Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[August1991]

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?

According to Chretien, the RCMP advised him to authorize the payment to Mulroney. (IOW Chretien played the game by saying that the RCMP told him he could do what he wanted to do...)

On what planet do you live, Dobbin? The planet Canada - where I live - is undergoing changes, I think. Changes? Let's see where they lead. (Votes in Quebec and so on... ) The Conservative Party has changed. The federal Liberal Party has not.

Edited November 30, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

According to Chretien (IOW Chretien played the game by saying), the RCMP advised him to authorize the money.

On what planet do you live, Dobbin? The planet Canada - where I live - is undergoing changes, I think. Changes? Let's see where they lead. (Votes in Quebec and so on... ) Let's see where this leads? The Conservative Party has changed. The federal Liberal Party has not.

I didn't see that quote on Chretien being told by the RCMP to authorize the money. Do you still have the cite?

I don't think you realize that Canada is still not buying what Harper is selling in terms of earning a majority. Part of it probably has to do with how Harper has been trying to rehabilitate Mulroney in the last couple of years. In fact, had it not been for Shreiber, Mulroney was to have been feted by Harper and the entire cabinet a week or so ago.

What part of the Tory party has changed again?

[August1991]

I didn't see that quote on Chretien being told by the RCMP to authorize the money. Do you still have the cite?

Chretien paid the money and Chretien is no fool, despite what he says.

Dobbin, your call. And this is high stakes politics - Chretien style

"I never heard anything from the administration (of the RCMP) since the day that I paid (Mulroney)," Chretien told The Canadian Press in an interview Tuesday.

The payments eventually became public on Nov. 10, 2003, just four days before Chretien was to hand over the reins of the Liberal party to his successor, Paul Martin.

Eddie Goldenberg, a former top adviser to Chretien, has suggested that the Liberal government wouldn't have settled with Mulroney had it known about his dealings with Schreiber, a central figure in the Airbus scandal. And recently disclosed memos show Justice officials mused about trying to get the money back after learning about the payments.

But Chretien said he has no apologies for agreeing to pay Mulroney $2.1 million, given the information he knew at the time.

"He swore that he didn't have any business with Schreiber . . . A former prime minister came and, on the Bible, says that he had no business, so I had no choice but to accept his word," Chretien said.

"I don't have any regret because I acted with the facts I had in front of me."

Macleans

Draw your own conclusion.

Edited November 30, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Chretien paid the money and Chretien is no fool, despite what he says.

Dobbin, your call. And this is high stakes politics - Chretien style

Draw your own conclusion.

There was no advice from the RCMP based on what I see here. The RCMP told Justice that despite their suspicions, they could find no evidence. Chretien paid the legal fees because that is what the government often does when they are found to be in the wrong. However, in this case, when the $2 million was paid out, the government was not informed about the $300,000 payments from Shreiber.

If you can find something different on the subject, by all means let me know.

[August1991]

Chretien paid the legal fees because that is what the government often does when they are found to be in the wrong.

If you say so, Dobbin.

But in raw political terms, few voters in Canada (French or English) will believe that Chretien decided as you suggest.

Second, Chretien wasn't spending his money - he was spending our money.

----

In short, this is all "politics". Maybe Stephen Harper will be able to change it, as Rene Levesque did.

[jdobbin]

If you say so, Dobbin.

But in raw political terms, few voters in Canada (French or English) will believe that Chretien decided as you suggest.

Second, Chretien wasn't spending his money - he was spending our money.

----

In short, this is all "politics". Maybe Stephen Harper will be able to change it, as Rene Levesque did.

Well, you initially said the RCMP advised him to pay the money. I don't find evidence of it. Why do you think Chretien paid $2 million to Mulroney? They said they didn't have a case and Mulroney held to the statement that he had no relationship to Shreiber.

You'll have to show me where Canadians think that Chretien is responsible for Mulroney taking $300,000 from Shreiber and not reporting it for many years. You'll have to also show me that Chretien somehow knew about that money and paid Mulroney anyways. On what grounds? I think your respect for Mulroney has somehow blinded you to this tax money that you acknowledge is ours. We should be asking if it was legitimately paid out given what we are hearing now. You don't seem interested in the least.

Of course it is politics. Everything is politics. However, I have no idea what changes you seem to have pinned your hoped on Harper making. Nor have you been clear about what Levesque changed and how it applies to $2 million that could have been paid out for no reason or $300,000 that could have been arranged in breach of trust.

Edited November 30, 2007 by jdobbin

[trex]

What part of the Tory party has changed again?

They dropped the word "progressive" from their name.

[jbg]

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.

And it's very convenient that Schreiber appears, with bells on, to want to testify about the "relationship" when his options in avoiding deportation were just about over, and deadline pressure made it necessary to really effectuate the deportation. Or maybe, in view of the charade yesterday, he didn't really want to testify, but wants confusion and delay.

