Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

Visionseeker · November 10, 2007

That shows huge belief in the 'news sources'.
Given that the previous Liberal government spent tens of millions on this vendetta, both in the courts and in a settlement with Mulroney.

Are taxpayers really being asked to renew this witch hunt?

Well, with the PM's announcement yesterday, it would seem that an investigation is in order. By order of a Conservative, not Liberal, PM.

jbg · November 10, 2007

Who crossed a day after winning an election? Nobody in Canadian history.
Seems like another misrepresentation of the facts.

It is true that Emerson crossed on February 6, 2006, after winning on January 23, 2006. However, the "pull the goalie" remark was a couple of weeks before the election.

His voters knew he was not a happy camper by that remark. Can you see Senator Lieberman suggesting, just before the 2000 elections, that the Dems should "pull the goalie" (meaning Gore) because Gore is a boring, contentious windbag and liar?

Topaz · November 10, 2007

I think Emerson may still be feeling the stress of crossing. In question period, the Libs asked him something to do with the lumber agree with the US, he got so angry, his comment was, "This government got a better agreement than they could have with THAT government" Well, guy, isn't it YOU doing the the talking with the US?? Was he admitting he wasn't trying very hard under the Libs or did he gave it away under this gov't as some in the business thinks. As far as Harper involvement, I see one horn and a half halo above his head, which will grow and which will disappear???

August1991 · November 10, 2007

Various media is asking Harper if he called the investigation because his own name was entered into today's affidavit.

Harper had to do this once Schreiber's affidavit became public.

The danger is that we may go to the American style of politics where each administration seems to face a special prosecutor of some sort investigating whatever. It's a mini-opposition of lawyers on a goose hunt, or death by a thousand knives.

I'm surprised that Bush Jnr hasn't had to answer to a Ken Starr.

jdobbin · November 10, 2007

It is true that Emerson crossed on February 6, 2006, after winning on January 23, 2006. However, the "pull the goalie" remark was a couple of weeks before the election.
His voters knew he was not a happy camper by that remark. Can you see Senator Lieberman suggesting, just before the 2000 elections, that the Dems should "pull the goalie" (meaning Gore) because Gore is a boring, contentious windbag and liar?

The offer to Emerson was made the day after the election by John Reynolds. He accepted and it was kept secret until February 6.

The voters had no idea that he was about to take his newly won seat as the representative of the other party. Unhappiness with a leader doesn't equal: I'll run under their banner and accept an offer the very next day from the other party.

jdobbin · November 10, 2007

Harper had to do this once Schreiber's affidavit became public.
The danger is that we may go to the American style of politics where each administration seems to face a special prosecutor of some sort investigating whatever. It's a mini-opposition of lawyers on a goose hunt, or death by a thousand knives.

I'm surprised that Bush Jnr hasn't had to answer to a Ken Starr.

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion by comparing it American style politics. There have always been scandals involving money and possible corruption. Go back and look at the Pacific Scandal in 1872 and the CPR. John A. Macdonald swore he was innocent although evidence that he asked for $10,000 was found. He was forced to resign and his party was defeated. He was able to come back from all that even with an Royal Commission investigation. To this day some wonder why it didn't all end in court but the demand for the national railway probably made people settle for just removing a corrupt government.

Mulroney has the same problem Macdonald had. Evidence that he had taken money with vague indications of what it was paid out for. He basically told the police he had no relationship with Shreiber. People who have no relationship don't get paid $300,000.

jdobbin · November 10, 2007

Well, with the PM's announcement yesterday, it would seem that an investigation is in order. By order of a Conservative, not Liberal, PM.

It was a sharp contrast from earlier in the week when Harper brushed off any thought of an investigation. Both CTV and CBC made sure they featured the smiling and dismissive Harper from Monday and stern and serious Harper on Friday. It is amazing that all it took was Harper being named in the affidavit.

It is also interesting to see the change of direction some Conservative cheerleaders here make to accept Harper's new direction. First, an investigation is a waste of money and now it is a sound decision.

trex · November 10, 2007

Fri Nov 9 OTTAWA - In an abrupt about-face, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a review of Brian Mulroney's dealings with a controversial businessman and cut off contact with the man he valued as a political adviser.

Friday's reversal came just a day after new allegations from Karlheinz Schreiber threatened to draw Harper himself into the tangled Mulroney-Schreiber-Airbus affair.

The same prime minister who had responded with taunts and threats to counter-investigate former Liberal prime ministers was delivered a bolt out of the blue on Friday afternoon.

