The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The Prosecutor's Office: "We Did Not Notice" According to Ashkenazi | Israel today

2020-05-11T16:30:05.793Z


| Sentence


In response to an email revealed by Ayala Hasson, who states that the conversation between Mandelblit and Ashkenazi was not defined as a wiretap, the State Attorney's Office missed the Ashkenazi request to interrupt the recording

  • Former State Attorney Shai Nitzan. The recipient of the email is different?

    Photo: 

    Oren Ben Hakun

"Until Dr. Mandelblit's interrogation, the State Attorney's Office was not aware that this was a secret wiretapping call," the State Attorney's Office responded to the e-mail of journalist Ayala Hasson in News 13, which implied that it was only afterwards decided to set their conversation Former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and former Military Advocate Avichai Mandelblit, as a wiretap.

Remember, last night, Hasson released an email that was allegedly sent from the State Attorney's Office, Attorney Tony Goldenberg, to State Attorney Shai Nitzan, on May 17, 2014, three weeks before Mandelblit's investigation into the Harpaz affair. In an email, Goldenberg was quoted as saying: The Transcript of the Commander's Discussion with Ashkenazi Chief of Staff dated September 26, 2010

 Hi ... So far we have only had a synopsis of this conversation as the

transcript will

pass on to Shi.

He doesn't want to talk to me about that / Shosho thing ?!

Thanks, Tony. "

That is, according to this release, even though the prosecutor's office claimed in response to the previous disclosure that the fact that Ashkenazi wanted to stop recording the conversation, making it a secret recording, became clear in Mandelblit's investigation, that the contents of the email seem to contradict this.

Attorney General: Changes were made to the published email

The response from the State Attorney's Office today reads as follows: "Ms. Hasson argued that the State Attorney's Office concealed substantial evidence against Dr. Mandelblit and refrained from making any undue considerations. In response to the prosecution's response, it was explained that only during Dr. Mandelblit's interrogation with the police did it first become clear to investigators and the accompanying attorney (Tony Goldenberg) that this was in fact a conversation that was prohibited by law. "

"In an attempt to refute the State Attorney's response, Ms. Hasson released an email last night that was allegedly sent by Attorney Goldenberg to the State Attorney as well as an excerpt from the transcript of that conversation. Ms. Hasson explained to the public that these documents allegedly contradicted the prosecution's claim that it was not aware that this was a wiretapping until Dr. Mandelblit's investigation, "the response said.

The Prosecutor's Office also claimed that "following the publication, the relevant email was located, and now the prosecutor's office is seeking to respond to the following and clarify: Until Dr. Mandelblit's investigation, he was unaware that this was a prohibited wiretap." 

"The chief of staff's request was stated in one sentence"

The Prosecutor's Office emphasized that "Ashkenazi's chief of staff's request to close the recording, which was said in one sentence during a conversation, apparently disappeared from the eyes of the caretakers. Only during the interrogation, the investigators and the accompanying attorney were referred to this trial by Dr. Mandelblit, and after examining the matter, the accompanying attorney acted in accordance with the cessation of the use of this call, and at that time no such listening was used. "

Against this background, the State Prosecutor's Office argued that "the e-mail published last night proves nothing else, certainly not in line with the claims in the article. Furthermore, in the e-mail published, various changes were made and nothing is to be wondered about. Thus, the sentence at the end of the email, regarding the conversation the prosecutor requested to have with Mr. Nitzan regarding "that matter / Shosho" - he touched on another security issue that was being investigated at the same time, which did not pertain to the matter.

" To us for proper review or reference before publication, as was unfortunately done in previous publication in relation to Conversation tea. 

"Here is the place to mention, that in the Harpaz case, a great deal of investigative material was collected," the prosecutor's office wrote, "which includes tens of thousands of conversations among the various involved, which were carefully examined at the time. This was a large-scale investigation in which considerable resources were invested. The conversation, since it is a wiretap, is prohibited because the content attributed to speakers by Ms. Hasson is similar to the content of other conversations examined by those who handled the case, as it is known, at the end of things, it was decided to order the case file in a detailed decision by the attorney general at the time. We stand by our original response and regret the public deception. "

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2020-05-11

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.