Ex-AG Mandelblit Confirms Leaks Aimed to Pressure Him to Investigate Netanyahu
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified that media leaks concerning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's investigations were likely intended to pressure him to launch a probe. During cross-examination, Mandelblit confirmed his belief that leaks occurred and aimed to pressure him, supporting the defense's claim that external factors influenced the decision to investigate Netanyahu in Case 2000. The prosecution objected to this line of questioning, and the judges limited further discussion on the matter, though Mandelblit's admission was a key moment in the day's proceedings.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit confirmed leaks aimed to pressure him to investigate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
- Mandelblit's testimony occurred during his cross-examination in the ongoing trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
- The defense presented a 2017 article, arguing leaks influenced the decision to investigate Netanyahu in Case 2000.
- Mandelblit stated "I decide" but acknowledged the leaks' purpose was to apply pressure.
- The prosecution objected to the defense's focus on external pressures, and judges limited further questioning.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified on Monday that he believes leaks to the media regarding the investigation into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were intended to pressure him into launching a probe. Mandelblit's admission came during his cross-examination in Netanyahu's ongoing trial.
During the hearing, attorney Amit Haddad presented a January 2017 article by journalist Gidi Weitz, which detailed two separate cases involving Netanyahu. Haddad argued that information about a hidden investigation, later known as Case 2000, had been leaked to journalists, suggesting this leak was designed to influence Mandelblit's decisions. Mandelblit confirmed that he recalled such leaks and believed their purpose was to exert pressure on him to investigate the Prime Minister.
Haddad contended that the evidence for Case 2000, involving conversations between Netanyahu and businessman Arnon Nuni Mozes, had been in police and prosecution hands for months, yet the official decision to investigate Netanyahu under caution was only made on January 5, 2017, four days after Weitz's article was published. The defense argued that this timing indicated the decision was influenced by public pressure and internal law enforcement interests, rather than new evidence.
Mandelblit, however, rejected the notion that external pressures dictated his decisions, stating firmly, "I decide." He explained that while he had the option to avoid authorizing the investigation, he was convinced of its objective justification after reviewing all the data. The prosecution objected to the defense's line of questioning regarding external influences, and the judges limited further inquiry into the matter.
The judges' decision to limit the questioning did not diminish the impact of Mandelblit's confirmation of the leaks and their intended purpose. This admission supports the defense's central argument that the investigation's initiation may have been compromised by improper public and media pressure, potentially impacting the fairness of the proceedings and public trust in the justice system. The article also notes that Mandelblit previously acknowledged not having documented approval for the investigation before January 5, 2017, and that the wording of the caution given to Netanyahu was inappropriate for the suspicions in Case 2000.
Mentioned
