Netanyahu Lawyer Clashes With Former AG Over Investigation Approvals
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
During the trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, defense attorney Amit Haddad accused former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit of numerous contradictions regarding police investigation approvals. Haddad argued Mandelblit's explanations about authorizing the investigation into gifts were inconsistent, while Mandelblit maintained his general approvals were sufficient. Judges intervened to move the proceedings forward after the defense attorney's claims elicited laughter and debate.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's lawyer accused former AG Mandelblit of contradicting himself "a thousand times" in court.
- The dispute concerned the scope of approvals given to police to investigate gifts.
- Haddad argued new lines of inquiry required separate approval, citing Mandelblit's past statements.
- Mandelblit stated general approval for examining gifts did not need individual sign-off for every action.
- Judges intervened to prevent Haddad from revisiting previously discussed points.
- The exchange occurred during the cross-examination in the Netanyahu corruption trial.
During the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Benjamin Netanyahu trial, Netanyahu's defense attorney, Amit Haddad, accused Mandelblit of contradicting himself "a thousand times" regarding approvals granted to police investigators. Haddad argued that Mandelblit's answers about the scope of his authorization for police to investigate gifts were inconsistent and that Mandelblit had previously stated that new lines of inquiry or investigations into specific individuals required separate approval.
Mandelblit, however, maintained that a general approval for examining significant gifts did not necessitate individual approval for every subsequent action, as long as investigators presented new directions or suspicions about individuals during status meetings. This distinction led to confusion for Judge Moshe Bar-Am, who questioned the boundaries of the initial approval and whether it could be broadly interpreted to allow extensive investigations into any person on any matter.
Haddad attempted to present prior statements by Mandelblit that he claimed supported the defense's argument for needing explicit approval before expanding investigations into new suspicions. However, Judge Rivka Friedman Feldman intervened, instructing Haddad not to revisit already discussed points, stating the issue had been thoroughly examined. Haddad insisted Mandelblit had provided new answers, but the judges urged the proceedings to move forward.
The core of the dispute centered on the extent of authority given to the police: whether investigators needed additional permits to broaden their review of gifts to new individuals and subjects, or if Mandelblit's initial general authorization sufficed for their actions. The heated exchange concluded as the judges directed the trial to proceed to other aspects of the investigation.
