Deputy AG: No delay for Netanyahus' cases because of alleged conflict

Former Lahav 433 chief Roni Ritman is in the midst of a disciplinary proceeding due to allegations against him by a female officer that he sexually harassed her.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks at his watch before delivering a statement at the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in Jerusalem December 19, 2018 (photo credit: AMIR COHEN/REUTERS)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks at his watch before delivering a statement at the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in Jerusalem December 19, 2018
(photo credit: AMIR COHEN/REUTERS)
There will be no delay in the Netanyahu families cases because of an alleged conflict of interest by one key police official involved, Deputy Attorney-General Dina Zilber told the prime minister's family lawyer Yossi Cohen.
Cohen had asked the attorney-general's office to delay both Sara Netanyahu's trial in the Prepared Food Affair, which has started, and the attorney's general's decision about whether to indict Benjamin Netanyahu in his public corruption cases pending a related police disciplinary proceeding.
Former Lahav 433 chief Roni Ritman is in the midst of a disciplinary proceeding due to allegations against him by a female officer that he sexually harassed her and as one of several arguments in the case, he has attacked the Netanyahus for allegedly manufacturing the scandal.
Ritman has made many arguments to defend himself against the charges, a point emphasized by Zilber in rejecting the request for a delay, but one of them was that the Netanyahus got the female officer to go after him in retaliation for the police probing the Netanyahus.
According to Cohen, Ritman's attack on the Netanyahus showed that he had a personal grudge against them and could not have objectively supervised the fraud probes against them.
Cohen said that the Netanyahus' cases should be frozen until Ritman's case concluded and the conflict issues were decided.
Zilber rejected the argument not only because Ritman's argument about the Netanyahus was a side issue, but also because she said that a very large number of police officials were involved in recommendations to indict the Netanyahus.
She wrote that because of the Netanyahus' special status and the large number of officials involved, Ritman could not have unilaterally swayed the decisions about them in a biased way.
In contrast, she also pointed out that really Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit's final decision was the one that mattered, not Ritman's view or the police's decision anyway.
Finally, she said that there was not even any specific evidence that Ritman had acted in a biased manner or that the probe had been conducted improperly, only the most general of concerns about whether one important police official involved in the process might also have been angry with the Netanyahus.