Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[Michael Bluth]

That is assuming that he did not lie isn't it? Isn't there already a discrepancy with the numbers Schreiber says 300K Mulroney 225K? Given that the only place to find the truth is in Mr. Mulroney's tax returns and Mr. Schreiber's evidence I would suggest that there is in fact cause for an inquiry.

What new evidence did Schreiber provide?

He gave nothing to the committee.

But he did accomplish his primary goal, delaying his extradition.

[Alexandra]

That is assuming that he did not lie isn't it? Isn't there already a discrepancy with the numbers Schreiber says 300K Mulroney 225K? Given that the only place to find the truth is in Mr. Mulroney's tax returns and Mr. Schreiber's evidence I would suggest that there is in fact cause for an inquiry.

If the truth is to be found in B. Mulroney's tax returns are you assuming that B. Mulroney would actually lie to the Ethics Committee about the amount of money he received from Shreiber knowing that in a full blown Public Inquiry his tax records/recturns may be produced for the Chair, judge, et al. of the Inquiry?

It is not likely Mr. Mulroney would be that intellectually challenged.

`

[jdobbin]

If the truth is to be found in B. Mulroney's tax returns are you assuming that B. Mulroney would actually lie to the Ethics Committee about the amount of money he received from Shreiber knowing that in a full blown Public Inquiry his tax records/recturns may be produced for the Chair, judge, et al. of the Inquiry?

It is not likely Mr. Mulroney would be that intellectually challenged.

It is probably why Mulroney has said he no longer thinks an inquiry is needed and why he shied away from providing his tax records in regards to the matter. In fact, he came with no paperwork at all to confirm his story.

[Shakeyhands]

Mulroney and the CRA came to a binding agreement on the treatment of that $300,000 in payments.

Guess there can be no further penalty in this case...

So basically he withheld the information from CRA (via a loophole basically) and now won't have to pay taxes on it and you would be ok with that?

Edited December 24, 2007 by Shakeyhands

[Michael Bluth]

So basically he withheld the information from CRA (via a loophole basically) and now won't have to pay taxes on it and you would be ok with that?

He declared the money as consulting income.

What is the loophole?

When Mulroney declared the income as consulting income the GST would have come up during the negotiations.

[Alexandra]

It is probably why Mulroney has said he no longer thinks an inquiry is needed and why he shied away from providing his tax records in regards to the matter. In fact, he came with no paperwork at all to confirm his story.

If you too are suggesting that B. Mulroney would deliberately lie to the Ethics Committee about the amount of funds he (his tax Accountant/lawyer) reported to the CRA then I can only conclude that you must lack experience with the Income Tax Act, late filings, declarations, et al. or this further comment of yours is simply more wishful thinking on your part.

How would you or any other observer of the Q and A sessions of this Ethics Committee know what documents or paperwork B. Mulroney and his lawyer brought with them on the day of Mr. Mulroney's appearance?

`

[jdobbin]

If you too are suggesting that B. Mulroney would deliberately lie to the Ethics Committee about the amount of funds he (his tax Accountant/lawyer) reported to the CRA then I can only conclude that you must lack experience with the Income Tax Act, late filings, declarations, et al. or this further comment of yours is simply more wishful thinking on your part.

How would you or any other observer of the Q and A sessions of this Ethics Committee know what documents or paperwork B. Mulroney and his lawyer brought with them on the day of Mr. Mulroney's appearance?

There were no documents tabled for the committee's review. They did ask for those records and Mulroney demurred. Of particular note was the differences on what Shreiber says he paid out and what Mulroney claimed. It seems many Tories are not interested in what the discrepancy is in regards to that.

Both CTV and CBC had some experts comment on the issue of the CRA on the day Mulroney testified and said that there are some obvious questions the testimony was not able to get at because Mulroney had no documents. And of course, this doesn't even touch on the legality or the ethical aspects of the issue at all.

Edited December 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

If you too are suggesting that B. Mulroney would deliberately lie to the Ethics Committee about the amount of funds he (his tax Accountant/lawyer) reported to the CRA then I can only conclude that you must lack experience with the Income Tax Act, late filings, declarations, et al. or this further comment of yours is simply more wishful thinking on your part.

Of course there is a lack of expertise with the Income Tax Act.

Why use facts or honesty to detract from the slanderous campaign against Mulroney?

[capricorn]

If you too are suggesting that B. Mulroney would deliberately lie to the Ethics Committee about the amount of funds he (his tax Accountant/lawyer) reported to the CRA then I can only conclude that you must lack experience with the Income Tax Act, late filings, declarations, et al. or this further comment of yours is simply more wishful thinking on your part.

Wishful thinking is an apt description. Tax experts commented on Mulroney's tax question.

"A lack of records may explain Mr. Mulroney's decision to declare the full amount, Mr. Drache said.

