Mulroney's testimony in Parliament

[gc1765]

That poll was taken Dec. 4-10, before Mulroney testified. I was referring to the next poll which will gauge opinions on the impact of Mulroney's testimony.

Do you really think Mulroney's testimony will change the majority of Canadians minds? I think most Canadians already know the story, including Mulroney's version, and they don't like what they hear.

[August1991]

Seriously? You don't think he broke any laws?

No, Muroney broke no laws.

As to the poll results above, this is politics, gc - not a law court.

The lesson is that the Liberal government got the RCMP to investigate Mulroney and leak a letter about it. Mulroney had no choice but to defend himself. The issue has come back because Shreiber wants to avoid extradition and the Liberals are always happy to make the Conservatives squirm and use innuendo to associate someone with something sinister. This is how the Liberals operate. The Liberals did the same trying to stick *scary, scary* to Harper. [it's the old story of the watch thief. Al: Hey Bob, I heard you were mixed up in a gang of watch thieves. Bob: Yes, my watch was stolen.]

Compare this with Chretien. Do we know anything about his dealings? Has Chretien ever explained anything? When Chretien appeared before Gomery, he joked around and avoided questions.

The temptation must be great to have the RCMP investigate Chretien and then leak a letter or two to the press. I don't think Harper will do that because it's not his style. And I think (or hope) that this style of politics is changing in Canada.

That's exactly what it is. What is the definition of "dealings". Seems to me that a business deal would be considered a dealing. If that's not bad enough, at the very least he omitted a very important aspect of his relationship with Schreiber. Apparently a "cup of coffee" was worth mentioning, but a so-called business deal worth $225,000 wasn't worth mentioning?

You clearly don't understand the rules of questioning in Quebec. You also didn't watch Mulroney's testimony.

It appears that the Liberal/Chretien style smear tactics work on you. Well, as I said, that's how Liberals operate - Karl Rove style. They're very, very competitive.

Edited December 14, 2007 by August1991

[capricorn]

Do you really think Mulroney's testimony will change the majority of Canadians minds?

Maybe not the majority but enough to change the numbers from the poll you linked which was taken before Mulroney testified.

I think most Canadians already know the story, including Mulroney's version, and they don't like what they hear.

That's very presumptuous of you. Where and how would most Canadians have already heard Mulroney's version prior to today?

[gc1765]

No, Muroney broke no laws.

Do you honestly believe Mulroney's story? Do you honestly believe that the money was legitimate, despite the fact that it was paid in cash, put into a safety deposit box, no records, no contracts, no receipts? Despite Mulroney saying he had no "dealings" with Schreiber, saying through a spokesman that he never received any money, claiming it was for a pasta business - which changed to peacekeeping vehicules. I know Mulroney is very smooth and all, but to be honest I think he pulled a fast one on you.

As to the poll results above, this is politics, gc - not a law court.

As I mentioned before, I don't think Mulroney would be found guilty in a court of law. If I was a betting man I'd say he's 95% certainly guilty - but that's not enough for a conviction.

[gc1765]

You clearly don't understand the rules of questioning in Quebec.

You're right, I don't. Please explain to me why when questioned about his relationship with Schreiber, he was allowed to mention having a cup of coffee, but not the $225,000 deal?

You also didn't watch Mulroney's testimony.

I watched most of it. Not all - but most of it.

It appears that the Liberal/Chretien style smear tactics work on you. Well, as I said, that's how Liberals operate - Karl Rove style. They're very, very competitive.

This has nothing to do with smear tactics. This has nothing to do with anything the Liberals have said, or anything Schreiber has said. Working only with the facts: Cash received from a shady figure, put into a safety deposit box, no records, receipts, contracts, denied under oath, denied through a spokesman, changed the story from being about pasta to being about peacekeeping vehicules, etc.. My question is WHY? Mulroney hasn't adequately explained the why, IMO, which makes him look guilty.

[gc1765]

That's very presumptuous of you. Where and how would most Canadians have already heard Mulroney's version prior to today?

The fact that's it's been in the news for I don't know how long now...

[jdobbin]

One Ethics Committee member asked if Mulroney would produce his tax file to back up his testimony. Mulroney was not keen. I wonder if the Committee has the power to obtain those tax files.

That is what they talked about on Charles Adler today. There are some constitutional experts who think that the Parliamentary committee has broad powers and can subpoena those files. And if the committee can't, I think that Harper should let an inquiry do that.

Edited December 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Oh well, I suppose the next poll will indicate whether your opinion is predominant among the Canadian public. It remains to be seen.

The poll at the beginning of the week showed that many Canadians don't believe Mulroney. I don't know that his testimony will change that opinion even with the ringing endorsement from the Conservative party.

