Israeli court denies Netanyahu's request to delay corruption trial, despite Trump's push for cancellation
JERUSALEM, June 27 — An Israeli court on Friday rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's request to postpone giving testimony in his corruption trial, after US President Donald Trump said the case should be cancelled.
Netanyahu's lawyer on Thursday asked the court to excuse the leader from hearings over the next two weeks, saying he needed to concentrate on 'security issues' after Israel's 12-day war with Iran.
The Jerusalem district court said in a judgement published online that 'in its current form (his request) does not provide a basis or detailed justification for the cancellation of the hearings'.
Trump on Wednesday described the case against Netanyahu as a 'witch hunt', saying the trial 'should be CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero'.
Netanyahu has thanked Trump for his support in Israel's brief war against Iran, which ended with a ceasefire on June 24.
Netanyahu has denied any wrongdoing and his supporters have described the long-running trial as politically motivated.
In a first case, he and his wife, Sara, are accused of accepting more than US$260,000 worth of luxury goods such as cigars, jewellery and champagne from billionaires in exchange for political favours.
In two other cases, Netanyahu is accused of attempting to negotiate more favourable coverage from two Israeli media outlets.
During his current term since late 2022, Netanyahu's government has proposed a series of far-reaching judicial reforms that critics say were designed to weaken the courts.
Netanyahu has requested multiple postponements in the trial since it began in May 2020, citing the war in Gaza which started in 2023, later fighting in Lebanon and this month the conflict with Iran. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Iran's Khamenei resurfaces to claim ‘victory' over Israel, but doubts grow over his authority and role in war decisions
PARIS, June 28 — Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has re-emerged after the war with Israel but faces a struggle to maintain the authority he has wielded over the Islamic republic in over three-and-a-half decades of rule, analysts say. After days of silence, Khamenei appeared on Thursday in a video address to proclaim 'victory' and prove he is still alive following the 12-day conflict with Israel which ended with a truce earlier this week. But Khamenei, appointed Iran's number one and spiritual leader for life in 1989, spoke softly and hoarsely in the address, without the charismatic oratory for which he is known. Whereas his regular interventions before the war usually took place in public in front of an audience, this message was filmed against a plain backdrop of curtains and a picture of revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This may indicate he could still be in hiding after Israel refused to rule out seeking to assassinate him. On Thursday, Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz told media that the military would have killed Khamenei during the war if the opportunity had presented itself. 'If he had been in our sights, we would have taken him out,' Katz told Israel's public radio station Kan, adding that the military had 'searched a lot'. But in the end, the conflict did not trigger the removal of the system that has ruled Iran since the 1979 revolution. Still, it enabled Israel to demonstrate military superiority and deep intelligence penetration of Iran by killing key members of Khamenei's inner circle in targeted strikes. The war was also the latest in a series of setbacks over the last year for Khamenei. These include the downgrading of pro-Tehran militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah in conflicts with Israel and the fall of Iran's ally in Syria Bashar al-Assad, against the background of economic crisis and energy shortages at home. 'At this time, the regime does not seem to be on the verge of falling but it is certainly more vulnerable than it has been since the early years after the revolution,' said Thomas Juneau, professor at the University of Ottawa. 'Diminished figure' 'The authority of the supreme leader has therefore certainly been undermined,' Juneau told AFP. 'Even though his position remains secure, in that there is unlikely to be a direct challenge to his rule for now, he has lost credibility and bears direct responsibility for the Islamic republic's major losses.' Khamenei is 86 and suffers the effects of a 1981 assassination attempt in Tehran which paralysed his right arm, a disability he has never made any attempt to hide. But discussion of succession has remained taboo in Iran, even if Western analysts have long eyed his son Mojtaba as a possible – but far from inevitable – contender. Arash Azizi, visiting fellow at Boston University, said Khamenei looked 'frail and weak' in his televised message in 'a far cry from the grand orator we know'. 'It's clear that he is a diminished figure, no longer authoritative and a shadow of his former self,' he said. 'Power in Tehran is already passing to different institutions and factions and the battle for his succession will only intensify in the coming period.' Khamenei has come through crises before, using the state's levers of repression, most recently during the 2022-2023 protests sparked by the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, an Iranian Kurd detained for allegedly breaching Iran's strict dress code for women. Rights activists say hundreds of people have been arrested in a new crackdown in the wake of the conflict. 'Sidelined' The New York Times and Iran International, a Persian-language television channel based outside Iran that is critical of the authorities, have said Khamenei spent the war in a bunker avoiding use of digital communication for fear of being tracked and assassinated. Iran International reported that Khamenei was not even involved in the discussions that led to the truce which were handled by the national security council and President Masoud Pezeshkian. There has been no confirmation of this claim. Jason Brodsky, policy director at the US-based United Against Nuclear Iran, said Khamenei appeared 'frail and hoarse' and also 'detached from reality' in insisting that Iran's nuclear programme did not suffer significant damage. 'Nevertheless, I remain sceptical of the theories that Khamenei has been sidelined,' he told AFP. 'I have no doubt the war will prompt a debate within the Islamic Republic's political elite as to how best to rebuild the system's capabilities, but in the end, the buck has always stopped with Khamenei,' he said. — AFP
