He was asked this baseless suggestion and he answered that that was ridiculous. It is, but I still disagree with him.
No one is above suspicion. He should have said: Of course that is possible.
The Pope may not be Catholic, Bibi may not be Jewish and the moon may be made of cheese after all.
However, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Until there is proof, suggestions are worthless and ventilating them may be offensive and even an offense.
Some crimes and criminals are never convicted because there is not enough proof. That is frustrating. But that doesn’t mean that everyone suspected is guilty. Especially not normal people who happen to cut innocent corners on the truth sometimes. Nor politicians and lawyers who work in an atmosphere of lies and deceit. And mostly not people with the name that they are straight like a ruler (like Mandelblit).
Suspect and investigate. Tell everyone if you found something. The truth will set us free. Truth – but not mere suspicion.
Paranoids may even be right. But they got to have proof.
BTW: Concurrence of circumstances does not equal causality, motive is not the same as guilt. Guilty by association does not mean that someone is guilty if you associate him with a crime!
And can someone explain to me how an alleged liar can get a no jail time deal for fingering Netanyahu and not the other way around?