Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's estranged bureau chief Shula Zaken was sentenced on Thursday. Prior to the ruling, I devised a road map of sorts, a guide to the perplexed to deal with her complex legal situation. It all boiled down to the tentative plea bargain she struck with prosecutors, under which she was to serve 11 months in prison. Tel Aviv District Judge David Rozen was presented with the terms of the agreement. Both sides had 45 minutes to explain what led them to the deal. Zaken said a few words. Rozen, as expected, handed down a ruling after a few minutes. Naturally, the prosecution said it would like to keep the "Olmert tapes" sealed as it deliberates possible obstruction of justice charges. The prosecution wanted the deal because it paves the way for relitigating the Talansky and Rishon Tours affairs. Olmert's acquittal in those two cases are now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. The state wants the Supreme Court to send those two cases back to the lower court and have Zaken take the stand again. The state figured that making a state's witness deal with Zaken was necessary if it was to be allowed to present the "Zaken Diaries" as evidence. The "Zaken Diaries" were discovered when former State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss searched Zaken's computer; they involve personal files that list the various transactions that took place in Olmert's office. As long as Zaken invoked her right to remain silent, these documents were inadmissible. As a consequence, the three-judge panel in the Jerusalem District Court that dealt with the Rishon Tours and Talansky affairs was not privy to the potentially damning information they contained. But now her willingness to testify against Olmert changes things, the state says. That is why they said that, regardless of what Rozen decided, they would ask the Supreme Court to send the cases back to the lower court. All eyes are now on the Supreme Court. By accepting the appeal in the Talansky and Rishon Tours affairs, the court might signal that there is no need to call Zaken back to the stand. But they will likely let her retake the stand if their deliberations reach an impasse. Zaken's testimony could prove decisive when it comes to Olmert's culpability. When those two affairs are resolved, there would still be the Holyland affair. Olmert is going to appeal his bribery convictions. The state, which was not allowed to name Zaken as a witness on the eve of the verdict, might appeal too. But once the Supreme Court weighs in on the matter, the decision could boil down to two options: The justices could decide to uphold Rozen's ruling and say that there is no need for any more testimony, or they could say that they are unable to make a decision without Zaken testifying again. In that sense Zaken's plea bargain is Rozen's insurance policy. It secures and bolsters his verdict. The state would like Zaken to testify anywhere possible, especially if they feel that Rozen's verdict is weakening or if they sense that the justices will uphold the acquittal in the Talansky and Rishon Tours cases. As fascinating as this legal chess game is, there is also the public interest. The public should be allowed to exercise its right to know what was said between Zaken and Olmert behind closed doors. In fact, it is a moral imperative to let the public in on the diaries, even if this is carried out in an extra-judicial manner well after the Supreme Court hands down its decisions. Olmert's spin doctors keep telling us the media has overblown the severity of his convictions. But facts are the best way to counter that claim.
