Netanyahu's Lawyer Questions Different Probes of Yair Netanyahu and Ex-Mossad Chief
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, questioned former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about why Yair Netanyahu was investigated for using a luxury apartment provided by James Packer, while former Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, who also frequently stayed there, was not. Mandelblit confirmed he did not order an investigation into Cohen and had instructed not to continue a probe into him. The defense argues this shows selective enforcement, potentially impacting the charges in Case 1000.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer questioned why Yair Netanyahu was investigated but ex-Mossad chief Yossi Cohen was not for using James Packer's apartment.
- Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit confirmed he did not order an investigation into Yossi Cohen.
- Mandelblit stated he explicitly told investigators not to continue a probe into Cohen's stays at the apartment.
- The defense argues this differential treatment demonstrates selective enforcement by authorities.
- The defense aims to use this to challenge charges related to benefits in Case 1000.
During the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, raised questions about the investigation into Yair Netanyahu's use of a luxury apartment. Haddad highlighted that while Yair Netanyahu was investigated for staying in a lavish apartment provided by businessman James Packer at the Royal Beach Hotel in Tel Aviv, former Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, who also frequently stayed there, was not investigated.
Mandelblit confirmed that he did not order an investigation into Cohen, emphasizing that the key development for him was the testimony of witness Hadas Klein regarding benefits received. Haddad pressed Mandelblit, asking why Cohen, a public official, was not investigated despite frequent stays at the apartment, to which Mandelblit responded affirmatively. Haddad further inquired if Mandelblit had explicitly forbidden further investigation into Cohen, and Mandelblit stated, "I am trying to remember, I said not to continue the investigation."
Haddad contrasted the thorough police investigation into Yair Netanyahu's use of the apartment, linked to suspicions of illicit benefits for his father, the Prime Minister, with the decision not to investigate Cohen. Mandelblit had previously explained that Yair Netanyahu's case involved suspicions of benefits given to the son in direct connection with his father's position, while for Yossi Cohen, there was no similar basis for suspicion of receiving benefits from businessmen.
Mandelblit maintained that the central factor that changed the picture was Hadas Klein's testimony, not the investigation at the Royal Beach hotel itself. Haddad continued to challenge Mandelblit on the information gathered during the initial probe, suggesting it was used to expand the investigation against Netanyahu, while a similar move was halted concerning Cohen. The defense team aims to use these points to argue selective enforcement and potentially challenge the charges related to benefits in Case 1000.
Mentioned