[jbg]

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.

What's stopping them, with 75 ridings out of 308, from playing that card? It still seems like a very good card to play, since Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces almost always vote Liberal, the Western Provinces (except for a smattering) almost always vote with one of the further right parties (PCPC, Alliance, CPC) and Quebec is the only one demonstrating some purchaseable "flexibility"?

[Keepitsimple]

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?

Schreiber, under oath yesterday, has already said that the $300,000 was for "future services". That means work that would be done when Mulroney was out of office and that means it's a private affair - not a public one. Perhaps you didn't like his answer....but that's what's been said - under oath.

[noahbody]

However, in this case, when the $2 million was paid out, the government was not informed about the $300,000 payments from Shreiber.

If they were informed the 300k was for future work it wouldn't have made a difference. From here, the only thing they can go Mulroney for is perjury based on his statement he only met Schreiber once or twice for coffee. This could very well be a true statement being based on physical meetings. Misleading most likely, but nothing that's going to get Mulroney prosecuted for perjury.

I would assume some committee member will step over the line, Mulroney will launch another lawsuit and the government will hand him another 2 million.

[Michael Bluth]

If they were informed the 300k was for future work it wouldn't have made a difference. From here, the only thing they can go Mulroney for is perjury based on his statement he only met Schreiber once or twice for coffee. This could very well be a true statement being based on physical meetings. Misleading most likely, but nothing that's going to get Mulroney prosecuted for perjury.

I would assume some committee member will step over the line, Mulroney will launch another lawsuit and the government will hand him another 2 million.

Mulroney is a lawyer. He would have ensured he didn't perjure himself.

It's doubtful Mulroney launches another lawsuit. Just more bad ink for the CPC. Mulroney took one for the team in calling for an inquiry.

[jdobbin]

Schreiber, under oath yesterday, has already said that the $300,000 was for "future services". That means work that would be done when Mulroney was out of office and that means it's a private affair - not a public one. Perhaps you didn't like his answer....but that's what's been said - under oath.

We still don't know when this deal was made. If it was made during the last two days of when Mulroney was PM , it is breach of trust.

If the $300,000 was paid out before the $2 million was paid out, it is a case of Mulroney lying to the RCMP and then getting money from the government under false pretenses.

[jdobbin]

If they were informed the 300k was for future work it wouldn't have made a difference. From here, the only thing they can go Mulroney for is perjury based on his statement he only met Schreiber once or twice for coffee. This could very well be a true statement being based on physical meetings. Misleading most likely, but nothing that's going to get Mulroney prosecuted for perjury.

I would assume some committee member will step over the line, Mulroney will launch another lawsuit and the government will hand him another 2 million.

Mulroney still faces breach of trust based on the timing of the deal if it was done while he was PM. That might be difficult to prove. We'll see.

He may be asked to return the $2 million though based on lying to the RCMP about meeting one once or twice for coffee. That seems to be a very concocted story based on pictures of the two together in various settings as well as correspondence between the two.

[noahbody]

Mulroney still faces breach of trust based on the timing of the deal if it was done while he was PM. That might be difficult to prove. We'll see.

He may be asked to return the $2 million though based on lying to the RCMP about meeting one once or twice for coffee. That seems to be a very concocted story based on pictures of the two together in various settings as well as correspondence between the two.

If the $300K isn't related to AirBus, the reason for the settlement, he won't be asked to give it back.

[jdobbin]

If the $300K isn't related to AirBus, the reason for the settlement, he won't be asked to give it back.

Certainly not by the Tory government.

The money was paid out because there was found to be no evidence of a relationship between Shreiber and Mulroney. We now know that to be false.

[noahbody]

The money was paid out because there was found to be no evidence of a relationship between Shreiber and Mulroney.

Not true. It was because it could not be proven Mulroney profited from the sale of Air Bus. They may turn out to be lovers, but unless there's proof Mulroney profited, it's irrelevant.

[Michael Bluth]

It was because it could not be proven Mulroney profited from the sale of Air Bus. They may turn out to be lovers, but unless there's proof Mulroney profited, it's irrelevant.

I would hope no questions about Mulroney's sexual relations with Schreiber are asked in the inquiry.

Hopefully the inquiry isn't that open-ended!

Something tells me that Sly Brian knew what he was doing when he asked for the inquiry.

It will give him the chance to expose Schreiber for the charlatan that he is.

[Fortunata]

Something tells me that Sly Brian knew what he was doing when he asked for the inquiry.

It will give him the chance to expose Schreiber for the charlatan that he is.

Or Mulroney could be bluffing, hoping that the Cons ship him out before the inquiry or hoping that Schreiber can't back up his allegations. But when it comes down to it, Mulroney mislead the country, under oath, so he could be called a charlatan as well. It's going to be interesting to hear how Mulroney is going to justify this. Once a liar ....

