Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Potential Error in Netanyahu Investigation Approvals
Translated & summarized from Ice by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit admitted a potential mistake during his testimony in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial, regarding approvals for investigations. Mandelblit struggled to provide documented proof for placing Netanyahu under caution in Case 2000 before January 5, 2017, stating "It was probably a mistake." Netanyahu's lawyer also pointed out discrepancies in the caution wording. While Mandelblit acknowledged pressure and leaks, he maintained they didn't affect his judgment, though the defense may use these points to argue procedural flaws.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit admitted a potential mistake in approving Netanyahu's investigation in Case 2000.
- No documented prior approval was found for placing Netanyahu under caution before January 5, 2017.
- Netanyahu's lawyer highlighted discrepancies between the caution wording and actual suspicions.
- Mandelblit acknowledged pressure and leaks but denied they influenced his judgment.
- The defense may use procedural issues to argue against the investigation's validity.
During his seventh day of testimony in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit acknowledged a potential mistake regarding the approval process for investigations into Netanyahu. In Jerusalem's District Court on Monday, Mandelblit struggled to explain why no documented prior approval was found for placing Netanyahu under caution in Case 2000, which concerns alleged dealings with the publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, Arnon (Noni) Mozes. When confronted with discrepancies between his memory and presented documents, Mandelblit stated, "It was probably a mistake."
Channel 14 reporter Motty Castel reported that the court learned no approval to investigate Netanyahu under caution in Case 2000 existed before January 5, 2017. Judge Moshe Bar-Am pressed for clarification, emphasizing the need for documentation. Mandelblit confirmed he couldn't pinpoint an earlier approval but explained the decision had been forming. A document from January 5 did record the decision to investigate Netanyahu under caution.
Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, also highlighted discrepancies between the caution wording given to the Prime Minister and the actual suspicions being investigated. Mandelblit conceded the presented wording did not align with the nature of the suspicions in the case. Castel further alleged that Mandelblit faced heavy pressure at the time, suggesting he was "squeezed," and that the defense aims to show decisions were made under pressure from law enforcement and media.
Mandelblit acknowledged that leaks likely intended to pressure him, though he maintained in prior testimony that these pressures did not affect his judgment. Prosecutors, however, reject the defense's attempt to portray alleged flaws as proof the investigations were unjustified. Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh stated that the lack of real-time written approval led the prosecution to call Mandelblit to testify but requested limiting questions to the investigation approval issue.
Castel suggested that the day's events, where the accuser faced scrutiny, represented a form of justice. While the court's ultimate decision on the legal significance of these procedural issues remains open, the defense may use these points to argue for procedural defects in the investigation, though this does not automatically guarantee the indictment's cancellation or new investigations.
Mentioned
