Netanyahu Defense Claims Prosecution Misled Former AG
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Netanyahu's defense team claims former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit was misled by investigators in Case 4000, leading to decisions based on false information. Attorney Amit Haddad argued in court that substantive information was concealed, warranting a "defense from justice" claim. The defense seeks to confront Mandelblit with documents to prove these alleged flaws in the investigation process. If successful, this could lead to the dismissal of charges.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's defense claims former AG Mandelblit was misled by investigators in Case 4000.
- Attorney Amit Haddad cited "scandalous conduct" and "concealment of information" by investigators.
- The defense seeks to confront Mandelblit with documents to prove a flawed factual basis for the indictment.
- A specific example involved Mandelblit's testimony on hotel investigation approval.
- The defense argues this could lead to charges being dismissed under "defense from justice."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense team has argued that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit relied on incorrect information provided by investigators during the handling of Case 4000. Defense attorney Amit Haddad stated in court that Mandelblit was misled by investigative bodies, received inaccurate answers to his questions, and subsequently documented false data. Haddad asserted that this constitutes a concealment of substantive information, forming the basis for a legal claim of "defense from justice."
The defense is seeking to confront Mandelblit in court, arguing that crucial information was withheld from him in real-time, leading to decisions and documents based on a flawed factual foundation. Haddad told the judges that the defense aims to prove beyond doubt that Mandelblit was intentionally given wrong answers and that this "scandalous conduct" warrants dismissal of charges.
Haddad presented a specific example concerning the approval of an investigation into a hotel, where Mandelblit initially testified he had not approved the action, but later changed his testimony on the stand. The defense emphasized the critical importance of written documents and real-time decision-making records when dealing with the Attorney General, especially regarding sensitive investigations.
The defense's argument is that the court should not accept late, oral testimonies that contradict documented evidence. They are pushing to question Mandelblit directly on the documents he authored during his tenure to clarify discrepancies between the information presented to him and the actual evidence revealed during the trial.
If the defense succeeds in convincing the court that Mandelblit received false answers and relied on them when formulating the indictment, it could provide grounds for dismissing charges under the doctrine of "defense from justice." This would shift focus from Netanyahu's alleged actions to the conduct of law enforcement agencies and question the legitimacy of the entire criminal proceedings.
Mentioned
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Right 2
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
