Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

Mr. Schreiber extradition date has been pushed back and he is not going anywhere anytime soon. Due process assures Mr. Schreiber that his application to the Federal Court for a stay of extradition will be heard tomorrow and an appeal to the Supreme Court is in the works.
Their appears to be a problem that if Schreiber's stay in Canada exceeds a certain number of days any extradition proceedings will be nullified and Canada will have to cease its efforts of sending him off to Germany. Given our system and the umpteen appeal processes open in such cases, I'm starting to hope that Schreiber gets his wish and remains here a free man till his dying day. That'll give him ample time to attend as many inquiries as we can throw at him.

This is not what the Parliamentary lawyer believed of Nicholson's response. He believed without the warrant from the Speaker's office that Shreiber would have been on a plane on Saturday.

capricorn · November 30, 2007

He didn't say he had no memory. He wanted papers to back up his words.

And when you think about it, Schreiber was a judge for nine years in Germany. He wants the supporting documents because he does not want to perjure himself. As I understand, his testimony at the committee gives him immunity from prosecution. I wonder if he understands that concept or is he playing dumb to drag out the whole thing.

Riverwind · November 30, 2007

He wants the supporting documents because he does not want to perjure himself.

He needs to make sure he his lies are consistent and that he does not say anything that can be easily disproven.

he playing dumb to drag out the whole thing.

Of course he is. He wanted out of jail and the MPs gave him his wish. He will drag this out as long as humanly possible.

capricorn · November 30, 2007

This is not what the Parliamentary lawyer believed of Nicholson's response. He believed without the warrant from the Speaker's office that Shreiber would have been on a plane on Saturday.

Yes, I believe the Speaker's warrant is what caused extending the extradition date. But there is another crucial date which apparently falls sometime in mid-January which affects the whole extradition question.

jbg · November 30, 2007

And when you think about it, Schreiber was a judge for nine years in Germany. He wants the supporting documents because he does not want to perjure himself. As I understand, his testimony at the committee gives him immunity from prosecution. I wonder if he understands that concept or is he playing dumb to drag out the whole thing.

The latter. One would normally testify from their recollection, and the party questioning them would introduce documents to question them on, i.e. to confine their testimony. The document itself is not evidence unless it meets certain narrow criteria under rules of evidence.

I listened for about 2 hours on CPAC. This is a farce and a circus. He's willing to bribe to the tune of $500,000, but doesn't want to perjure himself because of his sense of ethics? Cry me a river.

Edited November 30, 2007 by jbg

capricorn · November 30, 2007

The latter. One would normally testify from their recollection, and the party questioning them would introduce documents to question them on, i.e. to confine their testimony. The document itself is not evidence unless it meets certain narrow criteria under rules of evidence.

Therefore, in this case the party questioning, i.e., the committee, should have had the documents in hand prior to asking the questions? That would make sense. I know that in public inquiries that's how it is done.

I listened for about 2 hours on CPAC. This is a farce and a circus.

More to come. Pass the barf bag.

Fortunata · November 30, 2007

I'm starting to hope that Schreiber gets his wish and remains here a free man till his dying day. That'll give him ample time to attend as many inquiries as we can throw at him.

:lol: Good one, we can torture him with inquiries instead of him lollygagging in a German prison. Whatever is the worse option; he is a sleaze.

It's funny, the Government's stance sure changed about immediate extradition once Steve got back to town. All of a sudden Nicholson isn't so vocal about not being able to delay it.

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

Yes, I believe the Speaker's warrant is what caused extending the extradition date. But there is another crucial date which apparently falls sometime in mid-January which affects the whole extradition question.

All of this sort of contradicts that the Tories were prepared to get to the bottom of the issue when they were getting ready to send Shreiber away on Saturday.

jbg · November 30, 2007

All of this sort of contradicts that the Tories were prepared to get to the bottom of the issue when they were getting ready to send Shreiber away on Saturday.

And Szabo sure cut Schrebier a wide swath to waste everyone's time. Explain that, please.

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

And Szabo sure cut Schrebier a wide swath to waste everyone's time. Explain that, please.

I guess that must be your impression. I haven't heard it being others.

