Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[jbg]

Why would the opposiiton 'skim over the surface' with Schreiber at committee?

Because of fear of blowback from more Chretien-era scandals maybe?

[Michael Bluth]

Because of fear of blowback from more Chretien-era scandals maybe?

Then they can claim the process they controlled was a sham?

Yet another reason Schreiber is yesterday's news.

[Fortunata]

Yet another reason Schreiber is yesterday's news.

If he's yesterday's news why is everyone talking and reporting about it still today? Someone must be interested out there.

[Carinthia]

Why don't you include Chretien in your definition of "vicious criminal" here? Mulroney's offenses seem to involve his last two days in office, when his influence was already at a low ebb (he faced the end of the five-year mandate, if I recall correctly, coming 'round the bend pretty fast). Chretien and the Sponsorship gang were at it for the last seven years, at least, of his regime.

My referral to Mulroney as a "vicious criminal" was sarcasm. Clearly he's not. A corrupt politician from 20 or so years ago, probably. Chretien? Hmmm...he could be catorgorized as somewhat vicious depending on your definition of vicious. T'was a whole lot more money he misapropriated, as well as the fact that he used physical violence against a reporter.

In these times of increasing corruption by all Governments, now begs the question of how do we create a system that could guarantee the prevention of corruption for whoever holds the power? Waiting around for a trustworthy Government is getting old and tiresome. It 's time for action of some sort.

[capricorn]

If he's yesterday's news why is everyone talking and reporting about it still today? Someone must be interested out there.

For one thing it's fodder for pundits and it sells newspapers. The MSM is doing a swell job of keeping the story front and center.

The other thing is that politics is by nature boring. It's amusing to watch the politicians fall all over themselves looking for smut against each other. I see this Schreiber/Mulroney business as a feud between two old men which is being used for partisan purposes, by all parties.

Also, keen observes such as we are itching to find out what's going to happen in the whole extradition question.

[August1991]

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....

Wow, obc, that was a bold, cold and wrong prediction that you made there!

[Canuck E Stan]

Wow, obc, that was a bold, cold and wrong prediction that you made there!

August,

It doesn't matter anymore.......OBC is no longer with us.

old_bold&cold

View Member Profile

post Nov 10 2007, 10:22 AM

Post #212

Junior Member

**

Group: Banned

Posts: 487

Joined: 7-August 07

Member No.: 3598

[jbg]

August,

It doesn't matter anymore.......OBC is no longer with us.

Wow. I didn't see anything he did in banning territory.

[jdobbin]

Latest on the ethics committee investigation.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071206/...roney_schreiber

Karlheinz Schreiber breathed new life into a decade-old controversy Thursday, drawing a link between former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney and the proceeds of a 1988 Airbus sale to government-owned Air Canada.

But the latest testimony from Schreiber, an international arms broker wanted in Germany on various charges, was tempered by his own admissions of self-interest and deceit, his extravagant claims of an international conspiracy - and an immediate denial from his alleged source.

It was Schreiber's third appearance at the House of Commons ethics committee and for the first time he found himself in uncomfortable territory under sustained grilling from MPs.

Two of his allegations could have further repercussions in a pending public inquiry promised by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Schreiber told the committee that in 1992 or early '93 he was directed by Fred Doucet, Mulroney's former chief of staff, to funnel Airbus funds to a Swiss bank account controlled by Mulroney's lawyer.

Mulroney was still the prime minister at the time.

Schreiber said the request astounded him.

"What the hell has Mulroney to do with Airbus?" Schreiber recalled asking Doucet, who was working as a lobbyist by then.

Doucet's answer: "Are you naive?"

But Doucet, in a statement to The Canadian Press late Thursday, flatly denied the events.

"In testimony before the ethics committee today, Mr. Schreiber alleged that I requested that he approach the late Frank Moores and the late Gary Ouelette to request that they forward monies held by G.C.I. to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney to his alleged lawyer in Geneva. This statement is false," wrote Doucet.

"A similar allegation made in an affidavit sworn by Karlheinz Schreiber on the 7th of November, 2007 is also false.

"Other allegations of impropriety he has made about me today, and on earlier occasions before this committee, and in correspondence are equally false."

Doucet's rebuttal broke a long silence on the Airbus affair. He also volunteered to appear at the Commons committee.

These are the primary questions on Airbus that still need to be answered. We'll see of Shreiber can eventually back up what he says.

[Canuck E Stan]

Latest on the ethics committee investigation.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071206/...roney_schreiber

These are the primary questions on Airbus that still need to be answered. We'll see of Shreiber can eventually back up what he says.

Only one question needs to be answered: "Mr.Shreiber, who is this lawyer in Geneva that you keep referring to?"

[capricorn]

Only one question needs to be answered: "Mr.Shreiber, who is this lawyer in Geneva that you keep referring to?"

