Judge Presses Former AG on Netanyahu Investigation Approval Date

A contentious exchange occurred during the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in Case 2000, concerning the precise timing of the approval to investigate Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu under caution. Judge Moshé Bar-Am insisted that such a decision must be documented, and Mandelblit struggled to produce evidence of approval prior to January 5, 2017, eventually stating, "There is no approval." Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, confronted Mandelblit, recalling, "You said earlier there is approval."

The dispute centered on a document from January 5, 2017, which recorded the decision to investigate Netanyahu. Haddad questioned why the decision was made on that specific date, as recordings of conversations between Netanyahu and Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, had been in investigators' possession months earlier. Mandelblit contended that the decision had been forming earlier, based on investigation materials and testimony from Ari Harow, but could not pinpoint the exact approval date.

Judge Bar-Am intervened, emphasizing that authorizing the investigation of a prime minister under caution requires documentation. Haddad presented a September 2016 protocol referencing Mozes's investigation but lacking approval for Netanyahu's cautioned investigation. Mandelblit acknowledged, "It is not written here that I approve investigating the PM under caution." When asked if only Mozes's investigation was approved then, Mandelblit replied, "Apparently not yet at that time."

Despite Mandelblit's continued assertion that the fundamental decision to investigate Netanyahu was made before the official documentation, he admitted he could not provide proof of an earlier approval. The timing of the approval raises legal questions, as Israel's Basic Law: The Government requires the Attorney General's consent to open a criminal investigation against a sitting prime minister. However, the absence of documented approval before January 5, 2017, does not automatically invalidate prior investigative actions, with the court to decide on their legality and consequences.