Netanyahu's Lawyer Accuses Police, Prosecution of Illegally Withholding Evidence

During the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense lawyer Amit Haddad leveled serious accusations against the police and prosecution, alleging that crucial information regarding wiretaps was deliberately withheld from the defense. Haddad claimed that police conducted wiretaps in March 2017 without the prior approval of then-Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, and that evidence of these actions was concealed.

Haddad stated that he would present email correspondence that he believes proves the wiretaps were halted due to a lack of proper authorization, contradicting previous testimonies. The prosecution objected to this line of questioning, leading to a debate before the judges after the witness was removed from the courtroom.

Former Attorney General Mandelblit testified that he was surprised to learn about the wiretaps, which he stated were initiated without his knowledge or consent. He confirmed that he had requested the operations cease immediately upon discovering them, though he did not recall if he had ordered a full investigation into how they were conducted behind his back.

Haddad also challenged the testimony of Police Superintendent Koresh Benor, who had previously stated he received orders to remove a listening post, attributing the decision to the Attorney General's approval. Haddad asserted that emails would show the real reason was the absence of legal authorization.

The defense's central argument is that law enforcement agencies intentionally withheld critical documents, including communications indicating that listening posts were removed due to a lack of legal approval from the Attorney General. Haddad argued that the wiretaps collected sensitive information on matters beyond those approved by Mandelblit, such as the public broadcasting corporation and other political issues, claiming "entire investigations against the Prime Minister were opened without the Attorney General's approval."

The defense believes that exposing these alleged procedural flaws and the withholding of evidence could be a significant factor for the judges in deciding the admissibility of evidence and potentially dismissing charges.