Schreiber reply: "What lawyer? I don't recall any such lawyer. You'll have to awsk Mr. Mulroney, you know, Britan...no Lyan Brrian. By zee way, I have some lovely watches you may be interested in...swiss watches the best....cash will bring you ah better price."

[Alexandra]

Only one question needs to be answered: "Mr.Shreiber, who is this lawyer in Geneva that you keep referring to?"

and, the other question: What day, month and year did Mulroney meet with this Swiss lawyer in Geneva and will Shreiber (or Swiss lawyer) provide irrefutable proof of this or these meetings with Mulroney?

`

[trex]

and, the other question: What day, month and year did Mulroney meet with this Swiss lawyer in Geneva and will Shreiber (or Swiss lawyer) provide irrefutable proof of this or these meetings with Mulroney?

`

I watched the whole meeting and I would say that Schreiber has made some very damaging allegations, but he is not able to back them up with evidence. He only admits he was asked to do something, but refused. The rest is up to us to figure out, Schreiber admits to knowing nothing else about what happened with regards to any "other" money payments. Brian Mulroney will be next!

You can watch it on www.cpac.ca

Edited December 8, 2007 by trex

[Fortunata]

What I don't understand is that politicians, pundits and reporters say that Schreiber now has credibility issues after what he said at the Commission and how Mulroney will have to put the facts straight. So we all know Schreiber is a sleaze but what about Mulroney? He already lied under oath once; what is going to make him more believable now? It seems that Mulroney is already being credited for being truthful - do they all forget his past? I say neither one of them is believable; that they both have their own agendas: Schreiber wants to stay in Canada and Mulroney wants a clean legacy (forgetting it's already tainted).

[capricorn]

So we all know Schreiber is a sleaze but what about Mulroney? He already lied under oath once; what is going to make him more believable now? It seems that Mulroney is already being credited for being truthful - do they all forget his past?

It has not been established that Mulroney lied under oath. What was reported is that Mulroney underplayed his relationship to Schreiber. Mulroney had never divulged the $300,000. he received from Schreiber because he was never questioned about it. A witness does not have to divulge information voluntarily. That in itself does not mean the witness committed perjury or make the witness a liar.

[Carinthia]

It has not been established that Mulroney lied under oath. What was reported is that Mulroney underplayed his relationship to Schreiber. Mulroney had never divulged the $300,000. he received from Schreiber because he was never questioned about it. A witness does not have to divulge information voluntarily. That in itself does not mean the witness committed perjury or make the witness a liar.

There's also the matter of him not declaring his $300,000 to the tax man. He did eventually after the RCMP got involved and he was protected from prosecution under some clause that allows people to be free of prosecution if they "own up". An incentive clause if you will.

[Fortunata]

It has not been established that Mulroney lied under oath. What was reported is that Mulroney underplayed his relationship to Schreiber. Mulroney had never divulged the $300,000. he received from Schreiber because he was never questioned about it. A witness does not have to divulge information voluntarily. That in itself does not mean the witness committed perjury or make the witness a liar.

Of course, I must have forgotten that Cons don't lie, they underplay. When Mulroney said he had no relationship with Schreiber and that he had only had a coffee with him a couple times it was only underplayed, because we all know by accepting a three time cash amount of $100k does not a relationship make.

I guess it all depends on what "relationship" is.

[capricorn]

There's also the matter of him not declaring his $300,000 to the tax man.

It's an undisputed fact that Mulroney voluntarily declared the money to the CRA. Under our tax laws, that money was a retainer and did not have to be declared until the retainer was spent for a service rendered.

He did eventually after the RCMP got involved and he was protected from prosecution under some clause that allows people to be free of prosecution if they "own up". An incentive clause if you will.

I have never seen anything reporting on this. Cite please?

[capricorn]

Of course, I must have forgotten that Cons don't lie, they underplay.

Just thank me for providing you an opportunity to display your standard unoriginal and partisan reply.

[Fortunata]

Just thank me for providing you an opportunity to display your standard unoriginal and partisan reply.

Ok, let's see. Exactly who am I partisan for? Standard unoriginal? How many ways can you say something like Mulroney didn't tell the truth. But thank you for the insult; I guess I shouldn't expect more from you than that. Cheers.

[Carinthia]

It's an undisputed fact that Mulroney voluntarily declared the money to the CRA. Under our tax laws, that money was a retainer and did not have to be declared until the retainer was spent for a service rendered.

I have never seen anything reporting on this. Cite please?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Although many of the people involved in the discussions between the Mulroney and Schreiber camps have elected not to speak publicly, it can be said with certainty that Mr. Mulroney did not disclose the cash payments as income in the years that he received the money. He later exercised the legal right of any Canadian to come forward to the Canada Revenue Agency and paid what he owed.

