Mulroney's testimony in Parliament

[capricorn]

Car,

Cap...what Mulroney "had" to use the 2.2 mil for means nothing to me.

Of course you don't. It's only taxpayer money.

If he hadn't involved himself in shady dealings with shady people, he wouldn't have had to have lawyers in the first place.

Good point.

Poor man, who BTW tried to sell off antiques from 24 Sussex Drive that was the property of the people of Canada!

I suppose you haven't followed the discussion on this thread. I addressed this in post #80. Here. I'll save you the trouble looking it up.

The furniture and decorations were accumulated by the Mulroneys over the years.

The reference to furniture relates to an attempt by the Mulroneys in 1993 to sell the furniture, decorations and drapery they had accumulated at 24 Sussex Dr. and the Harrington Lake retreat to the National Capital Commission for about $150,000. The NCC said it was getting a bargain, but, bowing to public pressure, the Mulroneys returned the cheque in July of 1993.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=132808

He did not sell furniture, or antiquities belonging to the state.

Let's not forget that Mulroney himelf called for this inquiry, that he now wishes would go away.

The decision is not his to make.

[capricorn]

I suppose all what Neilson says is a vendetta.

As far as other cabinet ministers of the day are saying:

That's quite a few ministers who are considered loyal to Mulroney who are saying what he did was dumb. Most back off on saying he did something illegal. I think I would leave that up to forensic accountants, lawyers and Revenue Canada. The issue of the GST seems to have caught Mulroney flatfooted in testimony. That, by itself, is illegal.

Thanks for clarifying you were referring to "former" cabinet ministers and not present cabinet ministers.

[capricorn]

No one forced Mulroney to take the money in cash with no paperwork. His only hope is to attack the credibility of Shreiber and pray that forensic accountants don't go through both their records page by page.

How can they go through both their records if, as you suggest, there are no records.

[Michael Bluth]

How can they go through both their records if, as you suggest, there are no records.

Come on cap. There is no need for logical consistency in the anti-CPC crowd.

[jdobbin]

How can they go through both their records if, as you suggest, there are no records.

There are tax records presumably for both men, no?

Just because they say there are no records doesn't mean the government doesn't have a declaration from Mulroney about money he says he paid taxes on. Perhaps it is there that he lists the services.

Edited December 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

IF ever Canada needed a public inquiry is this topic! The only problem I can see is how Harper will narrow it to certain points and I believe is should be about whatever either side can prove. Mulroney says he has no paperwork, he destroyed it but Schrieber has ALL of his and Mulroney may have wished he kept his. Also. Mulroney did say , he only declared the money when he heard Schreiber and the lawsuit. So he wouldn't have declare it today, if Schreber never had started the law suit. BOTH men want a public inquiry, and I'm all for it because it will have everything out in the open, if Harper doesn't try to stop it or control it. Schreiber has alot more to say and he indicated that military business then is still military business now and we could find out more how Harper handled the buying of miltary equipment.

[Keepitsimple]

There are tax records presumably for both men, no?

Just because they say there are no records doesn't mean the government doesn't have a declaration from Mulroney about money he says he paid taxes on. Perhaps it is there that he lists the services.

Let's not lose track of what this whole thing is about. It's about whether the government should have paid the $2.1 million because they accused Mulroney of taking bribes on the Airbus deal - it's not supposed to be about whether he paid GST on an unrelated deal or failed to declare his taxes propertly while in the private sector. It's about whether he took bribes while in office - that's why the hearings' mandate is labelled the Airbus something or other.......and that's what the Public Inquiry is supposed to address - did he do anything ethically or criminally wrong when he was Prime Minister. Everything else may be unsavoury - but is largely irrelevant.

[jdobbin]

Let's not lose track of what this whole thing is about. It's about whether the government should have paid the $2.1 million because they accused Mulroney of taking bribes on the Airbus deal - it's not supposed to be about whether he paid GST on an unrelated deal or failed to declare his taxes propertly while in the private sector. It's about whether he took bribes while in office - that's why the hearings' mandate is labelled the Airbus something or other.......and that's what the Public Inquiry is supposed to address - did he do anything ethically or criminally wrong when he was Prime Minister. Everything else may be unsavoury - but is largely irrelevant.

We still don't know what the money is for one way or the other. One person says pasta, another person says an armoured car in Canada, the other person says an amoured car internationally. There is still millions unaccounted for in Airbus commissions. We have not gotten to the bottom of anything after hearing two witnesses who have both been caught in lies, evasiveness and sordid dealings.

[Topaz]

We still don't know what the money is for one way or the other. One person says pasta, another person says an armoured car in Canada, the other person says an amoured car internationally. There is still millions unaccounted for in Airbus commissions. We have not gotten to the bottom of anything after hearing two witnesses who have both been caught in lies, evasiveness and sordid dealings.

