Netanyahu's Team Reveals Secret Correspondence with Prosecution Over Wiretap Approval

Secret communications between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense team and the prosecution have revealed attempts to ascertain the approval for wiretapping the phone of Netanyahu associate Nathan Ashash. During the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, defense attorney Amit Haddad presented correspondence from 2024 in which the defense repeatedly requested clarification on the authorization for the wiretap. The prosecution initially stated they were contacting relevant parties and later argued that approvals for specific investigative actions do not constitute investigation material.

Mandelblit testified that he was not aware of the wiretap in advance and, when questioned, stated he does not recall being contacted to verify his approval. Haddad presented a written request from February 5, 2024, demanding official clarification on whether an approval was granted for the wiretap on Ashash's phone, referencing statements made by police investigator Mushlam in court. The defense's inquiry was part of their preparation for cross-examining police investigators in the "Cases of the Thousand," where the existence of prior wiretap approvals was a central point.

The defense sent several reminders to the prosecution due to a lack of response. Intermediate replies indicated that the prosecution had contacted relevant parties and would update the defense, apologizing for delays. Eventually, the prosecution reiterated its legal stance that approvals for specific investigative actions are not considered investigation material that must be provided to the defense, citing a court decision from March 12, 2024. They also noted that the suspicions detailed in Ashash's wiretap order were not part of the indictment against the Prime Minister.

Haddad directly asked Mandelblit if anyone from the prosecution had contacted him in early 2024 to inquire about the approval. After an objection from prosecutor Yehonatan Tdmar, Mandelblit firmly stated, "I don't remember anything like that." This exchange occurred after Mandelblit had testified that he was angered upon learning of the wiretap and demanded its immediate cessation.

The defense sought to demonstrate that the question of the wiretap's approval remained unanswered years later, with their inquiries met with procedural arguments from the prosecution. The prosecution maintained its position on the distinction between internal approvals and statutory investigation materials. The revelation of these communications is significant as it supports the defense's central argument that no legal approval was ever granted for the wiretaps around the Prime Minister, potentially impacting the admissibility of evidence and the possibility of "defense from justice" claims to dismiss charges.