The final battle
"Why cash-" Justice Salim Joubran asked former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's defense team on Tuesday. If everything was by the book, why didn't Olmert let the money he had received go directly to his bank account rather than to a safe?
Olmert's attorney, the eloquent Navot Tel-Zur, shot back: These funds originated with contributors who wanted to remain anonymous.
They could have used a cashier's check, Joubran insisted. It wouldn't have mentioned them by name either. Tel-Zur provided an answer and moved on. Many questions were raised: What happened to the 150,000 shekels ($41,200) that were stored in the safe, which belonged to Olmert's former confidant Uri Messer? Why did the American businessman Morris (Moshe) Talansky hand Olmert cash in a New York hotel? Once again, the case boiled down to individual recollections.
Although another hearing is set to take place on Thursday, the main deliberations were over as of Wednesday. Chief Justice Asher Dan Grunis practically harassed both parties with his interjections and repeatedly told them to "keep it short."
Navit Negev, who managed to get Olmert acquitted in the Rishon Tours double-billing case, told the justices her presentation would take no more than 20 minutes. Apparently she felt that she would emerge victorious again and that the lower court ruling would be upheld.
But state attorney Aryeh Peter refused to back down. When the justices challenged him, saying not all of Olmert's overseas trips were about grafting money, he said: "So what, a pickpocket doesn't prey on everyone who passes by."
The onus was on Naomi Granot, who represented the State Prosecution. She was tasked with persuading the judges that Olmert violated the law when he accepted cash-stuffed envelopes from Talansky. She held her own and stayed calm, even when Grunis kept pressing her to hurry up. Only as her presentation drew to a close did she say Olmert essentially accepted a bribe, even though the official counts were fraud and breach of trust. This is when Shula Zaken, his former bureau chief, took out her hand-held fan to cool herself down (Zaken had been accused of helping Olmert improperly receive and handle the funds from Talansky, but she was acquitted by the lower court as well).
The appeal to the Supreme Court is the final battle over Olmert's innocence or guilt. The former premier is now at the forefront of the war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. The war will then shift to the ongoing Holyland affair, where Olmert is still standing trial over his actions as mayor of Jerusalem in the 1990s.
This is a make-or-break battle. Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein watered down the letter of indictment against former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and had him stand trial for breach of trust and fraud (State Prosecutor Moshe Lador and his aide Avia Alef wanted to include charges of bribery and witness tampering). Thus, the two trials will be a watershed when it comes to white-collar crimes in high office. The state will then proceed to set a low threshold for new defendants and suspects, hoping it manages to convict the mayors and a former chief rabbi who are currently on trial.
It's hard to predict how Olmert will fare. Veteran journalists and attorneys who have been witness to many legal battles could not infer anything from the justices' questions or body language. It wasn't clear which way Grunis and his peers were leaning. Conviction or acquittal? And if the former, on what counts? Everything? Just on the Talansky affair? Maybe parts of the Talansky affair? Would they ignore the Rishon Tours double-billing scheme?
But the Supreme Court was not bustling with activity on Wednesday. A group of tourists from Raanana were seated in the back benches. But in a few months' time, when the court renders its decision and draws the curtain on an affair that has rocked the country for five years, things will look much different. The court will be packed.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו