The collapse of Olmert's house of cards
The guessing game was in full swing. In several minutes time, the court was to hand down its verdict. Will former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert walk, like in 2012, or will he be convicted?
As far as the prosecutors were concerned, the trial could not have unfolded better. They had the digital records from his estranged bureau chief Shula Zaken (the "Zaken Diaries"), which were extracted from his office some nine years ago by the State Comptroller's Office but were inadmissible during his first trial; they had the secretly recorded conversations Zaken had handed over to the state when she signed a plea bargain in the Holyland trial (another corruption case involving Olmert). And then there were the two different Olmerts: In the first trial, he agreed to take the stand; in the second trial, he refused.
He was hanging on to an unreliable lifeline: statistics. Haaretz reporter Revital Hovel said district judges who hold retrials tend to stick to their original ruling. Then there was the timing of the verdict. Olmert figured that they were unlikely to hand down a guilty verdict just before Passover.
When the judges emerged, the commotion stopped. Olmert knew that according to court procedure, judges have to announce a non-guilty verdict shortly after calling the court into session. But the judge, one of three, just kept reading on and on. The word "acquitted" was left unsaid. Olmert's facial expression was all over the place; his fingers tapped on his phone like drumsticks. He was probably texting his family members, telling them that he had been convicted, hoping they would hear it from him rather than from online news outlets who were anxiously awaiting the three-judge panel's decision.
Olmert's house of cards just collapsed to its very foundation, taking his lies with it. The verdict was very similar to the one issued in the Holyland trial a year ago. In 2012, Olmert said he did not give Zaken tainted money, only to be contradicted by her secret recordings in the retrial. Judge Rivka Fried-Feldman rebuked her colleagues on the panel, writing that they should have convicted Olmert back then, too.
Olmert's corruption saga is one big pool of turpitude that tainted his entire conduct. He tried to publicly take down State Attorney Moshe Lador after the 2012 trial. Olmert's surrogates even said Lador should kill himself because of the partial acquittal. Back then, a day after the verdict was announced, Yedioth Ahronoth's front page featured the following headlines: "Lador's guilt" (Nahum Barnea); "The lost years" (Sima Kadmon); "The Victory" (Boaz Okon); "The failure" (Rafi Ginat); "The collusion" (Shimon Shiffer). Would any of these pundits be interested in Lador's number to call him and apologize?
Perhaps Olmert should apologize to former State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss for portraying him as a circus performer. Lindenstrauss was the one who set the Olmert investigation in motion. Professor Yaron Zelekha unmasked Olmert, who disparaged him in return. A convicted Olmert should ask for their forgiveness, and the nation should thank them.
The verdict is a victory for the rule of law. It is a victory for democracy's strength and a for the natural Jewish inclination to have justice prevail and wrongdoing averted. In the spirit of Rabbi Ishmael, "Cursed be those who accept bribes."
There is still a long way to go before we can say "mission accomplished." The lead prosecutor, Uri Korb, who was on the receiving end of Olmert's onslaught, will probably ask the court to send him to prison, on top of the six years he already got in the Holyland verdict. It is too bad that this saga continues: The Supreme Court has yet to rule on his appeal in the Holyland trial, more than a year after a verdict was issued. It is time for Olmert to undergo a paradigm shift. He should take stock and do some soul-searching. He must take this step if he wants to return to the moral fold. He should stop fighting the forces of justice and truth. But he has shown no signs of relenting, even though no one stood up in his defense on Monday.
There are hardly pro-Olmert allies left to do his bidding and ask for compassion. Army Radio's Yael Dan asked me on Monday whether the image of a prime minister behind bars would shock me. My response was in the form of a question: Isn't it shocking that a bribe-taker became prime minister? He could get compassion only after he comes to terms with the severity of his crimes and owns up to his conduct.
He must also listen to his inner wisdom: He must stop trying to breach the walls of justice. He has tried and failed repeatedly. He must enter into negotiations with prosecutors. This should culminate with a grand plea bargain, one that considers his accomplishments and treats him fairly. His punishment should be proportional and let him lead a normal life once he pays back his debt to society.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו