Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's oily PR machine is working overtime. Despite the crushing blow Tel Aviv District Court Judge David Rozen dealt him in the Holyland trial on Monday, Olmert managed to regain his composure. His cronies have since tried to find faults with the verdict. The first to come out against the ruling was Dov Weissglass. How surprising. Weissglass was part of Olmert's administration, and was very close to his predecessor Ariel Sharon. Ram Caspi, a prominent lawyer, also came out in Olmert's defense. Yitzhak Livni, one of Olmert's old friends in the media, also made the rounds, as did a whole lineup of supporters. Their message was clear: They were not going to be awed by the harsh verdict. Never mind that an experienced judge decided to convict Olmert of bribery charges as if he was a crime boss. They were not going to share the public's sense of shock, despite Rozen being an honest judge, despite the long hours of testimony in his courtroom and the long list of witnesses. Yes, that terrible thing called a bribe which "blinds the eyes of the wise" (Deuteronomy 16:19), had no impact on Ehud's groupies, who somehow forgot what the biblical prophets said: "Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; every one loveth bribes, and followeth after rewards" (Isaiah 1:23). They don't want to deal with substance. They are singularly focused on picking the verdict apart. Where is the tangible evidence, they cry. Where was the quid pro quo, they lament. Why did Rozen, who heard Olmert's brother Yossi testify twice, choose to believe the first testimony, when he said he had indeed received money from the late state's witness Shmuel Dechner? They believe these questions are their ace in the hole. And Olmert will use it during his appeal. He will also try to exploit the testimony of Avraham Natan, who said he witnessed the Dechner-Yossi Olmert transaction but later recanted this part of his testimony. Rozen considered his U-turn as unbecoming of someone who has served as Israel's civil service commissioner. Did someone try to tamper with his testimony? Some could be tempted to think that the judge had it all wrong, that Natan's second testimony accurately reflects the truth, and that Olmert's brother was a credible witness despite his problematic testimony. That is just utter nonsense. Those who sat in the courtroom know where the truth lies. Yossi Olmert testified via video conference from New York. Prosecutors Liat Ben-Ari and Jonathan Tadmor traveled with Ehud Olmert and his attorney Roy Blecher to watch Yossi testify. But Yossi, who had told investigators that he had received some 500,000 shekels ($143,000), vehemently denied any such transaction once he was on the witness stand. Blecher then made a surprise move -- he said he would support the state's motion to declare Yossi a hostile witness. Why, then, would anyone believe Ehud when he appeals and says his brother did not receive anything- This was just one small example. Blecher's assertion, if not concession, was his first mistake. He made the second mistake while sitting down for an interview with Channel 2's Ilana Dayan. During that interview he acted like a bull in a china shop. He called Olmert's former bureau chief Shula Zaken "a liar." This statement, and Ehud Olmert's decision to distance himself from her despite her supportive testimony -- as if she did what she had to and now she could be discarded -- caused her to turn on him. And this was despite her earlier willingness to take the fall for him. This is what led her to sign the plea bargain with the state, despite her earlier misgivings about such a deal. She provided the Israel Police with potentially damning testimony that is supported by embarrassing recordings. This could result in another Olmert conviction. When the state asked for a stay of verdict because of the newly struck plea bargain with Zaken, Olmert's lawyers registered their protest. By doing that, they hastened his conviction. They should have played for time, as in that famous Jewish tale where a Jew said he could teach his dog to talk in five years because who knew what would happen over such a long period. Olmert's lawyers were very close to supporting the stay, but they ultimately voiced their opposition. Olmert was the last defendant to do so. He could have won a few more few months in which he could have once again hit the lecture circuit and given speeches on morality and make more business transactions. But he gave up that option. He knows why. Many others know, too. The state successfully used a gag order to keep the Zaken-Olmert recordings under wraps (including those which were aired by Ayala Hasson on Israel Radio). But ultimately, when Zaken testifies on possible obstruction of justice by Olmert and his people, it will be an earth-shattering event for the public. This will turn Olmert's apologists into buffoons. It will cause a tectonic shift that may ultimately put the system Olmert has presided over on full display. The Movement for Quality Government in Israel said the Israel Police should hold Zaken in protective custody. Government watchdog Ometz said investigators should try to see whether the alleged obstruction of justice was directed at her lawyers too. Do those two organizations know something we don't-