[capricorn]

The fact that's it's been in the news for I don't know how long now...

You admitted in a response to August that you have not watched all of Mulroney's testimony. I also doubt you watched "most of it". Until you view Mulroney's entire testimony your comments on the matter bear little weight with me. In any event, IMO your mind was made up well before Mulroney testified so why bother.

[capricorn]

The poll at the beginning of the week showed that many Canadians don't believe Mulroney. I don't know that his testimony will change that opinion even with the ringing endorsement from the Conservative party.

Hey, you're the expert on polls. What would I know about what would sway Canadians in their opinions.

[Visionseeker]

He is a crafty devil, isn't he?

He is indeed. But he made two missteps in his testimony that should cost him his $2.1 million settlement and, quite possibly, a lot more than that.

Contradictions under oath are a serious matter.

[gc1765]

You admitted in a response to August that you have not watched all of Mulroney's testimony. I also doubt you watched "most of it".

Why do you doubt that?

Until you view Mulroney's entire testimony your comments on the matter bear little weight with me.

While I'm quite certain that you watched all of Mulroney's testimony today, all of Schreiber's testimonies - not just in this committee but in all relevant cases - read all of the affidavits filed by Schreiber, watched/read all of the testimony in Mulroney's lawsuit against the government, read all of the press reports related to the matter, etc...Well, most people, like myself, just don't have that much time to spend.

In any event, IMO your mind was made up well before Mulroney testified so why bother.

Prior to his testimony, I thought the whole thing looked very suspicious. There were many unanswered questions in my mind which I was hoping Mulroney would clear up and clear his name. I saw his attempts to answer all those important questions in my mind - nothing he said convinced me otherwise

[gc1765]

He is indeed. But he made two missteps in his testimony that should cost him his $2.1 million settlement and, quite possibly, a lot more than that.

Contradictions under oath are a serious matter.

Just out of curiousity, what are the two missteps you are referring to?

[jdobbin]

Mulroney clearly explained why. He was questioned in Quebec according to witness rules in Quebec. Nine government lawyers questioned him about Airbus and Mulroney was under no obligation to answer other questions. In any case, they didn't ask. As Mulroney made plain, the transcript makes it clear that Mulroney answered truthfully the questions in context. This is not a Clinton-style parsing of definitions.

If you are curious, I suggest you go and listen to Mulroney's testimony.

Incidentally, Mulroney did not receive one penny of the $2.1 million settlement. The money was used to pay his legal and advisor bills.

The testimony in Quebec was that he didn't have a relationship with Shreiber. Clearly this was a lie under oath. I saw the testimony Mulroney made today and it was wholly inadequate about why he withheld the information.

The money paid for the defamation suit that Mulroney launched should never have been paid out based on what we know now. Mulroney was dishonest about his dealings with Shreiber and the government should sue for payment back based on his previously false testimony.

[capricorn]

He is indeed. But he made two missteps in his testimony that should cost him his $2.1 million settlement and, quite possibly, a lot more than that.

What are those missteps you refer to? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

Contradictions under oath are a serious matter.

Have you identified any such contradictions? If so, please lay them out. In your opinion did the Ethics Committee identify those contradictions?

What is your suggestion for the way ahead? A full public inquiry and if so going how far back?

[jdobbin]

The lesson is that the Liberal government got the RCMP to investigate Mulroney and leak a letter about it. Mulroney had no choice but to defend himself. The issue has come back because Shreiber wants to avoid extradition and the Liberals are always happy to make the Conservatives squirm and use innuendo to associate someone with something sinister. This is how the Liberals operate. The Liberals did the same trying to stick *scary, scary* to Harper. [it's the old story of the watch thief. Al: Hey Bob, I heard you were mixed up in a gang of watch thieves. Bob: Yes, my watch was stolen.]

Compare this with Chretien. Do we know anything about his dealings? Has Chretien ever explained anything? When Chretien appeared before Gomery, he joked around and avoided questions.

The temptation must be great to have the RCMP investigate Chretien and then leak a letter or two to the press. I don't think Harper will do that because it's not his style. And I think (or hope) that this style of politics is changing in Canada.

You clearly don't understand the rules of questioning in Quebec. You also didn't watch Mulroney's testimony.

It appears that the Liberal/Chretien style smear tactics work on you. Well, as I said, that's how Liberals operate - Karl Rove style. They're very, very competitive.

The Liberals got the RCMP to investigate Harper? Citation for that? And now your recourse is to say how bad the Liberals are?

It is amazing to me how satisfied the Conservatives are with Mulroney and how he completely cleared his good name today.