Schreiber's affidavit says: "(Mulroney) told me that he was going to meet with the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, the current Prime Minister of Canada, by the end of July, 2006, at Harrington Lake, and that he (Mr. Mulroney) was going to show to Mr. Harper a copy of Exhibit 15 (the letter) to show that he and I were on good terms."

The prime minister told a news conference that he indeed had the Mulroneys over around that time.

"My family and I did host the former prime minister and his family for a social occasion at Harrington Lake in August 2006 at our invitation," Harper said.

"We did not discuss Mr. Mulroney's dealings with Mr. Schreiber during that visit."

Dion says the allegation raises troubling questions such as why the Justice Department's investigation into the matter was stopped.

"He (Harper) is saddled with the appearance of conflict of interest," Dion said. "As such, his impartiality could come under question as further decisions on how to proceed are taken."

However, Dion said he would not try to bring down the minority government if they do not call a public inquiry into the matter.

NDP Leader Jack Layton is also demanding a public inquiry. "We have to get the whole truth," he said in Calgary.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071109/...harper_mulroney

----------------

Harper the Young learns an old lesson in Leadership- a closed mouth gathers no foot. Say only what you mean and whats necessary. Everything else is just superflous diarhea from his mouth.

Welcome to a monkey on your back- and that monkey is...

when the big man goes down, get out of the way!

Lets hope Mulroney doesn't ride you all the way down to hell.

EDIT

This was the Opening Post of the redundant thread: Harper implicated in Mulroney/Schreiber affair, ...

Edited November 10, 2007 by Charles Anthony
redundant thread merged into active thread

old_bold&cold · November 10, 2007

This is just another thread on a subject already posted. You are not allowed to do this and it should be removed. Not ever point in a thread deserves a seperate thrread.

M.Dancer · November 10, 2007

You should at least scan the forum before you post a new topic. No one would blame you for posting an item that we had been talking about two years ago...but this topic was on todays radar

shavluk · November 10, 2007

I hadn't realized the government officially announced a 'smoke screen for the dense'.
Post a link to inform me enlightened sire.

He could have just called an inquiry.

Even you think its some investigation.

Its only being mentioned because he himself is named by Shribers? latest smart move and the smoke screen refers to not calling an inquiry and people including you actually thinking some investigation will take place.

That's not what he said!

And I am sure not what is happening.

old_bold&cold · November 10, 2007

The whole issue about Mulroney is going to come to a quick and abrupt end, and probably in Mulroney's favour. The fact that Schieber will be gone by next Friday, off to face trial in Germany is going to be a big thing. You see, if he again says about bribing Mulroney in the courts over there, he will be stabbing him self in the back, and giving even more credense to the charges he has pending in Germany. I think it will be put forward that the only reason he brought all this to light was in the hope of Canada, then saying they would not extradite him until they have finished this case. But it has already been said that his extradition will go ahead on schedule.

That will mean that once again there will be no finding of guilt on behave of Mulroney, in all of this. But it will mean that we may see a investigation of Chretien and all his golf couse grants and the such, as well as his knowledge of the sponsorship scandel and maybe even the HRT Boondoggal. This will come in time for any election call by the Liberals this spring and fall. It probably will make it so that the set election date wil be the one that will come about, and all this stuff on corrupt Liberals being found guilty will be just the finish to what is going to be an intersting time to come. This will be looked at by those in the future as a very dumb thing to have done, when it is pretty much going to be a predicted turn out.

Harper I believe is playing the long game on this and I think he is way better at this kind of play then all the others combined. But it is the game they called for and now it has begun, and there will be no stopping it.

noahbody · November 10, 2007

"This government got a better agreement than they could have with THAT government" Well, guy, isn't it YOU doing the the talking with the US?? Was he admitting he wasn't trying very hard under the Libs or did he gave it away under this gov't as some in the business thinks.

I think it's common sense that if you insult the person or country with whom you're negotiating , they just might resent it. The change in government wiped this slate clean.

In hindsight, with the rise of the dollar, it's a damn good thing it was settled when it was.

no queenslave · November 10, 2007

I harper wants an investigation he should investigate what happened to the investigation into the actions of revenue Canada in 1984. This was a parliamentary investigation.

Why hide all debates that show the governments actions are not within the law.

" IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY" quote bk59

Edited November 10, 2007 by no queenslave

trex · November 10, 2007

I felt that the fact Harper was implicated deserves its own headline, as a thread. I don't see it as the same thread as about the old BM story, this is a whole new and interesting twist.

I fail to see why people are concerned about it anyway, if it increases the discussion and the number of posts, why merge it into an old thread, which is like chicken soup replite with off topics and tangents?

I want people to see the headine, Harper implicated! Thats why I start a new thread.

I should get the chance to make a rebuttal beforee stuff is moved, so I can explain myself.

Oh well its hard to figure it all out sometime, I know... :lol:

jdobbin · November 10, 2007

I felt that the fact Harper was implicated deserves its own headline, as a thread. I don't see it as the same thread as about the old BM story, this is a whole new and interesting twist.

One thing is clear: the cozy relationship between Harper and Mulroney is over.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071110/..._mulroney_split

Brian Mulroney's stint in reputation rehab could be at an end in Canada's conservative circles.
He deftly shed the label of one of the most unpopular outgoing prime ministers in Canadian history, adopting instead the mantle of the wise, elder statesman. In the process, he caught a second wind in Tory politics.

But Mulroney's past just refused to stay in the old Tory closet, and ultimately Harper couldn't afford the liability. As he announced Friday that he would commission an independent probe into allegations of Mulroney's business dealings with controversial businessman Karlheinz Schreiber, Harper also severed ties with his former mentor.

"I think it will be incumbent on me and also upon members of the government not to have dealings with Mr. Mulroney until this issue is resolved," he told reporters.

That could be easier said than done.

The new Conservative party is an intricate mixture of Canadian Alliance members and Progressive Conservatives, perhaps not completely cohesive after only four years of co-habitation.

Late Friday, some Conservatives were privately wondering what the reaction would be from Tory Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton, who has been a passionate defender of Mulroney's as a former aide and as a friend. Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is another Mulroney booster. Other senior Conservatives, including Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon's Chief of Staff, Paul Therrien, also hailed from the Mulroney era.

There could be a few angry former PCs at Harper's move.

trex · November 10, 2007

trex @ Nov 10 2007, 04:32 PM
I felt that the fact Harper was implicated deserves its own headline, as a thread. I don't see it as the same thread as about the old BM story, this is a whole new and interesting twist.

One thing is clear: the cozy relationship between Harper and Mulroney is over.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071110/..._mulroney_split

Yes and it raises the question, "Was Harper a Crook?"

Edited November 10, 2007 by trex

capricorn · November 10, 2007

Yes and it raises the question, "Was Harper a Crook?"

What are the facts that made you come up with this potential angle of Harper's involvement?

trex · November 10, 2007

What are the facts that made you come up with this potential angle of Harper's involvement?

I'm sorry, but that would be off-topic. It really requires the start of a new thread...

jbg · November 10, 2007

What are the facts that made you come up with this potential angle of Harper's involvement?

He's a novelist.

trex · November 10, 2007

He's a novelist.

Hello there. Are you the local comic?

I will provide the answer. But not in this thread... let us just say, the current prime minister deserves to make his own headlines... We only want the people to know the real truth of what happened, once and for all. Harper may even be in a conflict of interest by being the Prime Minister at this point

I think Dion is gonna ride this one ... oh yes... and I kind of like that, a "Bolt out of the Blue"...

jbg · November 11, 2007

Hello there. Are you the local comic?

Maybe but that doesn't mean you're not wriing novels or mystery thrillers, or maybe you're just talking in tongues.

I will provide the answer. But not in this thread... let us just say, the current prime minister deserves to make his own headlines... We only want the people to know the real truth of what happened, once and for all. Harper may even be in a conflict of interest by being the Prime Minister at this point

Do tell.

I think Dion is gonna ride this one ... oh yes... and I kind of like that, a "Bolt out of the Blue"...

You mean Dion is going to cross the aisle to the "Blue" side?

capricorn · November 11, 2007

I'm sorry, but that would be off-topic. It really requires the start of a new thread...

I can't wait.

Topaz · November 11, 2007

On the Globalnational.com you see and heard the latest on this topic. It seems Harper was sent a letter from Schreiber 7 MONTHS ago about this. BUT wait, it went to the Privy council office and they just didn't sent to PMO and they say if they had, Harper probably wouldn't have seen it anyway!!! Yeah right! Is that the best these scammers can do. I'm sure someone in the Privy office is going to lose their job for putting Harper in an embarrassment position or they have take the fall for Harper.

EDIT:

This was the Opeing Post of a redundant thread entitled: Schreiber vs Mulroney the latest, Is Harper keeping secrets? that has been merged into this currently active discussion.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Charles Anthony
merged thread