Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defense pressed former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit on Thursday over his approval of police questioning of former Netanyahu aide-turned-state witness Ari Harow, arguing that investigators had exceeded the limits he set.
The exchanges at the Jerusalem District Court focused on the scope of the early inquiries into Netanyahu and the evidence Mandelblit said led him to authorize a full criminal investigation into gifts from businessmen.
Defense lawyer Amit Hadad contrasted Mandelblit’s instructions with information investigators obtained from Harow. Mandelblit maintained that the early material had not justified a full investigation but that testimony from Hadas Klein, Milchan’s personal assistant, describing a regular supply of gifts, subsequently changed his assessment.
Mandelblit, who authorized the investigations and later approved the indictment, was called to testify by the defense.
Under Basic Law: The Government, opening a criminal investigation into a sitting prime minister requires the attorney-general’s consent. Hadad’s questioning has focused on what that consent covered and when it was given.
What is Case 2000, and how is Mandelblit connected?
Harow, Netanyahu’s former chief of staff, later became a state witness. Recordings of conversations between Netanyahu and Yedioth Aharonoth publisher Arnon Mozes, found on Harow’s phone, became central to Case 2000.
That case concerns discussions about a possible exchange of more favorable coverage for Netanyahu for steps against Yediot’s rival, Israel Hayom. Netanyahu is charged with fraud and breach of trust in the case and denies wrongdoing.
Hadad cited police investigator Koresh Bar-Nur’s account that Mandelblit had approved stopping Harow at the airport and supplied questions. Mandelblit said he did not recall the details but considered it plausible that investigators had proposed the stop and he had approved it.
Hadad also presented questioning that sought information about possible wrongdoing over a decade, arguing that it exceeded Mandelblit’s authorization.
Mandelblit said such questions could have arisen in negotiations over Harow becoming a state witness – a suspect who agrees to testify for the prosecution in return for concessions in his own case.
But when Judge Oded Shaham asked whether that was what Mandelblit had envisaged when granting approval, he said no, explaining that the inquiry had a defined subject.
Hadad then presented remarks recorded at a July 17, 2016, meeting, in which Mandelblit distinguished suspicions of substantial gifts from businessmen from information about cigars, champagne and a suit.
Hadad argued that Harow had already described Netanyahu receiving packages of cigars from Milchan, challenging Mandelblit’s characterization of the early information as concerning occasional gifts.
Hadad argued that the summary of Harow’s questioning had reached Mandelblit before the meeting. Mandelblit said he was unsure whether he had read it. He maintained that the material available then had not persuaded him to open a full investigation. He said he had authorized examining whether Netanyahu received gifts on a significant scale.
The discussion concerned the development of Case 1000, in which Netanyahu is accused of receiving expensive gifts from wealthy businessmen. Netanyahu is charged with fraud and breach of trust in that case and denies wrongdoing.
Mandelblit said Klein’s testimony later indicated a regular supply rather than isolated incidents. That distinction, he maintained, changed his assessment of the evidence, strong enough, eventually, to file indictments.
The defense said it would need additional hearing days to complete Mandelblit’s testimony.
Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.