Edited December 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[Carinthia]

No, Muroney broke no laws.

As to the poll results above, this is politics, gc - not a law court.

The lesson is that the Liberal government got the RCMP to investigate Mulroney and leak a letter about it. Mulroney had no choice but to defend himself. The issue has come back because Shreiber wants to avoid extradition and the Liberals are always happy to make the Conservatives squirm and use innuendo to associate someone with something sinister. This is how the Liberals operate. The Liberals did the same trying to stick *scary, scary* to Harper. [it's the old story of the watch thief. Al: Hey Bob, I heard you were mixed up in a gang of watch thieves. Bob: Yes, my watch was stolen.]

Compare this with Chretien. Do we know anything about his dealings? Has Chretien ever explained anything? When Chretien appeared before Gomery, he joked around and avoided questions.

The temptation must be great to have the RCMP investigate Chretien and then leak a letter or two to the press. I don't think Harper will do that because it's not his style. And I think (or hope) that this style of politics is changing in Canada.

You clearly don't understand the rules of questioning in Quebec. You also didn't watch Mulroney's testimony.

It appears that the Liberal/Chretien style smear tactics work on you. Well, as I said, that's how Liberals operate - Karl Rove style. They're very, very competitive.

I've always voted Liberal and I always will but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see Chretien nailed for what he has done. I certainly would like to see that and I was more than annoyed that he was allowed to dodge the bullit at the time. Just because Chretien has not been made to account for his misapropriation of funds doesn't mean that Mulroney should not be made to explain his er...rather unusual dealings. Just out of curiosity, did the Conservatives demand any serious accountability from the Liberals regarding Chretien? I really don't remember what went down on that one.

[capricorn]

Why do you doubt that?

Because you sound so inflexible in your opinion your comments suggest that no matter what, you see Mulroney as not credible.

While I'm quite certain that you watched all of Mulroney's testimony today, all of Schreiber's testimonies - Well, most people, like myself, just don't have that much time to spend.

You're right gc, I listened not once but twice to both testimonies as a matter of fact. I'm retired so I have plenty of time to do so. I understand that in your case you do not have that luxury and I appreciate that.

Prior to his testimony, I thought the whole thing looked very suspicious. There were many unanswered questions in my mind which I was hoping Mulroney would clear up and clear his name. I saw his attempts to answer all those important questions in my mind - nothing he said convinced me otherwise

Look, I agree this whole affair is difficult to wrap our head around. But having read all relevant media articles, heard both sides and evaluating the motives of both parties, i.e. Schreiber and Mulroney, I side with Mulroney. Mulroney is a former Canadian PM who governed this country well for 10 years, in a majority government, and Schreiber is a man whose main interest is to avoid extradition to Germany to face criminal charges and certain jail time.

I'm not saying that Mulroney is lily white in all of this. From what I've seen, Mulroney's "missteps" occurred when he was acting as a private citizen. I would hate to see taxpayers pay millions for something that will lead to a dead end and worse still, another successful lawsuit by Mulroney against the government that will leave all of us with egg on our faces.

[gc1765]

From what I've seen, Mulroney's "missteps" occurred when he was acting as a private citizen. I would hate to see taxpayers pay millions for something that will lead to a dead end and worse still, another successful lawsuit by Mulroney against the government that will leave all of us with egg on our faces.

Perhaps a better idea would be for the government to try and recover the $2.1 million from Mulroney, given that he lied under oath in the lawsuit where he won that $2.1 million, instead of spending millions on an inquiry?

[Topaz]

Let not forget that Mulroney is also a lawyer and being the PM he knew the rules all around. He also watched Schreiber testify so he knew how to present himself. There is still alot of questions and even if he can justify like why he took cash, it still makes people believe there more to his story he's not saying. Another point in his character is when he leave Ottawa, they took furniture that belong to Canada. It was reported he paid 125,000 for it, but it wasn't his to take and it would be antique handed down from MacDonald's era. One of the reporters, yesterday, said when the question was asked if he would return the money, the laughter we heard.. came from his kids. Also, at one time in questioning Ben a got a little ticked off and looked like he wanted to go to his dad's defensive. I'm sure is hard on both families, but these guys should have thought about that before doing business. As far as Harper and Mulroney, I say there is a connection, but one that will be hard to prove unless someone within the government, as a govt worker, comes forward and tells.

