Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[rover1]

From what I can gather, many here would not buy a used car from Mr Mulroney.

[geoffrey]

From what I can gather, many here would not buy a used car from Mr Mulroney.

I would, and take him out for a beer after for being the greatest PM's in recent history. Accepting Airbus was a good deal for Canadians, I think he deserves a nice cold beer for that one. It's not often we have politicans picking the right proposal.

[jdobbin]

If we got a good deal from the ad scam contracts, then yes, I would have been fine with it. That's all that matters, is that the tax payers got a good deal.

Being said, that was a structured defrauding of the taxpayers. Completely different, not even comparable.

Who says this was a good deal for Canada?

Tell that de Havilland Canada.

[gc1765]

You don't have the ability to express yourself succinctly and follow it up with arrogance instead of presenting your views in a comprehensible manner?

You accused my last post of being a "ploy" and seemed to be implying that I was trying to be sneaky. So I decided to be more transparent and forthright in my question....how is that arrogance? If you understood the purpose of my question all along then why did you accuse it of being a ploy?

The Liberals absolutely, and admittedly, stole from the taxpayers in Adscam. The only case that can be made that Canadians are better off by their actions is if you truly believe that the Liberals deserve to be in government at all times, and it was *only* $1.14 million.

I care about the rule of law. The Liberals were proven to have stolen that money and admitted it.

The liberals gave money (from taxpayers) to advertising companies, and those advertising companies gave money back to the liberal party. Therefore, the liberals indirectly stole from taxpayers. Mulroney gave money to airbus, and they gave him money in return. Therefore, mulroney indirectly stole from taxpayers. The only real difference is that since we got a "good deal" from airbus, additional money wasn't wasted. In the case of adscam, an additional $100 million was pretty much wasted.

I tend to care about the actual dollars and cents.

Well, I disagree with you there. For me it's more about trust. I do care about 100 million dollars being wasted, but I care much more about 1 million being stolen.

My taxes and/or the cost of tickets on Air Canada are lower because the PCs went with the Airbus offer. Why would I care about accusations that Mulroney *might* have taken a bribe? Prove he did it. If you can do that, prove how it made Canadians worse off. Then we can consider whether or not Adscam and airbus are equivalent. Until then it's just a withc hunt.

I've tried to offer proof, but you haven't responded to my previous question. There are a few things which I consider to be "facts" but please feel free to argue any of them (because I'm not sure exactly where you disagree with me):

1) Mulroney accepted $300,000 on from Schreiber (on behalf of airbus)

2) There is no explanation for that $300,000 other than a bribe (if it was legitimate, there would be no need to deny it would there?)

3) Mulroney awarded contracts to airbus

So there's your prooof. Which part do you take issue with?

How are Canadians worse off? Well, Mulroney essentially stole $300,000 from taxpayers, that's how. No matter how good the contract may have been, we could have gotten it for $300,000 cheaper if they hadn't used that money to bribe Mulroney.

[August1991]

Orenthal? Felonious, I had to look that one up. (In some people's books, Mulroney is guilty of worse. Canada is such a country that no successful federal politician gets out with his/her reputation intact. Canadians eat their young.)

Mulroney also was involved in other criminal activity after he left the PM's office. He went on to join the board of directors at Archer Daniels Midland...and then they got busted...

We would have to put many famous people in prison if we arrested everyone sitting on the board of directors of a company whose corporate officers committed a crime. Mulroney sat (sits) on the boards of many public companies.

To my knowledge, despite numerous investigations and going to court, the Liberals never found anything against Mulroney. (It takes a particular force of character to stand up to such pressure.)

The only questionable event is this $300,000. I think Coyne's comments are well stated. Maybe I'll get and read Kaplan's second book.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I've tried to offer proof, but you haven't responded to my previous question. There are a few things which I consider to be "facts" but please feel free to argue any of them (because I'm not sure exactly where you disagree with me):

1) Mulroney accepted $300,000 on from Schreiber (on behalf of airbus)

2) There is no explanation for that $300,000 other than a bribe (if it was legitimate, there would be no need to deny it would there?)

