Mandelblit says police did not need fresh consent for every step in Netanyahu probe

The central dispute in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trial hinges on whether investigators overstepped the authority granted by the state’s legal overseer. On Monday, former attorney general Avichai Mandelblit took the stand in Jerusalem District Court to clarify the limits of that authority. He is testifying for the defense, which seeks to prove that police actions were within the bounds of his initial approvals.

Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad, focused on specific investigative steps that the defense argues required separate sign-off. Hadad asked Mandelblit to define exactly what police were permitted to examine and which moves necessitated further consent. The questioning centered on Case 1000, which involves alleged gifts from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer and actions taken to benefit Milchan.

A key point of contention involved the questioning of Hadas Klein, Milchan’s assistant, and Yonatan Hasson, Packer’s driver. The defense suggested these interviews went beyond the original mandate. Mandelblit countered that the inquiries fell within his broader permission to investigate suspicions that Netanyahu received substantial benefits from these figures. He stated that this permission remained in force, meaning investigators did not need to return to him for approval of each individual action.

Judge Moshe Bar-Am asked how police could distinguish between steps covered by the original authorization and those requiring new consent. Mandelblit explained that the subject matter he approved set the boundaries. He noted that only significant developments would call for further consultation with his office.

This testimony follows a session on Sunday where Mandelblit addressed wiretapping operations. He said he ordered police to stop listening to Natan Eshel, a close confidant of Netanyahu, once he learned of the operation. Although investigators had secured a court warrant, Mandelblit argued that the sensitivity of Eshel’s role warranted prior approval from his office.

The trial began in May 2020 and covers three cases involving alleged gifts and dealings with media owners. Netanyahu faces charges of fraud and breach of trust in all three cases. In Case 4000, he also faces a bribery charge related to alleged regulatory benefits for Bezeq in exchange for intervention in the news coverage of Walla. Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing.

Mandelblit’s return to the witness stand allows the defense to press these procedural arguments as the trial continues. The court will hear further testimony on the scope of investigative powers in the coming sessions.