"If I claim the business expenses I've got to retain the records for at least seven years. But of course if I take a personal trip and not claim it as a business expense, I can throw the stuff away the next day," he said. "That's one of the interesting things, when he says, 'I was being generous, I didn't claim the expenses for tax purposes,' that really gets him off the hook."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Story.htm...=169802&p=1

CRA has put this matter to bed but the opposition refuses to let it go. This is one way of keeping Mulroney's name in the news providing opportunities to link Harper with Mulroney. What the opposition refuses to accept is that Canadians are tired of the whole thing and want to put it behind them.

[Michael Bluth]

CRA has put this matter to bed but the opposition refuses to let it go. This is one way of keeping Mulroney's name in the news providing opportunities to link Harper with Mulroney. What the opposition refuses to accept is that Canadians are tired of the whole thing and want to put it behind them.

Exactly.

The Liberals might hold the CPC to a minority over this issue. Then again it could backfire against them and lead to a strong CPC majority.

Accepting the CPC holds a slight lead over the Liberals at this point, does anyone think that Dion will outperform Harper on the campaign trail?

Not even strong Liberals. Hence the reason for discredit at any cost.

[jdobbin]

CRA has put this matter to bed but the opposition refuses to let it go. This is one way of keeping Mulroney's name in the news providing opportunities to link Harper with Mulroney. What the opposition refuses to accept is that Canadians are tired of the whole thing and want to put it behind them.

I've said all along the Tories should cancel the inquiry and deport Shreiber. I think the damage has been done and that Harper was wrong to embrace Mulroney whom the vast majority of Canadians think was dishonest and remains so today.

I still think that things are not as "settled" as the right wing would like us to believe and I think that is reflected in how people think of Mulroney now.

I guess it will be up to Johnston now to decide the parameters of an inquiry. Despite what Harper says, there doesn't seem anything written that says no inquiry is an option. I don't see how Johnston could say everything was resolved when he himself was not actually mandated to make that decision.

Edited December 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

well I finally did it. I put dobbin on ignore.

I can't believe it has taken me this long.

The posts are boring and parrot the liberal line right down to punctuation.

He is clearly a party organizer and propogandist. Not an original thought to be had that I have ever read.

His only opinions are those of the liberal party. It's quite sad actually.

I encourage others to do the same.

[jdobbin]

well I finally did it. I put dobbin on ignore.

I can't believe it has taken me this long.

The posts are boring and parrot the liberal line right down to punctuation.

He is clearly a party organizer and propogandist. Not an original thought to be had that I have ever read.

His only opinions are those of the liberal party. It's quite sad actually.

I encourage others to do the same.

I'm certainly fine by that. It will certainly lessen the unsubstantiated insults.

Edited December 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[runningdog]

I'm certainly fine by that. It will certainly lessen the unsubstantiated insults.

lol, too true mate...cheers for your work (holding ALL political parties accountable for their actions) and have a great Christmas.

[Michael Bluth]

cheers for your work (holding ALL political parties accountable for their actions)

When has he done anything to hold the NDP, Liberals, BQ or Greens accountable for their actions?

Such a pathetic misrepresentation of his actions.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

have a great Christmas.

Thanks. Have a great Christmas yourself.

[jbg]

The Liberals seem to be great at addressing historical issues. I remember that during the campaign leading to the June 29, 2004 election the Liberals were talking of pardoning Louis Riel. They are far better at addressing past than current problems.

[jazzer]

well I finally did it. I put dobbin on ignore.

I can't believe it has taken me this long.

The posts are boring and parrot the liberal line right down to punctuation.

He is clearly a party organizer and propogandist. Not an original thought to be had that I have ever read.

His only opinions are those of the liberal party. It's quite sad actually.

I encourage others to do the same.

This is probably a reportable post. But I'll let Charles deal with it.

[capricorn]

The Liberals might hold the CPC to a minority over this issue. Then again it could backfire against them and lead to a strong CPC majority.

Or, it will have nil impact.

Accepting the CPC holds a slight lead over the Liberals at this point, does anyone think that Dion will outperform Harper on the campaign trail?

Dion better review what he has been saying lately and in his year end interviews. In trying to champion himself as the saviour of the federation, I have heard him say more than once that he is the longest serving Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs since Confederation. This is too funny. That ministry has only existed since the late 80's. Then there are his comments to the effect we must share our wealth internationally to fight global warming although we only account for 2% of global GHG emissions.

In reading various blogs it's obvious to me that Canadians are generally concerned with bread and butter issues. So far, I have heard nothing from the Liberals to address these issues, other than an ambitious plan to combat a poverty problem which IMO they have overblown. They're trying to differentiate their policies from those of the Conservatives by depicting themselves as the more "caring" party. This glimpse into the direction they are headed shows they are taking a swing to the left. This is no surprise considering that former NDPer Bob Rae is conceptualizing and writing what will amount to the next Red Book.

[Michael Bluth]

Dion better review what he has been saying lately and in his year end interviews. In trying to champion himself as the saviour of the federation, I have heard him say more than once that he is the longest serving Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs since Confederation.

