Netanyahu's Lawyer Questions Differential Treatment in Packer Apartment Probe
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, questioned former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about why Yair Netanyahu was investigated for using businessman James Packer's apartment, while former Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, who also allegedly stayed there frequently, was not. Mandelblit confirmed he did not order an investigation into Cohen and stated Hadas Klein's testimony was the key development. The defense argues this shows selective enforcement and aims to challenge the charges in Case 1000.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer questioned why Yair Netanyahu was investigated for using Packer's apartment but Yossi Cohen was not.
- Former AG Avichai Mandelblit confirmed he did not order an investigation into Yossi Cohen.
- Mandelblit stated Hadas Klein's testimony, not the apartment use, was the key development.
- The defense claims law enforcement applied different standards to Yair Netanyahu and Yossi Cohen.
- The defense aims to use these arguments to challenge charges in Case 1000.
During the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, lawyer Amit Haddad, representing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, raised questions about the investigation into Yair Netanyahu's use of a luxury apartment owned by businessman James Packer. Haddad highlighted that while Yair Netanyahu's use of the apartment was investigated, a probe was not opened against former Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, who Haddad claims also frequently stayed there. Mandelblit confirmed that he did not order an investigation into Cohen and stated that the key development for him was the testimony of Hadas Klein regarding benefits received.
Haddad pressed Mandelblit on why information about Cohen's frequent stays at the Packer apartment did not lead to a parallel criminal investigation, contrasting it with the thorough police examination of Yair Netanyahu's use of the same residence. Mandelblit acknowledged that he told investigators "not to continue the examination" concerning Cohen. The defense's strategy aims to demonstrate that law enforcement applied different standards to individuals connected to the same accommodation.
Mandelblit previously explained that Yair Netanyahu's case was examined due to suspicions of benefits received in direct connection to his father's position, while for Yossi Cohen, there was no similar evidentiary basis for suspicion of receiving benefits from businessmen. Haddad sought to clarify the timeline and the connection between the investigation into the luxury apartment and the broader "gifts investigation" in Case 1000, with Mandelblit maintaining that Hadas Klein's testimony, not the Royal Beach hotel itself, was the pivotal factor that changed the picture.
The defense is using these points to argue for selective enforcement, suggesting that the information gathered about Yair Netanyahu was used to expand the investigation against him, while similar information regarding Cohen was suppressed. By presenting these discrepancies to the judges, the defense hopes to support claims for "justice from the side" and potentially challenge the legitimacy of the gifts investigation, seeking the dismissal of charges related to benefits in Case 1000.
Mentioned
