The former State Attorney expressed regret over the publication of the ombudsman's call • "There are elements who are blowing up completely unfounded conspiracy theories," he wrote.
Shai use
Photography:
Oren Ben Hakon - Archive
"I was sorry to hear Mandelblit's remarks, there is no basis for allegations of irrelevant decisions in the Prime Minister's files" - this is how former State Attorney Shai Nitzan responded to the recordings of a conversation between the ombudsman, Dr. Avichai Mandelblit, which were published tonight (Tuesday) on News 13.
"This maniac does not decide in my case," Mandelblit attacked Nitzan, referring to an investigation against him in the Harpaz affair, before he was appointed to his position as a consultant.
Nitzan responded to the recordings in a long response he published, in which it was written: "I was sorry to hear Mandelblit's remarks, there is no basis for allegations of irrelevant decisions in the prime minister's cases." "This is a completely unfounded claim" - this is how Nitzan referred to the statement Mandelblit was recorded in a conversation he had with his close friend at the time, the chairman of the Bar Association, Efi Naveh.
"In essence, Nitzan's decision in the Mandelblit case was made in March 2017, years before the decision-making phase in the prime minister's files, and in any case there was no connection between the two issues," it said.
"Contrary to the allegations made, there was no connection between the issue of the reason for the closure of the Harpaz case and the Prime Minister's files or any other issue."
Following the publication, the ombudsman responded to the recordings and regretted the publication of the exchange, which was taken from a "private conversation between close friends." The announcement added: "Indeed, at the time of the talks, Mandelblit had serious allegations against such and other parties involved in his investigation." Including in connection with the cause of the genizah of the case, "but added that" despite this, Mandelblit maintained a state-of-the-art and dignified public conduct throughout, and upon taking office he undertook to maintain the Attorney General's institution on all counts and even declared it publicly.
In this context, Mandelblit undertook to maintain a normal working relationship with all the parties involved, and to leave all personal precipitation behind. "
Shai Nitzan's full response
"The former state attorney was of course sorry to hear how Mandelblit spoke about him about five years ago. However, this is a private conversation conducted by two close friends, and naturally people are not careful in their words in such conversations, and are also blatantly expressed during them.
In any case, the relationship between Mandelblit and Nitzan was very good throughout their joint tenure and the two worked in full cooperation for the rule of law.
As for the claim that Nitzan "could have held Mandelblit by the throat" during his tenure as a consultant, this is a completely unfounded claim.
In summary, Nitzan's decision in the Mandelblit case was made in March 2017, years before the decision-making phase in the Prime Minister's files, and in any case there was no connection between the two issues.
An examination of the decisions in the prime minister's cases also shows that this is a clearly unfounded claim, since a significant portion of Nitzan's recommendations in Netanyahu's cases were rejected by Mandelblit.
It will be recalled that Nitzan recommended that he be indicted for bribery in three of Netanyahu's cases (1000,2000,4000), while Mandelblit decided to charge Netanyahu with bribery in only one of them, and in the other two he was satisfied with fraud and breach of trust.
This fact also illustrates how unfounded and without any basis in reality, is the claim of "extortion" on the part of Nitzan.
It will be clarified that the case opened in the Harpaz case against Mandelblit was closed by the former attorney general, Weinstein, on Nitzan's recommendation, even before Mandelblit's appointment to the position of counsel, in February 2016. The genizah decision clarified the reasons for the closure.
A few months after Mandelblit took office, his attorney approached Nitzan and asked that the reason for closing the case be set for "innocence."
Nitzan was debating whether he could discuss and decide this request, because of the conflict of interest that Nitzan would have encountered if he had made a decision at the request of the person who heads the general prosecution system.
Finally, in March 2017, years before the decision-making phase in the Prime Minister's case, and after consulting with a number of senior officials, who all thought that Nitzan should not make the decision, Nitzan informed Mandelblit's attorney that he would not make a decision on this issue for reasons of Conflict of interest.
Thus ended the treatment of this matter on the part of all concerned.
Contrary to the allegations made, there was no connection between the issue of the reason for the closure of the Harpaz case and the cases of the Prime Minister or any other issue.
As is well known, in the Prime Minister's cases, most of the investigation was conducted after March 2017. Certainly the decisions in these cases were made by Nitzan and Mandelblit, long after, years after Nitzan decided not to respond to Mandelblit's request to change his reason for closing the Harpaz case.
In any case, there is no basis for allegations that Mandelblit's decisions in the prime minister's cases were made due to irrelevant reasons related to the Harpaz affair.
The former State Attorney regrets that there are still elements, whose motives are clear to all, who continue to blow up completely unfounded conspiracy theories, which completely contradict the facts. "
