Ex-AG Mandelblit Recalls Pressure, Changes Testimony in Netanyahu Trial

Former Attorney General Dr. Avichai Mandelblit's cross-examination in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was marked by dramatic confrontations, document revelations, and a significant change in testimony. The proceedings focused on the scope of approvals granted to police in 2016 to investigate suspicions concerning the Prime Minister and his associates.

During the hearing, Mandelblit altered his response regarding the approval to investigate suspicions of Yair Netanyahu staying at a hotel linked to businessman James Packer. Initially, he stated he did not recall approving such a check, but after a short break, he amended his testimony, saying, "I made a mistake" and confirmed he had approved checking for benefits from businessmen. This change followed defense attorney Amit Haddad presenting internal correspondence from September 2016, indicating a request for a specific check regarding a hotel apartment, not a broad investigation.

Mandelblit also engaged in a heated exchange with Haddad, at one point asking, "Are you threatening me?" after Haddad questioned his testimony. The confrontation escalated when Haddad responded, "You'd better." The defense argued that media publications were intended to pressure Mandelblit into expanding the investigations, a claim he acknowledged, stating, "I remember articles that attacked me," but denied they were part of a deliberate effort to dictate his professional decisions.

Further discussions revolved around the distinction between investigating hotel stays and the alleged receipt of cigars and champagne. Mandelblit maintained that the overall subject of the investigation was the systematic receipt of benefits by the Prime Minister, not just isolated gifts. He also addressed the questioning of Gili Shapher, a former aide to Netanyahu, stating that while he did not personally approve Shapher's investigation under caution due to personal proximity, police should not investigate non-criminal, immoral behavior.

The day's testimony highlighted the defense's efforts to demonstrate that police may have exceeded the scope of Mandelblit's approvals, particularly concerning the cigar and champagne affair. Mandelblit affirmed that if investigators exceeded their approved scope, it was improper conduct. He also reiterated his stance that if his decisions were incorrect, they could be challenged in the High Court of Justice.