Everyone already knows Schreiber is a charlatan..

[jdobbin]

Not true. It was because it could not be proven Mulroney profited from the sale of Air Bus. They may turn out to be lovers, but unless there's proof Mulroney profited, it's irrelevant.

Actually, the lawsuit was a defamation suit and part of the suit was about how Mulroney didn't have relationship with Shreiber or dealings with him. Check it out, if you like. It has been for this reason that Chretien says the government settled out of court because the RCMP couldn't establish a relationship between Shreiber and Mulroney.

It is very relevant to the pay out of money and could be grounds for asking for the money back.

[trex]

Harper wanted Schreiber kicked out of Canada

Powerful people in Ottawa are intent on kicking Karlheinz Schreiber out of Canada and are manoeuvring to derail any public inquiry into his business dealings with former prime minister Brian Mulroney, the lawyer for the controversial arms lobbyist said Friday.

Edward Greenspan, after winning his client a stay of extradition that will allow him to tell the rest of his story to a House of Commons ethics committee, suggested Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself is among those keen to see Schreiber leave Canadian soil. "I think there are people in Ottawa who are in power who would like to get rid of him," Greenspan said outside the Ontario Court of Appeal.

"It seems to me that the prime minister . . . although he's called for it and although former prime minister Brian Mulroney wants a public inquiry, the minister of justice has done everything in his power to get Mr. Schreiber out of here before that inquiry," he said. "Strikes me as a concerted effort to make sure that they look like they want a public inquiry. What they really want is Mr. Schreiber out of here."

Schreiber's testimony Thursday contradicted claims by Mulroney that the agreement was made after he left office and that it was for assistance with a pasta business and other services.

The German-Canadian businessman said he made the deal on June 23, 1993, at the prime minister's retreat at Harrington Lake - just two days before Mulroney stepped down as prime minister. The timing of the deal is key because if it happened while Mulroney was in office, the former prime minister could face legal repercussions.

He said Mulroney was supposed to help facilitate the Bear Head project - a failed plan to build light-armoured vehicles in Nova Scotia.

He said his friendship with Mulroney ended in 1995 when he saw a letter from Mulroney's former chief of staff that the ex-PM had dropped the Bear Head project.

Schreiber said the decade-old betrayal was repeated last year when Mulroney double-crossed him over a promise to ask Prime Minister Harper to help him stay in Canada.

He said Mulroney assured him in July 2006 that he would take a letter to Harper that month asking for assistance. Mulroney allegedly told him afterward that he had met with Harper at Harrington Lake and that "the message was very well received."

Schreiber said he was told that after his case had worked its way through the Supreme Court, then-justice minister Vic Toews "would look into it and do the right thing." In return, Schreiber was supposed to sign a letter stating that his business relationship with Mulroney had been above board.

Schreiber is to appear before the committee again Tuesday. He will be held in jail until then but will be allowed access to his home in Ottawa's Tony Rockcliffe neighbourhood and wherever else he may need to visit to retrieve necessary documents.

---------

Upstarts and Rogues.

and charlatans, don't forget about the charlatans

Edited December 1, 2007 by trex

[capricorn]

Harper wanted Schreiber kicked out of Canada

---------

Upstarts and Rogues.

and charlatans, don't forget about the charlatans

Do you have to quote such a lengthy media article in order to post a comment of 10 words that has no discernible meaning?

[Keepitsimple]

We still don't know when this deal was made. If it was made during the last two days of when Mulroney was PM , it is breach of trust.

If the $300,000 was paid out before the $2 million was paid out, it is a case of Mulroney lying to the RCMP and then getting money from the government under false pretenses.

You're really, really clutching at straws. If he accepted cash before he left office, or if he provided services before he left office - that would be a "deal" and he should be in trouble. Schreiber himself has sworn that neither of these things happened.....so at worst, based on what we know so far - is that Mulroney had a discussion with Schreiber two days before he stepped down as PM - to lay out what future services Mulroney could offer. Another tempest in a teapot - quite boring actually.

[jdobbin]

You're really, really clutching at straws. If he accepted cash before he left office, or if he provided services before he left office - that would be a "deal" and he should be in trouble. Schreiber himself has sworn that neither of these things happened.....so at worst, based on what we know so far - is that Mulroney had a discussion with Schreiber two days before he stepped down as PM - to lay out what future services Mulroney could offer. Another tempest in a teapot - quite boring actually.

Breach of trust deal with when the terms of payment were arrived at not when they were paid out.

[trex]

Do you have to quote such a lengthy media article in order to post a comment of 10 words that has no discernible meaning?

Why should you care?? Some of the rest of it is interesting, giving details of testimony and answering questions raised in recent discussions.

Are you trying to stop me from posting here, while others go on ad banality about the silly meaning of words, bigotry etc of which many posts have nothing to do with politics, I don't see you trying to clean that act up. Get a real job.