Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Police Wiretapped Without His Knowledge, Sparking Courtroom Storm

By אפרת ברינר

Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba

RightCharged tone

Hebrew · 3 newsrooms covering

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified that police conducted unauthorized wiretaps in March 2017, intercepting hundreds of political and sensitive conversations without his knowledge. During cross-examination in Prime Minister Netanyahu's trial, Mandelblit admitted his surprise and ordered the surveillance stopped but struggled to recall details. His testimony led to a heated courtroom exchange, with the defense alleging the police bypassed legal procedures and withheld crucial information, potentially compromising the evidence collected.

The story in 6 lines · by baba

Former AG Mandelblit confirmed police wiretapped without his knowledge in March 2017.
Hundreds of political and sensitive conversations were allegedly intercepted without authorization.
Mandelblit expressed surprise and ordered the surveillance to cease immediately.
The defense claims police bypassed legal procedures and withheld information.
The testimony led to a heated courtroom debate and Mandelblit's removal.
The legality of evidence gathered through these wiretaps is now in question.

Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Police Wiretapped Without His Knowledge, Sparking Courtroom Storm — Editorial illustration generated by baba News, not a photograph of the event.

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in court that the police conducted wiretaps in March 2017 without his knowledge or consent, admitting he was surprised and immediately ordered them to stop. During Mandelblit's cross-examination in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, attorney Amit Haddad revealed that hundreds of political and public broadcasting corporation-related conversations were intercepted without legal authorization.

The prosecution's objection led to Mandelblit being removed from the courtroom amid a heated legal debate over allegations of withholding investigation materials from the defense. Haddad pressed Mandelblit on how the police operated secretly and bypassed the Attorney General, to which Mandelblit responded that the expectation was for them to seek his approval, which did not happen.

Mandelblit confirmed his surprise and indignation upon discovering the unauthorized surveillance but struggled to recall specific details, leading to a heated exchange. Haddad argued that the defense was discovering these issues late, contrasting them with other alleged wiretaps in Cases 1000 and 2000. Mandelblit dismissed the comparison, stating the situations were not similar.

Haddad further questioned the legal process for obtaining the wiretap orders, alleging police approached district court judges directly without the Attorney General's mandatory consent. Mandelblit affirmed his recollection of being angered and that the actions were taken behind his back. However, he could not recall if a thorough investigation was ordered or if he had seen the original police request for the warrants.

The discussion also focused on concerns that sensitive personal, political, and diplomatic conversations were intercepted. Mandelblit acknowledged the special sensitivity of monitoring individuals close to the Prime Minister for personal or political matters, emphasizing the need for extreme caution. He admitted he couldn't specifically recall political discussions but stated it was possible.

The heated exchange escalated when prosecutor Jonathan Tadmor objected to Haddad's line of questioning, arguing Mandelblit's lack of knowledge on the details rendered further inquiry unhelpful. The judges then asked Mandelblit to leave the room. Haddad insisted on questioning Mandelblit about the warrants and the legal basis for the wiretaps, asserting the police investigated matters without the Attorney General's approval.

Haddad argued this was not a mere technical deviation but the initiation of broad investigations into entire subjects never authorized. He highlighted that Mandelblit had only authorized investigations into lesser offenses, not bribery, in Cases 1000 and 2000, questioning the basis for wiretaps under such circumstances. The defense contends that if the police presented inflated suspicions to obtain the warrants, it fundamentally undermines the legality of the evidence gathered.