[Keepitsimple]

I watched the entire testimony and found it for the most part, credible. I still don't like the idea of the cash but as much as $225,000 sounds like a big amount, it's peanuts - especially when viewed as $75,000 per year. Mulroney probably gets $25,000 just for making a dinner speech. And the fact is, Schreiber has already proven to be a complete liar - with most statements under oath at one trial contradicting the "blockbuster" statements in his most recent afadavit. Mulroney's testimony on the other hand, is the first we have heard from him - and there is no reason to believe that his statements are false. There are several elements of Mulroney's testimony that can eventually be backed up - for example - did he make trips to Russia, China and France - surely there are people that he met who can corroborate. Did he deposit money in a NY Safety Deposit box - well, at least the Bank would have a "sign-in" sheet. Did a junior staffer drive Schreiber to Harrington or diod he arrive in a Limousine? These are things that can be corroborated - everything that comes from Schreiber cannot. How convenient. So far, what I have heard is that Mulroney used bad judgement in dealing with Schreiber as a private citizen - after he left office!

[Oleg Bach]

I watched the entire testimony and found it for the most part, credible. I still don't like the idea of the cash but as much as $225,000 sounds like a big amount, it's peanuts - especially when viewed as $75,000 per year. Mulroney probably gets $25,000 just for making a dinner speech. And the fact is, Schreiber has already proven to be a complete liar - with most statements under oath at one trial contradicting the "blockbuster" statements in his most recent afadavit. Mulroney's testimony on the other hand, is the first we have heard from him - and there is no reason to believe that his statements are false. There are several elements of Mulroney's testimony that can eventually be backed up - for example - did he make trips to Russia, China and France - surely there are people that he met who can corroborate. Did he deposit money in a NY Safety Deposit box - well, at least the Bank would have a "sign-in" sheet. Did a junior staffer drive Schreiber to Harrington or diod he arrive in a Limousine? These are things that can be corroborated - everything that comes from Schreiber cannot. How convenient. So far, what I have heard is that Mulroney used bad judgement in dealing with Schreiber as a private citizen - after he left office!

To you a chunk of money that is pushing half a million bucks may be "peanuts" - but it represents corruption and abuse to most. What this Malroney affair shows is that there are people in this nation that have normalized crimminality - and that our leaders and those above and below them are free to plunder a nation..maybe we should send Brian and all his supporters to Chicago and give them a fair trial? At least the Americans can fess up to a broken system and at least attempt to correct it - we here in Canada admire our crimminal elite a little to much..this admiriation further destroys the nation - some plunder and some create real wealth for all - Malroney created wealth for himself - and use every last citizen in Canada like a slave - what a jerk.

[M.Dancer]

Mulroney says his biggest mistake was allowing to be introduced to Schreiber. His second biggest mistake was accepting a cash payment.

I suppose the mistake regarding not paying taxes on the money until 6 years later (after Schreiber was charged with...bribery) falls under not worth listing......or maybe the mistake is simply being caught.

[Oleg Bach]

Mulroney says his biggest mistake was allowing to be introduced to Schreiber. His second biggest mistake was accepting a cash payment.

I suppose the mistake regarding not paying taxes on the money until 6 years later (after Schreiber was charged with...bribery) falls under not worth listing......or maybe the mistake is simply being caught.

Year ago I met this arms dealer called Earnest Miller or "Ernie" - I asked him if he felt guilt about having gold plated taps and a Rolls in the driveway? This man was free to operate un-impeded in Canada and was the "Canadian Connection" during the Iran Contra mess..He would brag about how he had dinned with Trudeau - who Ragan had "pardoned" him - which was odd seeing he was a Canadian...I said to him - "You killed for money" - he retorted back - "I saved lives" - I asked "how is that?" - the old guy with the big voice and scarey voice said - "I SAVED LIVES BECAUSE I ARMED BOTH SIDES" - He arranged arms for the Iranians and the Iraqis...this was his crazed rationale.

He was also the "finacial advisor" to India of a time - and on his down periods recieved welfare checks from Kashogee - the Saudi culprit of old. The point I am making is that Shriber is not a new phenomena - dirty buisness and arms dealing by crimminals has been allowed to go on for quite some time - not much has changed - the liberal and conservatives sanction these types of "contracts" - This guy I mentioned died a few years back - he was also known as a "cocaine kingpin" - If I through my estranged sister knew this guy and that he was a crook - so did the authorities. Justice did prevail in the end - Ernie - died looking like a bedraggled and broken Howard Hughes - his nails and hair and beard grew to resemble a derelic - he crawled into his bed and his crack smoking children did not know he was gone till the house started to smell.

So there is nothing new with the Shriber affair - making deals with arms dealers - through governmental contacts is old hat - war is buisness and an adventure for the bored elite...like I said - for fun and porfit.

[jdobbin]

So far, what I have heard is that Mulroney used bad judgement in dealing with Schreiber as a private citizen - after he left office!

Didn't he receive his first payment when he was an MP? He was not a private citizen then.