Does it make you think that maybe he didn't get money from airbus but rather from some other source. Schreiber kinda gave you one the impression that the money came from elsewhere.

[capricorn]

Keepit, the anti-Conservatives DO want to lose track of the primary focus of a possible inquiry. They spread the tentacles of their suspicions and baseless claims with one objective in mind. That is to smear the present Conservative government. Evidently, their frustration is mounting because it isn't working. Just look at topaz's last post. Nothing but vague innuendo.

Whether Mulroney screwed the taxman is for CRA to look into. CRA has apparently long ago put the matter to rest. If something is disclosed in Mulroney's testimony that needs investigation CRA will no doubt look into it. Remember that the bureaucracy is still chock full of public servants who would love nothing more than to launch their own Mulroney-related probe.

As I glean over the posts in this and other threads I have noticed that even after the falsehoods and slanted opinions presented by anti-Conservatives have been debunked with supporting information, they keep coming back over the same territory and repeat themselves. Liberals and their supporters in opposition are like fish out of water because of they firmly believe they have the divine right to govern Canada.

[Carinthia]

As I glean over the posts in this and other threads I have noticed that even after the falsehoods and slanted opinions presented by anti-Conservatives have been debunked with supporting information, they keep coming back over the same territory and repeat themselves. Liberals and their supporters in opposition are like fish out of water because of they firmly believe they have the divine right to govern Canada.

I haven't noticed much debunking of any of the facts discussed here. How can anybody debunk when nobody knows the answers? Your opinions that the Conservatives can do no wrong and this is all a vendetta or political manipulation, is not what I would consider debunking, just merely your opinion.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Carinthia

[jdobbin]

As I glean over the posts in this and other threads I have noticed that even after the falsehoods and slanted opinions presented by anti-Conservatives have been debunked with supporting information, they keep coming back over the same territory and repeat themselves. Liberals and their supporters in opposition are like fish out of water because of they firmly believe they have the divine right to govern Canada.

And the Conservatives just keep saying "move along, nothing to see here."

We have not gotten any solid answers on the subject and even before the testimony, Conservatives had their playbook about this all being a witchhunt after Mulroney. The falsehoods were Mulroney's. The deception is and the continued lack of clarity on the matter is his.

[trex]

Another thing came to light is that Mr. Mulroney never gave Mr. Schreiber a receipt for the cash. You'd think if it was all on the level, he would have given Mr. Schreiber a receipt.

In Schreibers testimony, he says he gave him the money and thought he would get a receipt from Mr. Mulroney, but he never did.

Has Brian Mulroney refuted this claim? Because, I would expect a receipt or some form of paperwork to exchange hands on any above-the-board business transactions. That is normal for all standard business procedures.

[Canuck E Stan]

Keepit, the anti-Conservatives DO want to lose track of the primary focus of a possible inquiry. They spread the tentacles of their suspicions and baseless claims with one objective in mind. That is to smear the present Conservative government. Evidently, their frustration is mounting because it isn't working. Just look at topaz's last post. Nothing but vague innuendo.

Ah, but I think it is working.

The more that the media presents the Mulroney of the past into the present,and the more that the term "Conservative" is is thrown into the mix, the more the general public will associate "Conservative" with all this.

And this will include Harper, even though he has nothing to do with what occured 15 years ago.

It will seem just like yesterday to everyone with the constant bombardment by the media.

[trex]

Yes and we know that the Mackays were involved somehow.

When Karl Heinz Schreiber asked Brian Mulroney to speak to Stephen Harper for him on his behalf, this idea was suggested to Schreiber by Peter Mackays father. How did Mackay's Dad know about the upcoming meeting between Harper and Mulroney? Did Peter tell him? And if so, why...

Edited December 15, 2007 by trex

[Topaz]

Peter Mansbridge's One on One was just on and he had on Schreiber and Peter asked the questions and secret that the Cons are trying to hide, is that by Schreiber, the German govt,/or/and German company, plotted to help put Mulroney into the PMO so they could get contracts, with other Canadian politicans and company CEO's. Schreiber said he would take a lie-detector test at any time. There's alot more there and alot more people involved and he will tell all at an inquiry. I think CBC will show it again at 9:30 again tonight.

[Canuck E Stan]

I think CBC will show it again at 9:30 again tonight.

The CBC always shows it again.......and again.....and again.Then again the next year and the year after....and then the decade after and then sometimes two decades after and.....

