Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

capricorn · December 1, 2007

Why should you care??

I'm jockeying for a job as forum moderator.

Some of the rest of it is interesting, giving details of testimony and answering questions raised in recent discussions.

Post the interesting parts and skip the superfluous parts. Readers can open a link to read the rest, if they're interested enough. Others will pass.

Are you trying to stop me from posting here,

Whatever gave you that idea?

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.

This is my first attempt at "policing" MLW. How have I done so far?

Get a real job.

Dealing with you IS a job.

Charles Anthony · December 1, 2007

Everybody,

Stop the off-topic banter. Discuss the topic in a civil manner.

This is a global first warning. Anybody who continues with the banter runs the risk of losing posting privileges or suspension.

trex · December 1, 2007

"Opposition politicians have questioned MacKay in recent days about his father's relationship with Schreiber, who testified before a House of Commons ethics committee on Thursday. He'll return for a second appearance next Tuesday.

During question period Friday, MPs called on the defence minister to produce a letter Elmer MacKay faxed to Schreiber from MacKay's N.S. constituency office in 2006.

"What was the subject and content of that letter?" Liberal MP Judy Sgro said Friday. "Will the minister table it before the House?"

The incident caused a minor uproar in Parliament last year when it was revealed by the Bloc Québécois.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/071130/cana...ackay_associate

trex · December 1, 2007

"CBC News has obtained a copy of an e-mail which appears to have been sent from Elmer MacKay's wife's address to Schreiber's wife in June of last year under the subject heading "proposed letter." The e-mail contains verbatim portions of the actual letter Schreiber did send to Mulroney about three weeks later.

Schreiber said he sent the letter because MacKay suggested Mulroney might raise the issue of Schreiber's pending extradition with Harper.

When approached at his Lorne, N.S., home, MacKay would not comment to CBC News about the e-mail."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/28/...ber-mackay.html

---------

Mulroney, Harper, now Mackay. Then suddenly the whole house of cards caved in upon itself...

Edited December 1, 2007 by trex

Michael Bluth · December 1, 2007

Mulroney, Harper, now Mackay. Then suddenly the whole house of cards caved in upon itself...

Hmmm,

Mulroney - took money that he declared years ago. Not when he should have, but he has already dealt with the CRA on that one.

Harper - one of his offices may have gotten a letter from Schreiber.

All depending on the word of an admitted perjurer who has been fighting extradition to Germany for more than a decade.

If they had admitted to stealing $1.14 million in taxpayers money. Maybe...

woo hee. What an incredible house of cards. :rolleyes:

Carinthia · December 1, 2007

After watching these ying yangs on the news during this so called inquiry I am an embarrassed Canadian to say the least.

Mulroney is an old man now and probably has done nothing that many politicians haven't done before him. Not to mention that the focus of attention is a sleazy business man who is wanted for fraud and other corruption. Our Government is allowing a con man to play cat and mouse while they all sit and laugh in amusement and furthermore, spar with him.

The documentary that aired on "The Fifth Estate" was enlightening but really didn't tell us anything that we didn't already suspect about Mulroney. What the program has done, is spawn the most apalling display of political maneuvering that I have ever seen in this country. We the tax payers, have to foot the bill for this laughable demonstration of a serious lack of real priorities.

There is no way, much to the disappointment for a lot of us, that Mulroney will ever spend one day in the clink for his apparent underhanded dealings. Mulroney has a fox mentality and he has no conscience. When he walks away from this, which he will, he will go on laughing at us all for the rest of his life.

Hopefully and soon, the other fox in this charade will be packed up and sent back to face the music from where he doth come.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Carinthia

jdobbin · December 1, 2007

There is no way, much to the disappointment for a lot of us, that Mulroney will ever spend one day in the clink for his apparent underhanded dealings. Mulroney has a fox mentality and he has no conscience. When he walks away from this, which he will, he will go on laughing at us all for the rest of his life.

I'm sure Conrad Black shared the same thinking about his trials and tribulations. He'll be sentenced soon.

Mulroney continues to play the game now as a unregistered lobbyist.

noahbody · December 1, 2007

We the tax payers, have to foot the bill for this laughable demonstration of a serious lack of real priorities.

You think it's easy to make priorities?!!

Carinthia · December 1, 2007

I'm sure Conrad Black shared the same thinking about his trials and tribulations. He'll be sentenced soon.
Mulroney continues to play the game now as a unregistered lobbyist.

Ah yes, but that started in America, involved a helluva lot more money and affected a lot of powerful individuals. No comparison.

jdobbin · December 1, 2007

Ah yes, but that started in America, involved a helluva lot more money and affected a lot of powerful individuals. No comparison.

The money involved in Airbus and the military trucks easily exceeds anything Conrad Black put together. That is the heart of the question of what the $300,000 was paid for. Was it a commission for Airbus, trucks or what? If the terms and work was done while Mulroney was PM, it is breach of trust and could result in other charges as well.

