End the foot-dragging

Two months after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell, one of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's attorneys, Eyal Rosovsky, has seized on that ruling. He has asked the Israeli Supreme Court to consider the U.S. ruling as it deliberates on Olmert's appeal against his conviction in the Talansky trial, which focused on illicit cash donations by American businessman Morris Talansky.

By all means, let the justices read everything that may be germane to the case, even though the McDonnell case has no practical implications for what is before the Israeli Supreme Court.

Rosovsky is just doing his job. He is duty-bound to do whatever is legally possible to help his client, even if the client has committed serious crimes. Duly representing a client may mean resorting to various foot-dragging tactics and clever tricks. There is nothing wrong in doing that.

I am not taking issue with the conduct of Olmert's defense team or with that of the State Attorney's Office. I am taking issue with the Supreme Court judges who were assigned to the case. When the court deliberated on Olmert's bribery conviction in the Holyland trial, they refused to admit new evidence -- a text message that appeared to reinforce Olmert's guilty verdict in the Tel Aviv District Court. As a result, they were able to find reasonable doubt in the main bribery count involving some 500,000 shekels ($131,000) and decided to partially overturn Judge David Rozen's courageous verdict. That was their right, however outrageous the outcome was.

When the Talansky case reached the Supreme Court for the first time and new evidence came to light -- the egregious conversation between Olmert and his former bureau chief Shula Zaken -- they acted differently: They said the conversation was admissible and sent the case back to the Jerusalem District Court, where Zaken agreed to testify about the illicit funds that Olmert received. As a result, the lower court decided to overturn Olmert's not-guilty verdict on the main counts, and sentenced him to eight months in prison. The new verdict and sentence were appealed, and now Olmert's defense team would like the court to take the American ruling into consideration, even though the Talansky verdict deals with breach of trust and fraud charges, not bribery.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in the Talansky case. When it became clear that Olmert went to great lengths to obstruct justice in the case, the State Attorney's Office agreed to forgo a lengthy trial and offered a plea bargain that initially included no active prison time. But the Jerusalem Magistrates' Court said it was unacceptable for Olmert to walk after committing such a grave crime, and ruled that he would remain behind bars for another month.

The five justices deliberating his appeal have taken their time. It is as if they have taken a page from former Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who let his draft indictment of Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman collect dust and ultimately become obsolete. The foot-dragging in the highest court in the land is shameful. Even if it handed down a ruling today, it would not undo the embarrassment.

Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran and his colleagues on the panel hearing the case must act with courage and stay true to their convictions. If they want to absolve Olmert of any wrongdoing in the Talansky case, they have every right to do so, but they must do it with their heads held high and without any equivocation. But their current conduct essentially voids the Talansky verdict of any meaning. Chief Justice Miriam Naor must publicly pressure them to act swiftly, even though she cannot force them to do so.

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