August1991 · November 30, 2007

I have read through the recent posts quickly and I haven't watched any of the proceedings. (When I started this thread ages ago, I never thought that it would take this turn.)

Maybe I'm wrong but this case has the potential to break open the ugly underbelly of Canadian politics. Whatever the level, Canadian politics are small town. Everybody knows everybody.

Harper is an outsider to the Canadian political system. I suspect that he feels uncomfortable in being the one to turn the rock over to see what's beneath - in particular when he has only a minority government.

What do I mean? Whatever Mulroney may have done - Chretien and the Liberals have done 10 fold.

----

Until now, Harper seems to have wanted to co-opt the system without challenging it. He has compromised. Sooner than he may want, he'll have to decide what to do. If I were Harper, I'd start reading the autobiography of Rene Levesque.

capricorn · November 30, 2007

All of this sort of contradicts that the Tories were prepared to get to the bottom of the issue when they were getting ready to send Shreiber away on Saturday.

jd, not everyone is convinced that Schreiber could not have testified from Germany and that includes some opposition supporters. You'd think in this age of advanced technology this could be arranged with no problem. It's understandable that accusations would be lobbed at Conservatives that they wanted him out of the picture as part of a cover up. With an election looming sometime soon, the object is to gain support among the electorate. What better way for the opposition than linking a government to past scandals. You know as well as I this is done all the time in politics.

Schreiber is a gift to the opposition and he happens to have a personal agenda. It's great theater for the media and we political junkies. It keeps lawyers in business and commons committees busy. What I'm getting from average Canadians is that they are tuning out of the whole thing. Truthfully, I am about to turn into an average Canadian. :lol:

jbg · November 30, 2007

Harper is an outsider to the Canadian political system. I suspect that he feels uncomfortable in being the one to turn the rock over to see what's beneath - in particular when he has only a minority government.
What do I mean? Whatever Mulroney may have done - Chretien and the Liberals have done 10 fold.

Harper's a forensic accountant, isn't he? If I were in his shoes, I'd start ripping and slashing until there was no tomorrow.

Until now, Harper seems to have wanted to co-opt the system without challenging it. He has compromised. Sooner than he may want, he'll have to decide what to do. If I were Harper, I'd start reading the autobiography of Rene Levesque.

Explain, please. I just bought Trudeau's. Should I put that on my reading list of Canadiana?

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

jd, not everyone is convinced that Schreiber could not have testified from Germany and that includes some opposition supporters. You'd think in this age of advanced technology this could be arranged with no problem. It's understandable that accusations would be lobbed at Conservatives that they wanted him out of the picture as part of a cover up. With an election looming sometime soon, the object is to gain support among the electorate. What better way for the opposition than linking a government to past scandals. You know as well as I this is done all the time in politics.
Schreiber is a gift to the opposition and he happens to have a personal agenda. It's great theater for the media and we political junkies. It keeps lawyers in business and commons committees busy. What I'm getting from average Canadians is that they are tuning out of the whole thing. Truthfully, I am about to turn into an average Canadian.

I've already said that Harper should send him packing. Take a stand. Send him off and cancel the inquiry.

I guess the only problem for the Tories is that Canadians are not tuning out. The polls have been pretty consistent about and have been posted in the political polls thread. Canadians want to know if there was a breach of trust regarding the $300,000 paid out to Mulroney.

capricorn · November 30, 2007

He needs to make sure he his lies are consistent and that he does not say anything that can be easily disproven.

He has disproven himself more than once. :lol:

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

Harper's a forensic accountant, isn't he? If I were in his shoes, I'd start ripping and slashing until there was no tomorrow.

He was an accountant but I have never read he was a forensic accountant.

Do you have a citation for that?

capricorn · November 30, 2007

Canadians want to know if there was a breach of trust regarding the $300,000 paid out to Mulroney.

That should be the extent of any probe. In the case of the Liberals, it's not so clear how deep to go. They're still digging.

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

Harper is an outsider to the Canadian political system. I suspect that he feels uncomfortable in being the one to turn the rock over to see what's beneath - in particular when he has only a minority government.
What do I mean? Whatever Mulroney may have done - Chretien and the Liberals have done 10 fold.

