Netanyahu Trial: Ex-AG Mandelblit's Testimony Reveals Key Discrepancies

The third day of testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the corruption trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw significant developments. Mandelblit struggled to recall if he had explicitly authorized a bribery investigation in Case 4000, admitting the word "bribery" was absent from the warning given to Netanyahu. Defense attorney Amit Haddad argued that the indictment was filed with "foreign motives" and suggested political motivations influenced the decision to indict.

The court acknowledged that claims of extraneous considerations could be examined if supported by factual evidence. During the heated cross-examination, Haddad questioned Mandelblit about whether he had suggested to prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh that choosing to prosecute Netanyahu was a choice between "saving democracy" and serving under a "dictatorial regime." Mandelblit testified about the investigation into Case 2000, detailing the transfer of recordings between Netanyahu and Noni Mozes. He stated that former State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan had received these materials through Ari Harow's lawyer, and that the police were likely not yet involved when he first reviewed them. Mandelblit acknowledged that the recordings suggested potential bribery charges for both parties involved in the conversations.

A major point of contention arose when Haddad presented the official warning given to Netanyahu in Case 4000, which described suspicions of acting in conflict of interest and breach of trust, but omitted the word "bribery." Mandelblit described the wording as "convoluted" and acknowledged that the term "bribery" was not explicitly stated, which Haddad argued was a significant flaw that hindered Netanyahu's understanding of the charges.

Haddad also claimed that the prosecution's stance on the circumstances of the evidence transfer in Case 2000 contradicted Mandelblit's testimony. Mandelblit had stated the recordings were transferred to Nitzan as part of potential state witness negotiations for Harow, while the prosecution had previously told the court the information was not part of such negotiations. The defense requested all related documentation, and the judges are set to address further motions.