Netanyahu Defense Claims Ex-AG Was Misled on Witness Deals
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Prime Minister Netanyahu's defense team is demanding to question former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about his knowledge when approving state witness agreements, particularly concerning Nir Hefetz. Lawyer Amit Haddad argued that Mandelblit was personally involved and may have been misled about alleged undue pressure on witnesses. The defense claims this could invalidate the agreements and lead to the dismissal of key charges in Case 4000.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Netanyahu's defense seeks to question ex-AG Mandelblit on witness deal approvals.
- Lawyer Amit Haddad claims Mandelblit was personally involved in witness agreements.
- Defense alleges Mandelblit may have been unaware of undue pressure on witnesses.
- A discrepancy exists between an official letter and trial evidence on witness pressure.
- The defense argues these issues could invalidate witness testimonies and charges.
During a hearing at the Jerusalem District Court on Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense team argued that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit should be questioned about his knowledge when approving state witness agreements. Lawyer Amit Haddad contended that Mandelblit was personally involved in authorizing these deals and that the defense must be allowed to probe the factual circumstances leading to these decisions.
Haddad specifically focused on the agreement with Nir Hefetz, a former media advisor to the Prime Minister who became a key state witness. The defense's central question to Mandelblit, Haddad stated, is whether he was aware of alleged undue pressure exerted on witnesses during their interrogations, or if this critical information was concealed from him.
The defense highlighted a perceived discrepancy between an official letter attributed to Mandelblit, which denied any pressure on witnesses, and information revealed during the trial. Haddad argued that if a government document was based on incomplete or misleading information, it constitutes a significant flaw in law enforcement conduct and could justify dismissing the case on grounds of defense from justice.
Previous testimony from Mandelblit regarding a controversial interrogation tactic used on Hefetz indicated he had considered investigating it but decided against it due to concerns about jeopardizing the investigation. The defense now seeks to expand this inquiry to ascertain the full scope of information available to the Attorney General when he gave final approval to the state witness agreements.
The defense team has consistently argued that state witness agreements, particularly those involving Hefetz and Shlomo Filber in Case 4000, were obtained through illegal pressure tactics and violations of fundamental rights. They aim to expose the decision-making process within the Justice Ministry and the extent of oversight applied to investigative units.
If Mandelblit admits he knew about improper pressures but approved the agreements anyway, it could taint his judgment and undermine the integrity of the proceedings. Conversely, if he claims the information was withheld, it would support the defense's assertion of a deliberate deception leading to the approval of agreements based on false premises. In either scenario, the defense seeks to challenge the validity of the state witness agreements, diminish the weight of key testimonies, and pave the way for the dismissal of central charges.
Mentioned