[capricorn]

Peter Mansbridge's One on One was just on and he had on Schreiber and Peter asked the questions and secret that the Cons are trying to hide, is that by Schreiber, the German govt,/or/and German company, plotted to help put Mulroney into the PMO so they could get contracts, with other Canadian politicans and company CEO's. Schreiber said he would take a lie-detector test at any time. There's alot more there and alot more people involved and he will tell all at an inquiry. I think CBC will show it again at 9:30 again tonight.

You've outdone yourself. One sentence containing 58 words and 5 commas, and I still can't figure out what you're saying. I realize you're live blogging the news but please, could you structure your sentences to make them readable?

I do understand your zeal in blurting out that Schreiber has some hidden treasures to share with us and a lie detector test may lead to the truth.

[Carinthia]

The CBC always shows it again.......and again.....and again.Then again the next year and the year after....and then the decade after and then sometimes two decades after and.....

And didn't they just pound away on Chretien too, week after week! What selective memories there are around here. Perhaps the Fifth Estate will resurrect that one 15 years from now. Who knows...maybe they are gathering evidence right now.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Carinthia

[gc1765]

Ah, but I think it is working.

The more that the media presents the Mulroney of the past into the present,and the more that the term "Conservative" is is thrown into the mix, the more the general public will associate "Conservative" with all this.

And this will include Harper, even though he has nothing to do with what occured 15 years ago.

It will seem just like yesterday to everyone with the constant bombardment by the media.

No different than how Conservative supporters refer to "Liberals" as corrupt...even though the Liberals guilty of corruption are long gone...

[capricorn]

Ah, but I think it is working.

IMO Canadian voters generally have a short attention span. Now they're into Christmas preparations and shoveling snow, and the House is not in session. By the time the House returns in late January the budget will come around and Canadians will begin receiving income tax refunds larger than last year's. If an election is forced by the opposition in February I'm not so sure voter decisions will center around the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

[Michael Bluth]

By the time the House returns in late January the budget will come around and Canadians will begin receiving income tax refunds larger than last year's. If an election is forced by the opposition in February I'm not so sure voter decisions will center around the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

That is why there won't be an election.

In the last minority whenever chattering of an early election happened Martin would run around scrambling to avoid an election at any cost.

Harper's Government has lasted six months longer than Martin's minority and he hasn't scrambled at all.

If the opposition parties want to force an early election so be it. Forcing an election over a budget with many more tax cuts is political suicide. They might do it, and the Conservatives would welcome it. Realistically the earliest we could see an election is the fall.

[capricorn]

If the opposition parties want to force an early election so be it. Forcing an election over a budget with many more tax cuts is political suicide. They might do it, and the Conservatives would welcome it. Realistically the earliest we could see an election is the fall.

Perhaps political suicide at the polls is what Liberal Party strategists want at this point in time. The desire of the Liberals to get rid of Dion may be greater than their fear of losing the next election. In fact, they probably feel an impending election is lost anyway given their stagnation in the polls and their poor showing in Quebec. The longer Harper remains PM the longer his government gains credibility in the eyes of the voters. IMO next fall is too late for the Liberals who would prefer to start rebuilding sooner than later.

[Michael Bluth]

Perhaps political suicide at the polls is what Liberal Party strategists want at this point in time. The desire of the Liberals to get rid of Dion may be greater than their fear of losing the next election. In fact, they probably feel an impending election is lost anyway given their stagnation in the polls and their poor showing in Quebec. The longer Harper remains PM the longer his government gains credibility in the eyes of the voters. IMO next fall is too late for the Liberals who would prefer to start rebuilding sooner than later.

I hear what you are saying. But if the budget is targeted properly the election could turn into a majority for the Conservatives.

The Liberals might want to lose an election in order to force Dion out. However they probably wouldn't want to do so if it guaranteed four more years of Conservative rule. A Conservative majority would mean a new Conservative PM before any following election. Doing so would give the Conservatives the opportunity to enter that election with a PM who wasn't so *scary* *scary* *scary*.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps political suicide at the polls is what Liberal Party strategists want at this point in time. The desire of the Liberals to get rid of Dion may be greater than their fear of losing the next election. In fact, they probably feel an impending election is lost anyway given their stagnation in the polls and their poor showing in Quebec. The longer Harper remains PM the longer his government gains credibility in the eyes of the voters. IMO next fall is too late for the Liberals who would prefer to start rebuilding sooner than later.

Harper will win the next election barring some sort of disaster (nuclear if he is unlucky). What I don't see is a majority based on the polls. Tom Flanagan wrote last fall that the Tories needed to be either over 40% in the polls, have an 11% lead over the next party or a significant vote split of the left to win a majority.

The Tories have only been over 40% about four or five times since the election. The average has been about 36%. They have been ahead of the Liberals on average about 5% and the vote split among the left is an unknown since no one knows how the Green vote will hold and who it will take votes away from.