Netanyahu's Lawyer Poses Dilemma for Former AG in Corruption Trial

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attorney, Amit Haddad, presented a legal challenge to former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and the prosecution during a hearing at the Jerusalem District Court. Haddad posed a critical question: Did Mandelblit know about alleged improper pressures on state witness Nir Hefetz when he approved Hefetz's deal, or was this information concealed from him by investigators?

The defense argues that either scenario presents a problem. If Mandelblit knew about the alleged pressures and approved the deal anyway, his decision-making process needs scrutiny. If he was unaware, it suggests his decision was made without the full picture, potentially invalidating the agreement.

Haddad is seeking to question Mandelblit about the circumstances surrounding the recruitment of state witnesses, particularly Hefetz, who formerly served as Netanyahu's media advisor. Hefetz became a key state witness in Case 4000, one of the corruption cases against Netanyahu. The defense aims to use any procedural flaws to argue for "defense from justice," a legal claim that could lead to the indictment's dismissal.

The prosecution, represented by prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh, opposed expanding Mandelblit's questioning, arguing it would turn his testimony into a broad review of internal prosecution work. However, Judge Moshe Bar-Am noted the difficulty in this position, given Mandelblit's own previous testimony which he stated contained potentially relevant information for a "defense from justice" claim.

One specific tactic mentioned involved investigators summoning a woman close to Hefetz to testify, a move intended to exert psychological pressure. Mandelblit himself had previously criticized this tactic, stating he only learned of it afterward and had considered investigating the investigators, but ultimately refrained due to concerns about jeopardizing the ongoing cases.

The defense also pointed to a formal letter attributed to Mandelblit, which stated no improper pressures were applied to state witnesses. Haddad questioned the accuracy of this letter given evidence presented in court, seeking to clarify who provided Mandelblit with information and whether it reflected the investigators' actual conduct. The hearing concluded without a final decision on the scope of Mandelblit's further questioning.