Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Doubts on Netanyahu's Intent in Corruption Trial
Translated & summarized from JDN by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu corruption trial that he doubted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's intent to finalize a deal with Arnon Mozes. Mandelblit stated he considered whether Netanyahu should have been investigated at all for Case 2000. He explained that even an attempt to commit bribery can be a criminal offense. The defense sees Mandelblit's admission as support for their claim that the discussions were not serious.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit doubted Netanyahu's intent to finalize a deal with publisher Arnon Mozes.
- Mandelblit testified he debated whether Netanyahu should have been investigated in Case 2000.
- He cited criminal law's 'attempt' clause for investigating potential bribery.
- Mandelblit denied considering Netanyahu as a witness instead of a suspect.
- The defense claims Mandelblit's testimony supports their 'empty talk' argument.
During his seventh day of testimony in the Netanyahu trial at the Jerusalem District Court, former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit made a significant statement regarding Case 2000. Mandelblit confirmed under questioning from Benjamin Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, that he had seriously deliberated whether Prime Minister Netanyahu should have been investigated in this case at all.
Mandelblit explained from the witness stand that his subjective assessment throughout the process was that Netanyahu never intended to finalize the deal discussed in recorded conversations with Arnon (Noni) Mozes, the publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth. Responding to the lawyer's question about the decision to investigate despite this assessment, Mandelblit reasoned that under criminal law, even an "attempt" to commit bribery can constitute a criminal offense.
However, Mandelblit firmly rejected any suggestion that he had ever considered investigating Netanyahu merely as a witness, rather than as a suspect under caution. He clarified that his deliberation concerned the very decision to launch an investigation. This admission by the former Attorney General, who decided to file the indictment believing there was no practical intent to implement the deal, significantly bolsters the defense's argument that the discussions were merely political and tactical 'empty talk,' casting doubt on the required mental element for a conviction in the breach of trust offenses.
Mentioned
