Ex-AG Mandelblit Accused of Directing Netanyahu Investigations
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attorney, Amit Haddad, has accused former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit of directly managing the investigations against Netanyahu. Haddad presented this claim in court, arguing Mandelblit made key decisions and prevented certain investigative actions, such as examining Hadas Klein's phone. The defense seeks to cross-examine Mandelblit, asserting his alleged direct involvement constitutes "investigative failures" that could justify a "defense from justice" claim and potentially lead to the cancellation of charges.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's attorney claims ex-AG Mandelblit directly managed the investigations against the PM.
- The defense argues Mandelblit prevented key investigative actions, like examining Hadas Klein's phone.
- Allegations suggest Mandelblit made substantive decisions, exceeding his legal advisory role.
- The defense seeks to cross-examine Mandelblit in court over alleged investigative failures.
- This claim could form the basis for a "defense from justice" argument in the trial.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attorney, Amit Haddad, has presented a novel claim in the Jerusalem District Court, asserting that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit directly managed the investigations against Netanyahu, exceeding his role of legal counsel. Haddad argued that Mandelblit made substantive decisions on key investigative actions, effectively running the probes rather than merely advising investigators. This, he contends, grants the defense the right to confront Mandelblit in court regarding alleged investigative failures and prevented actions.
Haddad based his argument on statements attributed to investigation officer Momi Bernor, who allegedly said Mandelblit was the "authoritative figure" who had to "cut and decide" on top-tier investigative issues, implying Mandelblit "ran an investigation." The attorney distinguished between the AG providing legal support and Mandelblit's alleged practical decision-making power over whether to conduct specific investigative actions.
As a central example, Haddad cited the examination of mobile devices belonging to key witness Hadas Klein. He claimed investigator Koresh Bernor stated he was unable to proceed with a certain action concerning Klein because Mandelblit refused to approve it. Haddad argued that if this account is accurate, the defense has a right to directly question Mandelblit about the reasons for this refusal.
Another significant issue raised by Haddad concerned the decision not to question former Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua under caution. Yeshua is a central witness in Case 4000. Haddad noted criticism from various witnesses regarding Yeshua's status as a regular witness rather than a suspect, and stressed the need to clarify Mandelblit's role in this determination. The attorney argued these decisions directly impacted the investigation's direction and evidence collection, potentially forming a basis for a "defense from justice" claim due to significant procedural defects and biased failures.
Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned the practical legal implications of Mandelblit allegedly managing the investigation and preventing certain actions. Haddad responded that these constitute "significant investigative failures and scandalous conduct" that establish a strong foundation for a "defense from justice" claim. The core dispute revolves around whether Mandelblit's deep involvement justifies a broad cross-examination of him as a defense witness, or if questions should be limited to matters requiring his statutory approval.
Mentioned