The Tories have certainly tried to make that claim time and time again. It still doesn't change the fact that Canadians have said they want the government to retrieve the money that was paid to Mulroney if he lied to the RCMP about the relationship and money that was paid to him. Likewise, there is a growing concern according to the polls that Mulroney may have been in breach of trust by making a deal for the money while still PM.

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

That should be the extent of any probe. In the case of the Liberals, it's not so clear how deep to go. They're still digging.

Probably because of the haste the Tories have taken to try and extradite Shreiber out of the country this Saturday.

August1991 · November 30, 2007

The Tories have certainly tried to make that claim time and time again. It still doesn't change the fact that Canadians have said they want the government to retrieve the money that was paid to Mulroney if he lied to the RCMP about the relationship and money that was paid to him. Likewise, there is a growing concern according to the polls that Mulroney may have been in breach of trust by making a deal for the money while still PM.

Jean Chretien personally authorized the "taxpayers" $2.1 million payment to Mulroney and that money didn't go to Mulroney, it went to pay for his legal defence against the Liberal government accusations.

Chretien bought peace with that money (our money) and Schreiber, acting in his own interest, is breaking this "peace treaty" open.

Harper feels like Bush talking to Olmert and Abbas.

----

More broadly, as both Chretien and Mulroney have said, this is a can of worms no one really wants to open. (Chretien less than Mulroney. Trudeau is dead and I wonder what he would have said. Given the political success of Harper in Quebec, I suspect Trudeau'd side with Harper.)

Edited November 30, 2007 by August1991

capricorn · November 30, 2007

Probably because of the haste the Tories have taken to try and extradite Shreiber out of the country this Saturday.

That's no excuse. The Liberals have known for 8 years that action was being taken to extradite Schreiber. Heck, they started the process.

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

That's no excuse. The Liberals have known for 8 years that action was being taken to extradite Schreiber. Heck, they started the process.

And the Tories had more than two years. They certainly seem to be in a rush now to send him off.

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

Jean Chretien personally authorized the "taxpayers" $2.1 million payment to Mulroney and that money didn't go to Mulroney, it went to pay for his legal defence against the Liberal government accusations.
Chretien bought peace with that money (our money) and Schreiber, acting in his own interest, is breaking this "peace treaty" open.

That's a very convenient statement. The RCMP made the accusations and followed up on it. The Liberals ordered money paid out when the RCMP couldn't make their case. Muloney denied a relationship with Shreiber and the RCMP couldn't prove one.

This shouldn't come as news to you. But in your hast to tar the Liberals, you seem to have forgotten.

August1991 · November 30, 2007

And the Tories had more than two years. They certainly seem to be in a rush now to send him off.

Dobbin, you can make this look as if the Tories will lose.

In fact, it's the old-line parties who will lose from this. The Conservatives (Tories) went through their purgatory and hot coals. The Liberals didn't.

More important to the rest of us, Canadian federal politics need a radical change. Tammany Hall is no more. And the federal Liberal threat/bluff of Quebec independance has taken on a new hue too. Since Laurier, the federal Liberals played that card and now they can't.

That's a very convenient statement. The RCMP made the accusations and followed up on it. The Liberals ordered money paid out when the RCMP couldn't make their case. Muloney denied a relationship with Shreiber and the RCMP couldn't prove one.

Chretien authorized the payment. Full stop. Edited November 30, 2007 by August1991

jdobbin · November 30, 2007

Dobbin, you can make this look as if the Tories will lose.
In fact, it's the old-line parties who will lose from this. The Conservatives (Tories) went through their purgatory and hot coals. The Liberals didn't.

More important to the rest of us, Canadian federal politics need a radical change. Tammany Hall is no more. And the federal Liberal threat/bluff of Quebec independance has taken on a new hue too. Since Laurier, the federal Liberals played that card and now they can't.

Chretien authorized the payment. Full stop.

I've never said anything of the sort. I've said that Canadians have said in many polls that they want to know what the $300,000 was all about and whether the $2 million was paid out under false pretenses.

As for rest of your statement, I take it that you are not interested in whether Harper lied to the RCMP.

Chretien did authorize the money. Do you remember why?