Analysis | 'I'll Get the Same Result' |

AG Was Forced to Throw Out Main Case Against Former Israeli Foreign Minister in Favor of Trimmed Indictment

Considering a conviction in Lieberman's case critical to the war on public corruption, Weinstein states he’ll take it all the way - even to Israel's Supreme Court - if an acquittal is issued Wednesday.

Gidi Weitz
Gidi Weitz
Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
Gidi Weitz
Gidi Weitz

“I’ll get the same result – a conviction and a finding of moral turpitude – quicker and more efficiently this way, without getting bogged down in a case full of holes that is liable to collapse in what would turn out to be a Yom Kippur for the prosecution.” That, effectively, is what Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has been saying in private conversations for the past year, after he decided to close the main case against former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and make do with an anorexic indictment focused on an improper ambassadorial appointment.

Weinstein will soon conclude his fourth year in office, and Lieberman is the first senior politician he has indicted. This meager harvest has shaped his public image as the best attorney general the well-connected could ever dream of – an image Weinstein indignantly rejects, and which he hopes a conviction in the Lieberman case will dispel.

The attorney general has served as a kind of chief prosecutor in this case: He met regularly with the courtroom prosecutors, planned their cross-examination of Lieberman and read transcripts of the hearings. He also instructed his staff to spoon-feed legal reporters and analysts with the main points of the prosecution’s narrative – a tactic normally used only by high-priced defense attorneys.

The attorney general’s activism in this case has an ironic aspect: Last December, after years of playing for time, Weinstein decided to bury a case that involved truly weighty suspicions against Lieberman: allegations that he secretly controlled straw companies to which interested parties funneled millions of dollars. At the same time, Weinstein agonized over what to do about the appendix to that case – the ambassadorial appointment.

His defense attorney’s soul told him there was something ungentlemanly about filing such a truncated indictment against Lieberman, after two decades of investigations that had led nowhere. He was particularly afraid of the response of his reference group, the club to which he used to belong: “What will the white-collar defense attorneys say if I file this indictment after closing the main case?”

It’s hard to say what ultimately motivated Weinstein to put Lieberman in the dock. Today, he claims he always viewed the former foreign minister’s actions as corrupt and unacceptable, and that he couldn’t overlook any public figure involving himself in such a blatant conflict of interests – the promotion of an ambassador who betrayed the public’s trust in a previous posting by giving Lieberman confidential information about a police investigation against him.

Weinstein’s opponents, including some from the prosecution’s own ranks, are skeptical. They claim that what chiefly impelled him to file the indictment was his desperate desire both to deflect the arrows of public criticism and to remove the sting from the inevitable petitions to the High Court of Justice against his decision to close the main case.

But either way, the furrows of doubt are gone from Weinstein’s face. He tell his associates that a conviction in this case is critical to the war on public corruption, and that he’ll take it all the way – even to the Supreme Court – if Lieberman is acquitted, or if the trial court convicts him without ruling that his actions involved moral turpitude, a finding that would bar him from politics for years.

Yet despite his belief in the importance of a conviction, none of Weinstein’s associates were willing to bet on the trial’s outcome last night. The partial acquittals of two other senior politicians, Tzachi Hanegbi and Ehud Olmert, stunned the prosecution and taught it – and us – that in Israel of 2013, the legal fate of senior politicians is fluid, deceptive and sometimes subject to hidden considerations that don’t necessarily have anything to do with cool-headed legal analysis of the evidence.

Lieberman with Sofa Landver at a Likkud-Yisrael-Beitenu Knesset meeting. November 4, 2013.Credit: Emil Salman
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein.Credit: Olivier Fitoussi

Click the alert icon to follow topics:



Automatic approval of subscriber comments.
From $1 for the first month

Already signed up? LOG IN


Charles Lindbergh addressing an America First Committee rally on October 3, 1941.

Ken Burns’ Brilliant ‘The U.S. and the Holocaust’ Has Only One Problem

The projected rise in sea level on a beach in Haifa over the next 30 years.

Facing Rapid Rise in Sea Levels, Israel Could Lose Large Parts of Its Coastline by 2050

Prime Minister Yair Lapid, this month.

Lapid to Haaretz: ‘I Have Learned to Respect the Left’

“Dubi,” whose full name is secret in keeping with instructions from the Mossad.

The Mossad’s Fateful 48 Hours Before the Yom Kippur War

Tal Dilian.

As Israel Reins in Its Cyberarms Industry, an Ex-intel Officer Is Building a New Empire

Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III and a British synagogue.

How the Queen’s Death Changes British Jewry’s Most Distinctive Prayer