3) Mulroney awarded contracts to airbus

So there's your prooof. Which part do you take issue with?

How are Canadians worse off? Well, Mulroney essentially stole $300,000 from taxpayers, that's how. No matter how good the contract may have been, we could have gotten it for $300,000 cheaper if they hadn't used that money to bribe Mulroney.

Take issue with 1) and 2).

No proof it was on behalf of airbus.

You are trying to say that unless proven otherwise the $300,000 payout has to be a bribe? wtf.

You also assume that Airbus made a conscious decision to inflate their bid by $300,000 and to give that money to Mulroney.

That's a huge jump in logic.

So you are saying you have no evidence, but there has to be only one explanation. That is your proof?

[gc1765]

Take issue with 1) and 2).

No proof it was on behalf of airbus.

Well, it wasn't for "business consultation" which is Mulroney's excuse. If it was legitimate, why was it denied?

You are trying to say that unless proven otherwise the $300,000 payout has to be a bribe? wtf.

That's like saying the $1.1 million given to ad agencies had nothing to do with the contracts being handed out. Without using testimony, prove that the million dollars was a bribe. It's pretty hard to "prove", but it's just common sense. People don't usually give out money for nothing.

You also assume that Airbus made a conscious decision to inflate their bid by $300,000 and to give that money to Mulroney.

That's a huge jump in logic.

Not really. Airbus or Mulroney could have easily made a conscious decision to lower the cost by 300 thousand. If we asssume for a minute that the payment actually was a bribe...let's say airbus bids $10 million (actual figure is irrelevant) for the contract and gives mulroney $300,000 to grease the wheels. So tax payers pay $10 million, airbus gets 9.7 million and mulroney gets .3 million. Everyone is happy (except taxpayers). Mulroney should have given airbus 9.7 million and left the .3 million in tax payers pockets. Do you think airbus cares where that .3 million ends up, so long as they still get 9.7 million? The net effect is Mulroney stole .3 million from tax payers.

So you are saying you have no evidence, but there has to be only one explanation. That is your proof?

Now who's being arrogant?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Well, it wasn't for "business consultation" which is Mulroney's excuse. If it was legitimate, why was it denied?

Where did you get it wasn't for consulting?

That's like saying the $1.1 million given to ad agencies had nothing to do with the contracts being handed out. Without using testimony, prove that the million dollars was a bribe. It's pretty hard to "prove", but it's just common sense. People don't usually give out money for nothing.

That $1.14 Million is the only amount of money that was proven to be illegally given to Liberal friendly ad firms with no work done. That money was proven by Justice Gomery. Do I believe that much more of the sponsorship program money was illegally diverted to other parties? It's just common sense that the Liberals got a lot more than $1.14 Million out of the deal. Isn't it? That is the logic you used isn't it?

Not really. Airbus or Mulroney could have easily made a conscious decision to lower the cost by 300 thousand. If we asssume for a minute that the payment actually was a bribe...let's say airbus bids $10 million (actual figure is irrelevant) for the contract and gives mulroney $300,000 to grease the wheels. So tax payers pay $10 million, airbus gets 9.7 million and mulroney gets .3 million. Everyone is happy (except taxpayers). Mulroney should have given airbus 9.7 million and left the .3 million in tax payers pockets. Do you think airbus cares where that .3 million ends up, so long as they still get 9.7 million? The net effect is Mulroney stole .3 million from tax payers.

Wow, with such an in-depth knowledge of Government tending and the airline busienss you must work for Boeing or Bombardier ... probably Bomardier.

[gc1765]

That $1.14 Million is the only amount of money that was proven to be illegally given to Liberal friendly ad firms with no work done. That money was proven by Justice Gomery.

Proven how? Through testimony? Why do you believe their testimony but not Schreibers? I guess you only believe people when they say what you want to hear.

Do I believe that much more of the sponsorship program money was illegally diverted to other parties? It's just common sense that the Liberals got a lot more than $1.14 Million out of the deal. Isn't it? That is the logic you used isn't it?

No, that's not the logic I used at all, stop making stuff up. The logic I used is that the liberals got 1.1 million and since you don't give money for nothing, that the 1.1 million was most likely a bribe. I think that's how most people look at it. Now 300,000 was given to mulroney, and using the same logic, money isn't given for nothing, that 300,00 was most likely a bribe.

Wow, with such an in-depth knowledge of Government tending and the airline busienss you must work for Boeing or Bombardier ... probably Bomardier.

I'll take this to mean that I won that argument, but that you are not willing to admit it.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Proven how? Through testimony? Why do you believe their testimony but not Schreibers? I guess you only believe people when they say what you want to hear.

Hmm, because those were the conclusions drawn by Justice Gomery after more than 100 witnesses were interviewed and an inquiry that went on for months. Maybe some of them aren't more credible than Schreiber, but all of them?

No, that's not the logic I used at all, stop making stuff up. The logic I used is that the liberals got 1.1 million and since you don't give money for nothing, that the 1.1 million was most likely a bribe. I think that's how most people look at it. Now 300,000 was given to mulroney, and using the same logic, money isn't given for nothing, that 300,00 was most likely a bribe.

Here is why your *logic* is wrong. I *proved* the entire $100 Million of the sponsorship scandal was misappropriated by the Liberals to the extent you *proved* Mulroney was bribed.

I'll take this to mean that I won that argument, but that you are not willing to admit it.

I actually meant that you were embarassing yourself with your pathetic attempt to *prove* Mulroney was bribed and your startling lack of knowledge of the government bidding progress.

[Borg]

Politics aside - he has been investigated - no charges laid.

To this day he has not been found guilty of anything - I do believe he is still walking free - no incarceration?

All we can offer here is opinion.

And as we all know, everyone has opinions - just like they all have a**holes.

So, the best thought is - until charges are laid and he is found guilty - he is not a crook - he is a man who worked the system to his best advantage. No different than many.

Borg

[jdobbin]

So, the best thought is - until charges are laid and he is found guilty - he is not a crook - he is a man who worked the system to his best advantage. No different than many.

Likewise, Dion is not a crook. He hasn't even been accused except by some here.

[gc1765]

Hmm, because those were the conclusions drawn by Justice Gomery after more than 100 witnesses were interviewed and an inquiry that went on for months. Maybe some of them aren't more credible than Schreiber, but all of them?

Like who?

Here is why your *logic* is wrong. I *proved* the entire $100 Million of the sponsorship scandal was misappropriated by the Liberals to the extent you *proved* Mulroney was bribed.

No, because there is no evidence that the liberals recieved $100 million in bribes. The evidence shows that they recieved 1.1 million, and yes that entire 1.1 million I would consider a bribe.

I actually meant that you were embarassing yourself with your pathetic attempt to *prove* Mulroney was bribed and your startling lack of knowledge of the government bidding progress.

You could argue against my comments using logic and reason, yet you failed to do so and resorted instead to sarcasm & insults. That usually means you've lost the argument. If you want to prove my comments wrong you are still free to do so, if you can. Otherwise, I suggest you don't comment at all.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

To my knowledge, despite numerous investigations and going to court, the Liberals never found anything against Mulroney. (It takes a particular force of character to stand up to such pressure.)

The only questionable event is this $300,000. I think Coyne's comments are well stated. Maybe I'll get and read Kaplan's second book.

Or a particularly arrogant thief. I heard an interview with Conrad Black about 10-15 years ago, about him suing someone for slander, since they had accused him of wrongdoing. He sued for a retraction, not money, and won (I believe he always said that he sued for retractions and not cash). Now, he's off to the hoosegow...

[Ricki Bobbi]

Like who?

More credible than Schreiber?

Sheila Fraser. Allan Cutler. Warren Kinsella.

No, because there is no evidence that the liberals recieved $100 million in bribes. The evidence shows that they recieved 1.1 million, and yes that entire 1.1 million I would consider a bribe.

You are applying a different standard of evidence to the two situations. Your *evidence* for Mulroney's bribe taking isnt' credible. That's the point you have been ignoring. There is no proof that Mulroney took the $300,000 as a bribe. There is only rumour and innuendo. Just like the rumour and innuendo that surround the majority of the Sponsorship Scandal money.

You could argue against my comments using logic and reason, yet you failed to do so and resorted instead to sarcasm & insults. That usually means you've lost the argument. If you want to prove my comments wrong you are still free to do so, if you can. Otherwise, I suggest you don't comment at all.

I used sarcasm because your *proof* against Mulroney is a joke. There is no evidence of malfeasance other than the word of Schreiber. Everything else you provided just shows that Mulroney says he got paid $300,000, which he declared in income tax.

You haven't proven anything and as long as you obstinately stick to the belief that Mulroney accepted a bribe of $300,000 without proving it I'll reply sarcastically.

Provide actual proof or I suggest you shove your suggestions.

[geoffrey]

Who says this was a good deal for Canada?

Tell that de Havilland Canada.

Oh boo hoo. I have little sympathy for failed companies, business isn't a game of being nice. They lost.

Likewise, Dion is not a crook. He hasn't even been accused except by some here.

I'm not convinced on Dion being a crook... he seems too naive and on the outside for him to have been that involved. I may be horribly mistaken, but he never got along with Martin or Chretien personally did he?

[jdobbin]

Oh boo hoo. I have little sympathy for failed companies, business isn't a game of being nice. They lost.

I'm not convinced on Dion being a crook... he seems too naive and on the outside for him to have been that involved. I may be horribly mistaken, but he never got along with Martin or Chretien personally did he?

Boeing pulled out of further investments in the commuter plane market in Canada as a result of this "good" deal for Canada. I was never convinced that the Airbus deal was as good as people insisted it was. To this day it remains murky with the taint of bribery.

And I agree that there isn't anything to indicate that Dion was criminally involved in the sponsorship scandal.

There may be lots of reasons that he isn't a good leadership candidate but being a criminal isn't one of them.

As far as Mulroney goes, he has been evasive about the money that was paid to him. And when confronted about it in 1999, he lied.

I would love for Gerrmany try this in court because they would have access to files that Canadian authorities don't.

[geoffrey]

Boeing pulled out of further investments in the commuter plane market in Canada as a result of this "good" deal for Canada. I was never convinced that the Airbus deal was as good as people insisted it was. To this day it remains murky with the taint of bribery.

There are plenty of companies that will and have invested in commuter plane markets in Canada since. We didn't need Boeing, and they are being sore losers with their hardline stance on the issue.

The issue would be tainted if Boeing's offer was accepted, are we to accept all offers when the yanks start buying our companies?

As far as Mulroney goes, he has been evasive about the money that was paid to him. And when confronted about it in 1999, he lied.

I would love for Gerrmany try this in court because they would have access to files that Canadian authorities don't.

I disagree. Mulroney's business activities aren't our business after he's out of office. He's not a public figure anymore, leave the man alone. He got the money for consulting on the expansion of a Pasta business I believe, he's already said more than he needed to.

[jdobbin]

There are plenty of companies that will and have invested in commuter plane markets in Canada since. We didn't need Boeing, and they are being sore losers with their hardline stance on the issue.

The issue would be tainted if Boeing's offer was accepted, are we to accept all offers when the yanks start buying our companies?

I disagree. Mulroney's business activities aren't our business after he's out of office. He's not a public figure anymore, leave the man alone. He got the money for consulting on the expansion of a Pasta business I believe, he's already said more than he needed to.

The only company that invested in the the commuter plane market was the company that Mulroney always supported: Bombardier in Quebec.

I don't believe there is a time limit on fraud charges. And the money that was paid to Mulroney was not for pasta according to the man that paid him in cash.

Germany has an extradition for the man implicated in fraud and bribery. He has been a wanted man for a long time. You might want Mulroney to be left alone but the Germans haven't had their day in court.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Germany has an extradition for the man implicated in fraud and bribery. He has been a wanted man for a long time. You might want Mulroney to be left alone but the Germans haven't had their day in court.

Do you honestly think there is any chance the Germans will try and extradite Mulroney? Can't see them even trying that. A former head of state from a fellow G7 country being extradited over a questionable business deal.

