Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Secret Wiretaps in Netanyahu Trial, Sparks Outcry

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, admitting that the police conducted wiretaps in March 2017 without his knowledge or consent. He stated he was surprised upon discovering this and immediately ordered the surveillance to cease. Mandelblit's testimony came during his cross-examination by Netanyahu's attorney, Amit Haddad, who revealed that hundreds of political and public broadcasting corporation-related conversations were intercepted without legal authorization.

The heated exchange occurred when Haddad pressed Mandelblit on how he learned of the secret surveillance. Mandelblit confirmed his surprise and indignation but struggled to recall specific details, leading to a sharp confrontation and his temporary removal from the courtroom. Haddad argued that the defense was only now uncovering these details, while other, potentially more extensive, wiretaps in Cases 1000 and 2000 were not similarly revealed.

Haddad further alleged that the police bypassed the Attorney General's office by directly approaching district court judges for wiretap orders, without obtaining the required consent. Mandelblit acknowledged that such actions, if done behind his back, would have angered him. However, he could not recall if a thorough investigation was launched into the matter or if he had seen the original police request for the wiretap warrants.

The discussion also focused on concerns that the wiretaps captured sensitive personal, political, and diplomatic information. Mandelblit conceded that while he didn't specifically recall political discussions, such matters require extreme caution, especially when involving individuals close to the Prime Minister. He admitted that the possibility of intercepting non-criminal political or personal information necessitated heightened vigilance.

The prosecution, represented by attorney Yonatan Tadmor, objected to Haddad's line of questioning, arguing that Mandelblit's lack of direct knowledge on the matter had been established. The judges asked Haddad to clarify the relevance of questioning a witness about actions he was unaware of at the time. Haddad insisted on examining the warrants and communications, asserting that the police investigated matters without the Attorney General's approval, characterizing it as "fishing expeditions" for information.

Haddad also raised the legal threshold for wiretap orders, noting that Mandelblit had not authorized investigations into bribery charges in Cases 1000 and 2000, which are serious felonies, but rather lesser offenses. He questioned the basis for wiretaps if they were not related to felony suspicions. The defense claims that the police presented inflated suspicions to the court to obtain the wiretap orders, potentially compromising the admissibility of the evidence gathered.