Ex-AG Mandelblit Testifies in Netanyahu Trial, Defense Highlights Procedural Issues

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified Monday in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing intense questioning from Netanyahu's defense attorney, Amit Haddad. The defense focused on the authorization of investigations against the Prime Minister, presenting documents and prior testimony suggesting actions were taken without proper permits. Mandelblit acknowledged that the warning given to Netanyahu in Case 2000, concerning alleged dealings with Yediot Ahronot publisher Arnon (Noni) Mozes, was not entirely appropriate for the suspicions.

During the cross-examination, Mandelblit admitted to prolonged deliberation before authorizing the investigation into Netanyahu in Case 2000, explaining he initially believed Netanyahu did not intend to finalize the deal with Mozes. He also confirmed that a written permit for the investigation was not obtained in real-time, a fact the prosecution acknowledged as the reason for agreeing to Mandelblit's unusual summons as a defense witness. The defense presented documents indicating that while Mozes was investigated, Netanyahu was not initially considered for investigation in September 2016, with the decision to investigate the Prime Minister only being formally documented in writing on January 5, 2017.

Mandelblit also testified that he never authorized the recruitment of lawyer David Shimron, a relative and confidant of Netanyahu, as a state witness in Case 3000, the submarine affair. The defense presented testimony suggesting attempts were made to pressure other defendants to provide incriminating information against Netanyahu, even if unrelated to the specific case being investigated, which Mandelblit stated he had not authorized.

The prosecution and defense clashed over the scope of Mandelblit's testimony, with prosecutor Judith Tirosh arguing for limitations. She revealed the prosecution's agreement to Mandelblit's testimony stemmed from the lack of a real-time written permit. The defense countered by presenting a January 2021 affidavit from Mandelblit, which they termed the "Mandelblit Scroll," arguing it showed his personal involvement in approving investigation directions and boundaries.

The defense argued that Mandelblit's admissions, including the inappropriate warning notice and the lack of timely written authorization, significantly weaken the prosecution's case regarding the legality of the proceedings. They contend these points provide a strong basis for claims of prejudice and could lead to the exclusion of evidence or even the dismissal of charges due to severe damage to the integrity of the judicial process.