Mandelblit's Testimony in Netanyahu Trial Marked by Memory Lapses

During the fourth week of testimony by former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, discussions focused on Case 2000 and the issue of approvals. Mandelblit stated he did not recall approving investigations into Netanyahu's ties with the "Israel Hayom" newspaper, adding he was troubled by the perception that Netanyahu was not genuinely considering the "Israel Hayom" law. He also could not remember if he authorized an investigation into former "Israel Hayom" editor Amos Regev regarding various matters.

Attorney Amit Haddad pressed Mandelblit, asserting that the term "unusual compliance" was never raised in interrogations, meaning Mandelblit had not approved an investigation into that specific issue. Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned Mandelblit on what constituted "unusual compliance," suggesting a need for comparison with other politicians' media coverage. Mandelblit argued that such comparison was unnecessary, as the regulatory benefits allegedly linked to the case were sufficient cause for the "unusual compliance," and the suspicion of regulatory favors granted by Netanyahu led to the investigation.

Haddad challenged Mandelblit's familiarity with the amended indictment, claiming he had not thoroughly reviewed its 315 clauses. Mandelblit responded that he had skimmed them, recalling a list of items he reads quickly. When the name Shlomo Filber, former Director General of the Ministry of Communications, arose, Mandelblit admitted he had not authorized an investigation against him, though Haddad pointed out Filber was indeed questioned about "Israel Hayom" despite no approval. Mandelblit also failed to report an accidental meeting with Filber during the investigation period.

Mandelblit also had memory lapses regarding a 2014 event in Malibu hosted by businessman Arnon Milchan. He could not recall the duration of his attendance, hearing Netanyahu speak, or his own comments about feeling uncomfortable. Haddad noted this event was listed in the indictment. Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh defended Mandelblit, stating it's unreasonable to expect someone to remember events from 10 years ago, though she herself had questioned Netanyahu about a 16-year-old event.

Further memory gaps emerged concerning Mandelblit's signature on the indictment for Case 4000. Mandelblit stated he did not perform a "copy-paste" for his signature on the amended indictment, but acknowledged his signature might have been duplicated. He could not recall authorizing the use of his digital signature on the amended indictment. Haddad presented Mandelblit's signature on the original indictment, noting an unusual reinforcement of the letter 'Aleph' in his first name, suggesting Mandelblit might not have signed it or authorized its digital use. The defense requested all protocols for the Attorney General's approvals, which they claimed had not been fully provided by the prosecution, with some documents still redacted.