Yaakov Lappin and dan izenberg
During his tenure as minister of industry, trade and labor, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert received, in person, cash envelopes from US financier Morris Talansky, State Attorney Moshe Lador said Monday in the Supreme Court, adding that new details of Olmert's investigation would come to light in the coming hours, or, at the very latest, on Tuesday.
"According to suspicions, while serving as a minister in the Israeli government Ehud Olmert received cash envelopes from Moshe Talansky, both in Israel through his office manager at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, Shula Zaken, and in the United States," Lador said during a deliberation of an appeal by the prime ministers' lawyers against the decision to allow the state to take a "preliminary testimony" from Talanksy.
Lador revealed the nature of the allegations against Olmert. "The size of these sums will be assessed according to the testimony that will be heard (Talansky's)," he said, "including the naming of sums, [delivered] both during Talansky's visits in Israel and also when Talansky met with Olmert from time to time for short meetings."
According to Lador, during these meetings, Talansky "transferred the sums in dollars, in cash, inside envelopes, to Olmert."
The state attorney confirmed that there were two suspects in the case - though he did not state outright that the second suspect was Zaken - and said that the suspicions also pertained to the period in which Olmert served as mayor of Jerusalem.
Earlier, Olmert's lawyers argued that their client's rights would be violated should the Supreme Court uphold the Jerusalem District Court ruling to permit police to take "preliminary testimony" from Talanksy.
"The prime minister is not entitled to an excess of rights, but it is inconceivable that he be stripped of all his rights as a regular citizen, and as one who is being interrogated," Eli Zohar, an attorney for Olmert, told the justices hearing the case.
"The request for a [preliminary testimony] is not necessary, and there is no evidence that it supports the position of the prosecution, that it is impossible to take the testimony of Talansky [at a later time]," Zohar continued, adding that "permitting the preliminary testimony would be a dramatic change to criminal law."
On Sunday, the state told the Supreme Court that Olmert and his lawyers had no one but themselves to blame for the fact that they had so few days left to prepare for Sunday's cross-examination of Talansky.
The prosecutors' assertion was included in the state's response to appeals filed last week by attorneys Eli Zohar, Ro'i Blecher and Nevot Tel-Tzur, who are representing Olmert, and Micha Fetman, who is representing the prime minister's former bureau chief, Shula Zaken.
"With regard to the claim [by the appellants] regarding the large amount of evidence in the possession of the prosecution and the difficulty to prepare for the cross-examination of [Talansky] according to the timetable that has been set, it should be pointed out that the lower court's decision was conveyed to the parties on Friday afternoon (May 9)," the prosecutors wrote. "The state informed the counsel for the appellants that it was ready to hand over most of the evidence by Friday evening! Nevertheless, the defense, for its own reasons, did not do anything to receive the material up to this very moment."
The state accused the lawyers of deliberately dragging their feet. The prosecutors - Lador, Jerusalem District Attorney Eli Abarbanel and Tamar Boorstein, who is in charge of criminal matters in the State Attorney's Office - wrote that while the Jerusalem District Court had been quick to hear the state's request to examine and cross-examine Talansky and quick in handing down its decision, it had taken the defense attorneys six days after it was handed down to appeal against it.
In the first section of its response to the appeal, the state repeated the arguments it had presented to the lower court to the effect that despite his promises, Talansky might not return to Israel once he left because he would not want to testify against Olmert, his friend of 15 years.
The state also rejected the argument raised in the appeal that there were other ways to obtain Talansky's testimony, even if he did not return, should the state indict Olmert and Zaken. For one thing, taking testimony or holding a closed-circuit hearing from the US would require Talansky's cooperation. For another, since a crucial element in the testimony would be the sincerity and credibility of the witness, it would be essential for the judges to see and hear the testimony from up close.
Regarding the appellant's argument that the pre-trial testimony would harm the suspect's rights, including the fact that the defense lawyers would be questioning Talansky while the investigation was still going on, the state argued that this factor had been known to the legislators who enacted the law allowing pre-trial testimony, yet they had found cause to approve it anyway. The disadvantages to the suspects would be taken into account by the judge, should the case go to trial, the state continued.
Furthermore, since the defense was certain Talansky would return to testify should there be a trial, they would get the chance to question him in court after having studied all the evidence in the case.
Original Source