Magistrates' Court Judge Avital Chen grilled the state prosecutors on Tuesday, drilling down on their decision to forgo a tougher sentence in the obstruction of justice case against former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. He essentially called it a sellout. "Didn't you have enough evidence-" he asked. What's worse is that the state agreed, as part of a plea bargain, to drop the charge that would have carried the most severe sentence in that case -- witness tampering. We may eventually find out why the state treated Olmert with kid gloves on that count, but only after the case against his former lawyer, Navot Tel Zur, is resolved (Tel Zur is accused of partaking in Olmert's efforts to dissuade his former bureau chief, Shula Zaken, from testifying against him). There is a theory that Tel Zur -- a distinguished lawyer -- is the state attorney's darling and that is why Olmert got a celebrity discount. I believe the sentence Olmert agreed to as part of this plea bargain was reasonable. It involves a six month prison sentence that would overlap with his other sentences -- in addition to moral turpitude. Such a sentence should be imposed on anyone who engages in obstruction of justice. Some of the Sons of Light have taken issue with my stance, accusing me of going soft on Olmert. Chen may very well agree with them and decide to prolong Olmert's stay in prison by one month, rather than let the entire six-month sentence overlap. This may be the right thing to do, but it is beside the point. Chen could also let the plea bargain stand while still lambasting the state, and that would be regarded as a reasonable decision too. On Tuesday, Olmert missed an opportunity to shore up his image. He refused to own up to his other crimes, those mentioned in his previous two convictions. During the hearing, he maintained that he never committed fraud and breach of trust, and that he never took bribe money. He will most likely maintain his innocence well after he is out of prison, in about 18 months (assuming he is released early on good behavior and doesn't have to serve more time). But Tuesday's hearing was different, as this was the first time that he confessed to a major crime: obstruction of justice. He had a ridiculous explanation that this was a result of exhaustion and that he was simply trying to spare his family from the long legal battles ahead. He admitted that his conversation with Zaken were self destructive, but he had to say that, since this was the only way to get a lenient sentence. This decision is understandable and even reasonable. Having admitted to obstruction of justice, he could have taken the opportunity -- perhaps his only opportunity -- to undo some of the damage emanating from the ugly conversation with Zaken. A tormented Olmert should have stood before the cameras and asked for forgiveness from the family members and friends who have stood by him until the very end of his criminal path. He should have expressed remorse and sought reconciliation. But instead, he just tried to explain away his actions as a consequence of exhaustion. It won't be long before we hear about his "deteriorating" health, as part of a ploy to get his sentence reduced. Contrition is simply not part of Olmert's vocabulary.