This glimpse into the direction they are headed shows they are taking a swing to the left. This is no surprise considering that former NDPer Bob Rae is conceptualizing and writing what will amount to the next Red Book.

That lack of a clue what Canadians really think or care about will be Dion's downfall.

Big freakin' deal longest serving Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Swing to the left? Bring it on. A divided left will pave the way to a Conservative majority.

[Alexandra]

There were no documents tabled for the committee's review. They did ask for those records and Mulroney demurred. Of particular note was the differences on what Shreiber says he paid out and what Mulroney claimed.

If Mulroney, on the advice of his tax Accountant/lawyers, did claim all of the funds received from Shreiber as personal income and paid the full amount of tax owing, which the CRA had levied, then what 'documents' other than Mulroney's personal tax return would you or the Committee consider yourself/it entitled to review?

It seems many Tories are not interested in what the discrepancy is in regards to that.

Listen Buckwheat. It is becoming quite pointless for you to continue to postulate on just how "many Tories" are either not interested in this or that.

Unless, of course, you are a member of a polling firm which contacts the millions of so-called 'tories' on a regular basis, which I doubt, however, neither you nor I nor anyone else should presume to speak for all of those 'tories' or - liberals - or socialists - or any other group of Canadians.

Ciao.

`

[jdobbin]

If Mulroney, on the advice of his tax Accountant/lawyers, did claim all of the funds received from Shreiber as personal income and paid the full amount of tax owing, which the CRA had levied, then what 'documents' other than Mulroney's personal tax return would you or the Committee consider yourself/it entitled to review?

Listen Buckwheat. It is becoming quite pointless for you to continue to postulate on just how "many Tories" are either not interested in this or that.

Unless, of course, you are a member of a polling firm which contacts the millions of so-called 'tories' on a regular basis, which I doubt, however, neither you nor I nor anyone else should presume to speak for all of those 'tories' or - liberals - or socialists - or any other group of Canadians.

We only have Mulroney's word that he did claim the full amount. There is still a discrepancy in what Shreiber says he paid out and what he says he paid tax on. The committee doesn't know what the CRA saw or what the return is. All we have is sworn testimony where Mulroney continues to act cagey on.

No need for insults. I haven't insulted you in my responses.

My specific response on Tories are those that sit on the committee who had written notes prepared prior to Mulroney's testimony that congratulated him on clearing the air. There are a few Tory supporters here who seem to think the whole thing is settled as well.

[Alexandra]

We only have Mulroney's word that he did claim the full amount. There is still a discrepancy in what Shreiber says he paid out and what he says he paid tax on. The committee doesn't know what the CRA saw or what the return is. All we have is sworn testimony where Mulroney continues to act cagey on.

My specific response on Tories are those that sit on the committee who had written notes prepared prior to Mulroney's testimony that congratulated him on clearing the air. There are a few Tory supporters here who seem to think the whole thing is settled as well.

I think we have reached an impasse. It has now become a case of he said-he said and then there is the truth.

No need for insults. I haven't insulted you in my responses.

It is surprising you took offence at my post. If you think about it the repetitious claims of 'many tories seem to think' or ... 'the tories think or believe this or that' is really a subtle inference used to stress whatever points made in an effort to support your/their argument. If you believe this was an insult to you personally then may I suggest that was not the intention.

`

ps. if i had intended on issuing an insult to your person it would not have been in terms as in that post.

[jdobbin]

I think we have reached an impasse. It has now become a case of he said-he said and then there is the truth.

It is surprising you took offence at my post. If you think about it the repetitious claims of 'many tories seem to think' or ...

'the tories think or believe this or that' is really a subtle inference used to stress whatever points made in an effort to support your/their argument. If you believe this was an insult to you personally then may I suggest that was not the intention.

ps. if i had intended on issuing an insult to your person it would not have been in terms as in that post.

The impasse is what Johnston will have to determine in terms of unravelling. The Globe and Mail today repeated today that the terms of reference the tabled documents didn't seem to have the "no inquiry" option.

Namecalling is mentioned specifically in the rules. I haven't done any such thing with you.

Edited December 25, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

I think we have reached an impasse. It has now become a case of he said-he said and then there is the truth.

It is surprising you took offence at my post. If you think about it the repetitious claims of 'many tories seem to think' or ... 'the tories think or believe this or that' is really a subtle inference used to stress whatever points made in an effort to support your/their argument.

Your reconciliatory spirit is welcomed however it will sadly fall on deaf ears.

The intention of certain posters is to start fights and direct the board. As their authority (or lack thereof) is not respected they get angrier and angrier. Sadly as more and more of us learn the lessons he spreads his net wider and wider to find a sparring partner.

The misrepresentations and trolling should lead to at least a suspension. Eventually the simmering pot will boil over, if only figuratively, and the moderators will be forced to act.