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Trump wins Supreme Court ruling but birthright citizenship fight continues
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called 'universal' injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an 'imperial' judiciary. Judges can provide 'complete relief' only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in 'class-protective' injunctions. 'Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal,' Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. 'I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference,' said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. 'We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed.' The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. 'As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups,' Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, 'recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case.' Platkin committed to 'keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War' of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. 'The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
US Senate Republicans push Trump tax-cut bill ahead of July 4 deadline
WASHINGTON: U.S. Senate Republicans will seek to advance President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill on Saturday with a procedural vote that could kick off a marathon weekend session and lead to full congressional approval next week. The 940-page megabill, released late on Friday, would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main first-term legislative achievement, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Nonpartisan analysts estimate a version passed by the House of Representatives last month would add about $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion government debt. Trump has pushed for Congress to pass the bill by the July 4 Independence Day holiday. The White House said early this month that the legislation, titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would reduce the annual deficit by $1.4 trillion. Friday's release of the legislation could provide a catalyst for lawmakers to vote to open debate after the Senate convenes at 2 p.m. EDT (1800 GMT) on Saturday, though some sections of the bill appeared to be open to further revision. A successful vote would kick off a lengthy process that could run into Sunday, as Democrats unveil a series of amendments that are unlikely to pass in a chamber Republicans control by 53-47 seats. 'The Big Beautiful Bill contains all of President Trump's domestic economic priorities. By passing this bill now, we will make our nation more prosperous and secure,' Senate Budget Committee Lindsey Graham said in a statement accompanying the bill text. Senate Republicans have been deeply divided over plans to partly offset that bill's heavy hit to the deficit, including by cutting the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income Americans. Republicans are using a legislative maneuver to bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber. Their narrow margins in the Senate and House mean they can afford no more than three Republican no votes to advance a bill that Democrats are united in opposing, saying it takes a heavy toll on low- and middle-income Americans to benefit the wealthy. One Republican in each chamber has been opposed to the legislation from the start. While a handful of Republicans in both chambers have voiced opposition to some of the bill's elements, this Congress has so far not rejected any of the president's legislative priorities. TAX BREAKS, SPENDING CUTS Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer summarized the reasons for his party's opposition to the bill at a Friday press conference, saying: 'It has the biggest cuts to food funding ever' and could result in more than 2 million people losing their jobs. He also highlighted the Republican rollback of clean energy initiatives ushered in by the Biden administration. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune stressed the tax-cut components during a Friday speech to the Senate. 'The centerpiece of our bill is permanent tax relief for the American people,' he said as he showcased a new tax break for senior citizens and other taxpayers. The measure, Thune said, will 'help get our economy firing on all cylinders again.' It also would raise the Treasury Department's statutory borrowing limit by trillions of dollars to stave off a first-ever default on its debt in coming months. If the Senate manages to pass Trump's top legislative goal by early next week, the House would be poised to quickly apply the final stamp of approval, sending it to Trump for signing into law. But with Senate Republicans struggling to find enough spending cuts to win the support of the party's far right, Trump on Friday loosened the leash a bit, saying his July 4 deadline for wrapping it all up was 'important' but 'it's not the end-all.' Among the most difficult disagreements Senate Republicans struggled to resolve late on Friday was the size of a cap on deductions for state and local taxes and Medicaid cost savings that could hobble rural hospitals.
