Ex-AG Mandelblit Confirms Netanyahu Questioned on Unwarned Topic

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit confirmed during his cross-examination in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial that questions posed to Netanyahu in January 2017 concerned a subject not included in the official warning given to the Prime Minister at the time. Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, presented excerpts from the investigation, arguing that police questioned Netanyahu about a conflict of interest before explicit authorization was granted for such inquiries. Mandelblit acknowledged the discrepancy between the questions and the warning but stated he does not recall when authorization was given to investigate in that direction.

The investigation at the time, within Case 1000, focused on suspicions of receiving benefits from businessmen. Haddad showed that the January 2017 warning specifically mentioned receiving gifts, while investigators were already asking about actions allegedly taken by Netanyahu to benefit those offering the gifts. Mandelblit explained that initially, the suspicion was about receiving significant gifts, and only later did the need arise to examine whether the gift-givers had interests that Netanyahu acted to promote. He stated that the suspicion of conflict of interest, as presented later in the investigation, had not yet crystallized at the early stage.

Haddad presented a transcript from January 27, 2017, where Netanyahu was asked about his approach to U.S. authorities regarding businessman Arnon Milchan's entry visa. The defense argued this was a clear question related to conflict of interest, not just the receipt of gifts. Mandelblit agreed when asked if the question pertained to that direction. When pressed for a factual answer on whether Netanyahu was questioned on a topic for which he was not warned, Mandelblit responded with a single word: "Yes."

Despite admitting the gap between the warning and the investigators' questions, Mandelblit repeatedly stated he could not recall the exact date the authorization was given to expand the investigation into conflict of interest suspicions. He recalled the principle of the decision but not the date. Haddad countered that authorization for such inquiries was only granted much later, presenting a November 2017 warning that explicitly mentioned promoting the interests of the benefit-giver in a conflict of interest. Mandelblit confirmed this later text aligned with suspicions of breach of trust and recalled the shift from examining gift receipt to investigating potential conflict of interest.

The legal significance of Mandelblit's admission is critical for the defense and Netanyahu's rights. The purpose of a warning is to inform a suspect precisely about the alleged offenses, enabling them to understand their legal standing and consult counsel. When investigators ask about conflict of interest and official actions while the warning is limited to receiving benefits, it can infringe upon the constitutional right to a fair trial. This discrepancy strengthens the defense's claim that investigators acted beyond their authority, potentially forming grounds to request the exclusion of evidence or support a claim of "defense from the side" due to severe procedural flaws.