Carinthia · December 1, 2007

The money involved in Airbus and the military trucks easily exceeds anything Conrad Black put together. That is the heart of the question of what the $300,000 was paid for. Was it a commission for Airbus, trucks or what? If the terms and work was done while Mulroney was PM, it is breach of trust and could result in other charges as well.

Schreiber has already "cleverly" testified that the money was to commission Mulroney in assisting him with other businesses and the work was never forthcoming by Mulroney. IMO, the chances of the real truth coming to light is slim to none. I could only wish.

Keepitsimple · December 1, 2007

Here's a perfect example of partisan newspaper reporting:

On Friday (yesterday), the Toronto Star ran an above-the-fold major headline which read as follows:

Schreiber says Mulroney raised his case with Harper
Testimony contradicts PM's statements on status of businessman's extradition to Germany

This wasn't a brief story...the author used every scrap of innuendo, massaged the truth a bit, and soiled Harper's integrity as much as possible.

Now we learn from the CBC that Schreiber said he sent a letter to Mulroney because Elmer MacKay suggested Mulroney might raise the issue of Schreiber's pending extradition with Harper. But Harper has said Mulroney never raised the issue of Schreiber's extradition with him at that meeting.

Schreiber says Elmer MacKay urged him to mend fences with Mulroney
CBC News

Karlheinz Schreiber says former Conservative cabinet minister Elmer MacKay urged him to write a letter to Brian Mulroney to patch up their relationship so he could raise his extradition case with the prime minister, CBC News has learned.

Personally, I trust Harper's word over that of Schreiber, the Toronto Star, or the CBC.

Link to Star Story: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/281316

Link to CBC Story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/28/...ber-mackay.html

Edited December 1, 2007 by Keepitsimple

Fortunata · December 1, 2007

After watching these ying yangs on the news during this so called inquiry I am an embarrassed Canadian to say the least.
Mulroney is an old man now and probably has done nothing that many politicians haven't done before him. Not to mention that the focus of attention is a sleazy business man who is wanted for fraud and other corruption. Our Government is allowing a con man to play cat and mouse while they all sit and laugh in amusement and furthermore, spar with him.

The documentary that aired on "The Fifth Estate" was enlightening but really didn't tell us anything that we didn't already suspect about Mulroney. What the program has done, is spawn the most apalling display of political maneuvering that I have ever seen in this country. We the tax payers, have to foot the bill for this laughable demonstration of a serious lack of real priorities.

There is no way, much to the disappointment for a lot of us, that Mulroney will ever spend one day in the clink for his apparent underhanded dealings. Mulroney has a fox mentality and he has no conscience. When he walks away from this, which he will, he will go on laughing at us all for the rest of his life.

Hopefully and soon, the other fox in this charade will be packed up and sent back to face the music from where he doth come.

Yes, Mulroney is just another black eye we have to bear. It's not even so much that he lied under oath but the fact that he would be so close to someone like Schreiber whose dealings from the get-go seem on the dodgy side, even if they were legal here.

But if it weren't for the Fifth Estate and the Globe and Mail this wouldn't have come out at all. Then Mulroney would be laughing all the way to the grave, or he might yet. I'm happy enough that his shenanigans will stick adversely to his "legacy" which he feels hasn't been appreciated enough by Canadians and is furious that Trudeau always seems to overshadow him. Now his lack of ethics are squarely on his shoulders. As far as Schreiber goes, he couldn't have given Mulroney money/support/whatever (or anyone else for that matter) if the recipients weren't willing to accept it. Who' worse?

Edited December 1, 2007 by Fortunata

noahbody · December 1, 2007

Here's a perfect example of partisan newspaper reporting:
On Friday (yesterday), the Toronto Star ran an above-the-fold major headline which read as follows:

This wasn't a brief story...the author used every scrap of innuendo, massaged the truth a bit, and soiled Harper's integrity as much as possible.

How about this: Harper sues the Toronto Star for $2 million for defamation, donates the money to the Canadian government. All in favour?

Fortunata · December 1, 2007

How about this: Harper sues the Toronto Star for $2 million for defamation, donates the money to the Canadian government. All in favour?

I'm in favour of Mulroney paying back the 2.? million he got from us taxpayers when it is clear he misled under oath.

jdobbin · December 1, 2007

Schreiber has already "cleverly" testified that the money was to commission Mulroney in assisting him with other businesses and the work was never forthcoming by Mulroney. IMO, the chances of the real truth coming to light is slim to none. I could only wish.

That's why I think the 35,000 pages of Shreiber should be subpoenaed and that Mulroney's taxes should be compared to those pages.

Andrew Cohen was right. If this had been the U.S. there would have been several committees and lawyers working for those committees gathering all that information and getting closer to the bottom of what happened.

August1991 · December 1, 2007

Schreiber has already "cleverly" testified that the money was to commission Mulroney in assisting him with other businesses and the work was never forthcoming by Mulroney. IMO, the chances of the real truth coming to light is slim to none. I could only wish.

Exactly.