Has that ever happened with any set of G7 countries ever?

[Borg]

In the end - the man is free to walk the streets because no one and no organization has charged and convicted him of any wrong doing.

Therefore he is not a crook - unless someone has the evidence this is a discussion that simply trashes a man for the sake of trashing him.

Perhaps someone has evidence and is prepared to lay charges?

Opinion, hearsay and innuendo do not cut it.

Borg

[gc1765]

More credible than Schreiber?

Sheila Fraser. Allan Cutler. Warren Kinsella.

And these people testified that the 1.1 million the liberals recieved was specifically for the purpose of a bribe? How would they even know?

You are applying a different standard of evidence to the two situations. Your *evidence* for Mulroney's bribe taking isnt' credible. That's the point you have been ignoring. There is no proof that Mulroney took the $300,000 as a bribe. There is only rumour and innuendo. Just like the rumour and innuendo that surround the majority of the Sponsorship Scandal money.

Why are you ignoring my points? Mulroney denied recieving any money Link .

He then acknowledged recieving the money but says it was for business consultation. So why didn't he say that all along? Why did he instead deny any business dealings with schreiber? Why did he clearly lie?? So, he recieved the money, denied it, claims it was for business consultation (despite denying dealing with him). So what else could the money be for, if not for a bribe? Kind of like what else could the 1.1 million be for other than a bribe? Same logic.

I used sarcasm because your *proof* against Mulroney is a joke. There is no evidence of malfeasance other than the word of Schreiber. Everything else you provided just shows that Mulroney says he got paid $300,000, which he declared in income tax.

You haven't proven anything and as long as you obstinately stick to the belief that Mulroney accepted a bribe of $300,000 without proving it I'll reply sarcastically.

Provide actual proof or I suggest you shove your suggestions.

Again you fail to provide reasoned arguments against my previous comments. Since you've now had two opportunities to do so, I can only assume you have no reasoned arguments.

[geoffrey]

More credible than Schreiber?

Sheila Fraser. Allan Cutler. Warren Kinsella.

And these people testified that the 1.1 million the liberals recieved was specifically for the purpose of a bribe? How would they even know?

It wasn't a bribe. It was a carefully created scheme to take money from the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of the party.

No bribery, just robbery.

[gc1765]

More credible than Schreiber?

Sheila Fraser. Allan Cutler. Warren Kinsella.

And these people testified that the 1.1 million the liberals recieved was specifically for the purpose of a bribe? How would they even know?

It wasn't a bribe. It was a carefully created scheme to take money from the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of the party.

No bribery, just robbery.

Same principle as bribery, no? The liberals ask for money from the companies they are giving contracts to, and in return those companies keep getting lucrative contracts. If the money stops, presumably so do the contracts.

[geoffrey]

Same principle as bribery, no? The liberals ask for money from the companies they are giving contracts to, and in return those companies keep getting lucrative contracts. If the money stops, presumably so do the contracts.

I think you have the order of events wrong. Sponsorship was created to do a few things... illegally (IMO) evade the financing laws around the referendum and second to funnel money to the party in Quebec.

It wasn't a matter of the companies making large donations to the LPC and then LPC giving them contracts. It was straight government giving cash for nothing to these companies, some just shells, and the money following in the 'unmarked envelopes' into party coffers.

It's odd to think that Quebec may not be part of Canada if the LPC didn't break the rules...

Considering that Andrew Fastow, Enron executive, got 10 years for setting up fronts to funnel money out of the company... I think the couple years that these people got for robbing the public purse (much bigger deal IMO) is a joke. Jeffrey Skilling will end up serving about 25 years when all is said and done and Ken Lay would have served around 20. These people were messing around with money given to them by people, Sponsorship was messing around with money taken from all taxpayers. Big difference, the executives in government and in Quebec ad agencies should have all been serving decades of prision time.

But this topic is now going back to what the original was talking on, not on Mulroney. Create a topic directed to this and I'd be glad to continue any discussion there, this has been sufficiently hijacked now unfortunately.