"What did you hide?": Haddad presented a protocol – and the prosecution erupted

Netanyahu's attorney, Adv. Amit Haddad, presented a confidential protocol during the cross-examination of Mandelblit, sparking a loud confrontation in the courtroom over the scope of authorization for examining Case 1000. Mandelblit claimed he authorized investigating gifts of large value, but the defense disputed this and presented a document excerpt they said was not provided to them. The prosecution accused the defense of misleading presentation, and the judges had to calm the atmosphere.

During the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit at the Jerusalem District Court, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attorney, Adv. Amit Haddad, presented a confidential protocol that caused an uproar in the courtroom. The central dispute revolved around whether Mandelblit authorized investigating the issue of cigars and champagne in Case 1000, or whether the original authorization focused on suspicions of receiving gifts of large value. Mandelblit replied that he authorized investigating suspicions of receiving gifts of large value, but distinguished between significant gifts and incidental gifts which he said do not mature into an indictment. Haddad disputed the description of the authorization scope and presented an excerpt from a protocol that the defense claimed was not provided to them at the time, which stated: "With all due respect to cigars, champagne, a suit, this is not the industry we think there might be." Prosecutor Yechiel Gildin strongly objected, arguing it was a single excerpt taken out of context. Haddad lashed out at the prosecution, saying they were "misleading" and erupted in anger: "What chutzpah to tell me I'm taking it out of context!" The exchanges heated the courtroom and were accompanied by loud shouting, until the judges had to calm the atmosphere. The focus of Mandelblit's testimony revolved around the defense's claim that critical investigative actions were carried out before his official authorization, or that the police exceeded the limits that were set.