There are two key points that have come out so far (to the extent that Schreiber is believable): the $500,000 was not an Airbus payoff and Schreiber never met Harper.

Mr. Mulroney, through a spokesman, has said that the money was for Mr. Mulroney's help to promote a pasta business, as well as establishing a light-armoured vehicle factory for Mr. Schreiber's client Thyssen AG.
“It had nothing to do with any pasta business. It simply didn't exist,” Mr. Schreiber told MPs Thursday. “It was not $300,000 to be discussed. It was $500,000. But he received only $300,000 because he did nothing.”

“Since [Mulroney] didn't perform, he didn't get the $500,000, simple as that,” he said.

G & M

Conservative MP Russ Hiebert: "Mr. Schreiber, I have a couple of simple questions I'd like to ask you. They only require a yes' or 'no' answer. They're not complicated and I hope you'll be willing to provide me with the answers.
"Have you ever spoken directly with, or met, Prime Minister Stephen Harper?"

Karlheinz Schreiber: "No."

Conservative MP Russ Hiebert: "Has a lawyer, while acting on your behalf, ever met with or spoken with Prime Minister Harper?"

Karlheinz Schreiber: "No."

Conservative MP Russ Hiebert: "Have you, or a lawyer acting on your behalf, ever met with or spoken with a member of the staff of Prime Minister Harper's office?"

Karlheinz Schreiber: "Not to my knowledge."

[...]

Conservative MP Russ Hiebert: "Mr. Schreiber, have you ever held a membership or donated funds to the Conservative Party of Canada since its creation in 2003?"

Karlheinz Schreiber: "No."

G & M

Michael Bluth · December 1, 2007

There are two key points that have come out so far (to the extent that Schreiber is believable): the $500,000 was not an Airbus payoff and Schreiber never met Harper.

But if the Liberals keep hammering on Mulroney it will somehow stain Harper and his image.

There has to be some justice for the fallout from Adscam. :rolleyes:

It was only $1.14 million of taxpayer dollars. :lol:

Carinthia · December 1, 2007

That's why I think the 35,000 pages of Shreiber should be subpoenaed and that Mulroney's taxes should be compared to those pages.
Andrew Cohen was right. If this had been the U.S. there would have been several committees and lawyers working for those committees gathering all that information and getting closer to the bottom of what happened.

Ain't that the truth!

This enquiry smacks of insincerity.

They will skim over the surface; find a lack of evidence; Mulroney will go back to mentoring car salesman; while employing a battery of new lawyers to sue everybody he can get his greasy little fingers on; Harper will come out of it looking even more honest for carrying out due diligence on one of his own; and they will all pat that themselves on the back for their hard work and integrity in trying to bring this vicious criminal to justice. :rolleyes:

Michael Bluth · December 1, 2007

This enquiry smacks of insincerity.
They will skim over the surface; find a lack of evidence; Mulroney will go back to mentoring car salesman; while employing a battery of new lawyers to sue everybody he can get his greasy little fingers on; Harper will come out of it looking even more honest for carrying out due diligence on one of his own; and they will all pat that themselves on the back for their hard work and integrity in trying to bring this vicious criminal to justice.

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

If there is no dirt found, maybe just maybe, it is because there is nothing there to find.

Carinthia · December 1, 2007

Why would the opposiiton 'skim over the surface' with Schreiber at committee?
If there is no dirt found, maybe just maybe, it is because there is nothing there to find.

Schreiber is going to play this as a delay tactic and he isn't going to divulge anything of any consequence and they all know it. The whole thing seems like a "just going through the motions" sham. I would think there would be lots to find if they really wanted to find it. Gee, I wonder if anything else untoward went on during those years? When you're privvy to the back rooms and inner circles of Government, you would probably learn far more than you would ever want to know, I'm sure. Who knows what else they all really know? It would be hard for me to believe that this incident was a one off.

jdobbin · December 1, 2007

Schreiber is going to play this as a delay tactic and he isn't going to divulge anything of any consequence and they all know it. The whole thing seems like a "just going through the motions" sham. I would think there would be lots to find if they really wanted to find it. Gee, I wonder if anything else untoward went on during those years? When you're privvy to the back rooms and inner circles of Government, you would probably learn far more than you would ever want to know, I'm sure. Who knows what else they all really know? It would be hard for me to believe that this incident was a one off.

The government certainly doesn't seem to be interested. Their first instinct is to deport Shreiber and to cancel any investigation.

Fortunata · December 1, 2007

I think there still is a distinct possibility that Schreiber will be gone before the inquiry. With this government you can never tell.

Carinthia · December 1, 2007

The government certainly doesn't seem to be interested. Their first instinct is to deport Shreiber and to cancel any investigation.

Mulroney will suffer the idignity of being viewed, from here on in, as someone never be seen in the company of. At least there's some justice.

jbg · December 2, 2007

Harper will come out of it looking even more honest for carrying out due diligence on one of his own; and they will all pat that themselves on the back for their hard work and integrity in trying to bring this vicious criminal to justice.

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.