State Rebuts Netanyahu’s Case for Delaying of Pre-indictment Hearing

Prosecution rejected Israeli Prime Minister's attorney's claim that that he hadn't received the complete investigation materials

Revital Hovel
Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
Benjamin Netanyahu before voting in the Knesset on, May 29, 2019.
Benjamin Netanyahu before voting in the Knesset on, May 29, 2019. Credit: AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner
Revital Hovel

The prosecution rejected the argument by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lawyer that Netanyahu’s pre-indictment hearing be postponed because he hadn’t gotten some of the material from the investigation.

According to the announcement by the Tel Aviv district prosecution office for taxes and finances, most of the material in the fraud and bribery cases against the premier that his lawyer, Amit Hadad, claims is missing is contained in the files he was given, except for a few documents that have since been submitted to him.

>> Read more: How lucky we are to have Netanyahu around | Opinion ■ Israeli prosecutors say Sara Netanyahu hasn't signed plea deal

In its announcement, the prosecution rebutted other arguments Netanyahu and Hadad had raised about the date of the hearing, which is due to take place on October 2 or October 3. There is no basis to the claim that appeared in attorney Hadad’s letter to the effect that the prosecution was “running amok,” regarding the hearing, the announcement said. Netanyahu himself had said last week regarding the refusal of Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit to put off the hearing that “It can’t be that running amok for reasons that aren’t clear outweighs the need to get to the truth.”

The prosecution also said that the decisions made in Netanyahu’s cases were businesslike, including the decision to delay submitting the material to his lawyers until after the April election and the decision to put off the original hearing date. However, the prosecution added, “Whenever the prime minister’s representatives made arguments that were based on considerations irrelevant to the decision on a hearing date, those arguments were rejected.”