The CRA created its voluntary disclosure program in 1973 so that taxpayers could declare unreported income without fear of prosecution. Tax lawyers and CRA officials often refer to the program as a “win-win” situation; it's an opportunity for taxpayers to rectify past errors and an opportunity for the government to collect funds it might otherwise never receive. CRA literature calls it a “fairness program that is aimed at providing clients with an opportunity to correct past omissions.”

None of the government officials or tax experts interviewed by The Globe and CBC spoke directly about Mr. Mulroney's case; rather, they were asked to answer questions about the process and provide insight into hypothetical situations. CRA officials are forbidden by law from discussing the filings of individual taxpayers.

According to the agency's data from 2005-2006, there were 7,300 applications for voluntary disclosures, of which around 2,200 were denied. The program helped uncover $330-million that had yet to be assessed for taxes.

One of the key stipulations for making such a disclosure is that the income has to be declared without any hint of an investigation by the agency. In other words, people can't wait until tax investigators discover they made a mistake on their taxes and then try to make things rights by disclosing the income. A valid disclosure must also provide a complete explanation of the circumstances behind the unreported income.

Those facts raise questions about when Mr. Mulroney filed his disclosure and what he told investigators about the income. If Mr. Mulroney made his voluntary disclosure any time after Nov. 2, 1995, he would have been aware that he was the subject of an investigation by the RCMP, a highly publicized probe that focused specifically on his relationship with Mr. Schreiber – the very person who provided him the undisclosed income.

According to CRA spokeswoman Béatrice Fénelon, a person who is the subject of a criminal investigation can still file a valid voluntary disclosure, but the taxpayer must be completely upfront with investigators.

“If he is the subject of an investigation and is aware of it, [he] is under the obligation to disclose that they are under investigation as part of making a complete disclosure of information,” she wrote.

Also, Mr. Mulroney's spokesman, Mr. Lavoie, has repeatedly referred to the cash payments as a “retainer.” Stevan Novoselac, a partner at the law firm Gowlings and a tax expert, said in an interview that a retainer isn't taxable income until the funds are taken out of a lawyer's trust account and a bill is rendered to the client.

Is it possible that Mr. Mulroney waited to pay his taxes because he had been holding Mr. Schreiber's payment in trust and didn't immediately consider it income? If so, he wouldn't need to file a voluntary tax disclosure. He simply would have disclosed the payment on his annual tax return the same year that he took the $300,000 out of trust. Moreover, Mr. Schreiber maintains he never received a bill for the services Mr. Mulroney provided.

____________________

If Mulroney was receiving the money for services and everything was above board right from the git go, why didn't he just pay the tax when he first received the money? Why didn't he complete the so called services?

At least this gives him some more wiggle room.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Carinthia

[capricorn]

Carinthia thanks for the link. Nothing in the article contradicts what I said that what Mulroney did is not illegal under our tax laws. Mulroney is due to testify on Thursday at which time he will be asked to explain this matter.

As to whether he provided any service for Schreiber for the $300,000 is another matter altogether. Again, I don't doubt this will be explored by the Ethics committee on Thursday.

I'll take a wait and see attitude.

[Fortunata]

Steve's Chief of Staff and Mulroney's reps meet in the House of Commons today. Mulroney's reps were there to get the lay of the land for him for tomorrow. That's like the Queen does, she has people go over sites so they can tell her what to expect. Did Chretien have this done before he attended the Gomery Commission? That would be interesting to know.

[Michael Bluth]

reps were there to get the lay of the land for him for tomorrow. That's like the Queen does, she has people go over sites so they can tell her what to expect. Did Chretien have this done before he attended the Gomery Commission? That would be interesting to know.

Like the Queen.

It's called advance.

Chretien probably did have it done before Gomery.

By the time these guys are ex-Prime Ministers it has just become standard operating procedure.

For Chretien's 30+ years as a cabinet minister, official leader of the opposition and PM it would have been done on all his trips. For that reason there is a good chance it happened with Gomery.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Carinthia]

Carinthia thanks for the link. Nothing in the article contradicts what I said that what Mulroney did is not illegal under our tax laws. Mulroney is due to testify on Thursday at which time he will be asked to explain this matter.

As to whether he provided any service for Schreiber for the $300,000 is another matter altogether. Again, I don't doubt this will be explored by the Ethics committee on Thursday.

I'll take a wait and see attitude.

You're welcome Capricorn! It is all so cloudy and I don't think that any proof of anything will ever be found. So I guess in the end we will all have to take our conjectures and interpret them as to about how we personally feel about Mulroney and whether we individually believe him. Schrieber will be interviewed on One On One with Peter Mansbridge on the weekend. Saw some of the interview last night. Now that Schreiber is free on bail he is not quite so free with the damning information, and was almost defending Mulroney. One can only guess what may have promoted this turn about face. That was my take on it anyhow.