own. The judges allowed Haddad to pose the focused question, and Mandelblit's negative response reinforced the defense's claim that investigators operated outside their precise mandate, engaging in an independent "fishing expedition" without prior approval.
Mentioned
