Not tricks, no treats

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was found guilty of taking a bribe, then sent to prison for 18 months of turpitude on top of another eight months from a separate conviction. But instead of silently walking out of the courtroom with his head lowered, instead of expressing remorse and tiptoeing his way out, he launched festivities, as if he has somehow emerged victorious. Only in Israel.

Olmert was acquitted on the main bribery count, the one dealing with the transaction made to his brother, Yossi. But this acquittal was made possible just because of reasonable doubt; this is hardly a knockout victory. Meanwhile, on the second bribery count, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's conviction without any qualms. But Olmert? As far as he was concerned, he had just been awarded the Knight of Good Government Award by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel.

We must accept the decisions of both the lower court and Supreme Court with reverence and humility. This applies to both parts of Tuesday's decision, including Olmert's acquittal on a key bribery count. This is what the rule of law is all about. It is a good thing that justices act when there is doubt.

There are still three things that need to be said about this entire ordeal:

• I prefer Tel Aviv District Judge David Rozen's legal analysis over the more lenient interpretation of the Supreme Court. In this case, the more stringent House of Shammai should have prevailed, because when the defendant has served in high office, it is more than appropriate to hold him to a higher standard, with no exceptions. Rozen, who was presented with a concrete and comprehensive set of evidence, did just that and decided to convict Olmert on the most damning bribery count, which involved about $130,000. The Supreme Court was much more forgiving in its ruling on Tuesday (with the exception of the Justice Salim Joubran, who wanted to uphold Rozen's verdict on Olmert).

• The secret documents and recordings held by Olmert's former bureau chief Shula Zaken should have been presented as evidence much earlier. After Zaken signed a plea bargain, the Supreme Court ordered the Jerusalem District court to reevaluate Olmert's acquittal in the Talansky Affair based on the Zaken-Olmert conversations she had recorded. The lower court complied and ultimately, after Zaken took the stand, decided to convict Olmert of breach of trust and fraud, as well as send him to eight months in prison. It is still unclear why the very justices who found reasonable doubt on Olmert's complicity were also eager to admit Zaken's private files as evidence. They should have applied the same standard for both counts, and this would have helped them in their deliberations. What if Zaken reveals a smoking gun that shows Olmert had knowledge of the money that Dechner paid his brother? Who knows if she has such proof.

• The State Attorney's Office has dragged its feet in another case, the one dealing with obstruction of justice on the part of Olmert and one of his defense attorneys. Zaken elaborated on their alleged misconduct during a lengthy interview on Channel 2.

What's taking the State Attorney's Office so long?

Olmert's legal travails are far from over. The Supreme Court gave him a celebrity discount, and it is now ready to hear the appeals in his second trial. Both the state and Olmert appealed the outcome of that trial. The Supreme Court's decision may ultimately increase corruption, but truth to be told, the severity of the sentence is not crucial. The 26 months -- his combined sentence, without taking into account early release on good behavior -- is still a long period of time.

On Tuesday, Olmert's defense team said they were trying to find ways to keep him out of prison. And there were indeed rumors of various legal maneuvers that are currently underway to achieve just that. But the Israel Prison Service will probably not play along and Olmert will arrive at the jailhouse on his surrender date.

Some of Olmert's well-connected buddies have already tried to test the waters for a presidential pardon. President Reuven Rivlin will rebuff those efforts, even if Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked submits their request. In any event, the courts have already ruled that clemency requests must include an acceptance of guilt and remorse. I suspect Olmert will refuse to do so, even after he puts on his orange jumpsuit.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו