Jump to content

Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?


August1991

Mulroney a Crook?  

73 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 784
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The reality is this: Mulroney's motivations and actions were persistently against those of Canada and her people. This is why he was and is so well loved by separatists. He was a known liar, a shill for US interests, pathologically self-absorbed, and propagated disastrous policies. With this record, if he wasn't crooked, it would be a small mercy.

Wow. There's some fair and even-handed analysis. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was NOT the Liberal Party.
It was technically the Liberal government but for all intents and purposes, it was the Liberal Party conducting this vendetta against Mulroney for purely partisan reasons. That's why I stated the Liberal Party.
She was not, though the police did use her information. And even if she had been, so what?
If Stevie Cameron were smart and professional, she would have been extremely circumspect in her contacts with the RCMP.
What errors?
From my own knowledge, On the Take contains numerous minor errors of dates, names, positions. Without knowing anything about the accusations against Mulroney, I concluded that it's shoddy research. Then I read Kaplan's first book and realized that Cameron's book was fiction.
The reality is this: Mulroney's motivations and actions were persistently against those of Canada and her people.
You are entitled to dislike Mulroney. But he was elected twice by Canadian voters and was one of only two PMs ever to receive over 50% of the vote.

I'll take Mulroney's judgment of Canadians' interests over your judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

To quote myself (referring to the ICJ):

What I'm saying is that there isn't a snowball's chance that even a Democrat would sign this loony treaty. We have a functioning prosecutorial and court system and people are court-martialed regularly for such minor offenses as Abu Ghraib. We do not need our officials to be subject to the wims of the likes of Chirac, Chavez or Pol Pot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

it was the Liberal Party conducting this vendetta against Mulroney for purely partisan reasons.
This is rarely done, because it is a precedent no politician wants set. In the US, the first action undertaken by a newly elected president is to legally pardon the former president of any actions he did or may have done that hasen't yet come to light. Why? Because they expect the next one to do the same for them. Canadian politics is different, to be sure, but not that much. Perhaps the Liberals, at the time, knew the Conservatives were finished and felt a criminal charge against the former PM would be the 'ultimate nail in the coffin', but it is certainly a bold and unusual step.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US, the first action undertaken by a newly elected president is to legally pardon the former president of any actions he did or may have done that hasen't yet come to light.

I agree with your point in general. The above part of your post is just plain wrong.

There is no tradition of outgoing President's be pardoned by their successors.

The only time I could find where a President pardoned their predecessor was in 1974 when Ford pardoned Nixon.

Ford took a huge hit. The biggest drop in public opinion since opinion polling began.

Here are a couple sources on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
One former politician has told me that the Liberals and the Conservatives have made a deal — silence about the $300,000 in exchange for silence about the income-trust affair with its allegations about leaks from Liberal insiders to Bay Street. Because Ottawa is Ottawa, you can be reasonably certain we will never know the facts about that one.

But what of the Canadian news media? What is their excuse? What possible reason could they have for ignoring an extraordinary story like this one? Scandal fatigue, perhaps. Fear of lawsuits, maybe. But no one can deny the Gazette’s modest plea — namely, that “we need to know more.”

Our country deserves better. It is time for the media to finally break the silence on this, the great Canadian unwritten scandal.

Warren Kinsella

I think the deal would more be along the lines of Chretien and a hotel. And why would Harper feel bound by such a deal?

But Kinsella is right. We need to know more.

----

Having resurrected this thread, I might as well throw in this detail:

Karlheinz Schreiber, the German-Canadian businessman at the centre of the Airbus affair, is down to his final move to avoid extradition to Germany after yesterday's Supreme Court announcement that it will not hear his appeal.

...

In December, however, Mr. Toews upheld the extradition, saying that the Justice Department contacted the Germans and received assurances that neither the judge nor the lawyer who spoke about Mr. Schreiber will be involved in his case.

Mr. Schreiber's final stand is a judicial review of a decision by former justice minister Vic Toews. In August, Mr. Schreiber's lawyer, Edward Greenspan, wrote to Mr. Toews and alleged that public comments from a German prosecutor and judge showed that Mr. Schreiber won't receive a fair trial.

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Greenspan said he didn't know when the Ontario Court of Appeal will be able to review Mr. Toews's decision. The date will likely be set next week, Mr. Greenspan said, when Mr. Schreiber appears for a bail hearing. Mr. Schreiber had to surrender to police while awaiting the Supreme Court decision.

G & M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the deal would more be along the lines of Chretien and a hotel. And why would Harper feel bound by such a deal?

But Kinsella is right. We need to know more.

This is what I said on September 25:

The man the Germans are trying to extradite is Karlheinz Schreiber. If and when he is returned to Germany, the information on who he bribed for Airbus ought to come out.

It will be curious to see if Mulroney will testify if called as a witness.

I suspect that this is when we will find out more about what happened. I wonder if a trial in Germany will force a re-opening of an investigation here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the same article G & M:

"When so much water's under the bridge, you've got to say, 'just what the heck does the guy got? How credible is it? How concrete is it?' " the Mountie said.
What is this?!? Some kind of a game?!??!?!?!? What kind of "just-us system" is this?!?

I like this two-tiered justice system we have:

One justice system for the rich and the cronies and the statesmen. The sloppy left-overs for the rest of us.

"The nation of Germany has made a request to the nation of Canada. That has to be taken into account. You can't just thumb your nose at Germany. It's an awfully long time and to be this close to the door . . . and then to say, 'Sorry, we've changed our minds.' Countries just don't operate that way."
This is polycentric law. Do I object to it? Yes, because it is with my money and the First-Tier does not pay for it.

I am sure every other Canadian gets the same treatment that Schreiber gets. Lovely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Liberals were found by a judicial inquiry of misappropriating more than $1 Million dollars.

Hey... quit twisting the truth. Liberals were NOT found to have misappropriated any funds... not even one dollar or one red cent. Nada. And that was by Gomery and TWO official audits of the Liberal party's books.

What happened was that the Liberal party found that they had received donations of $1.4 million from the perps that helped themselves to sponsorship money.... you know the Boss guy, Tory Chuck Guite and his crew. The Liberal party promptly paid back those monies to the taxpayers when in fact they really were legal donations.

Chretien also changed the rules to ban corporate funding to political parties and only $1000 to candidates. Individual donations were limited to $5000. Chretien also limited cash donations to $25.

Liberals misappropriated absolutely nothing. So please watch how you phrase your accusations. Just stick to the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey... quit twisting the truth. Liberals were NOT found to have misappropriated any funds... not even one dollar or one red cent. Nada. And that was by Gomery and TWO official audits of the Liberal party's books.

What happened was that the Liberal party found that they had received donations of $1.4 million from the perps that helped themselves to sponsorship money.... you know the Boss guy, Tory Chuck Guite and his crew. The Liberal party promptly paid back those monies to the taxpayers when in fact they really were legal donations.

I am willing to ask questions about Brian Mulroney and his $300,000. You, on the other hand, are simply delusional.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey... quit twisting the truth. Liberals were NOT found to have misappropriated any funds... not even one dollar or one red cent. Nada. And that was by Gomery and TWO official audits of the Liberal party's books.

What happened was that the Liberal party found that they had received donations of $1.4 million from the perps that helped themselves to sponsorship money.... you know the Boss guy, Tory Chuck Guite and his crew. The Liberal party promptly paid back those monies to the taxpayers when in fact they really were legal donations.

Liberals misappropriated absolutely nothing. So please watch how you phrase your accusations. Just stick to the truth.

After years of stonewalling, and a judicial inquiry of tens of millions of dollars, the Liberals paid back the $1.14 million dollars that was illegally obtained.

That was promptly?

As to the legality. An act in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy is part of that conspiracy. That the Government has NOT wasted more tax money prosecuting the crimes that are clearly evident to all but the most blinded Liberal hacks is not a positive reflection on the Liberal Party's actions.

Just stick to the truth. :rolleyes:

Hey, keep it up though. Every Liberal out there who tries to defend the party over Adscam drives another voter, or two or three, to the Conservatives. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I wasn't really old enough for the Mulroney years, the way I see this is as follows: a friend gave him some money in exchange for consulting on his business, which was seen by some as a bribe in order to help Airbus get a contract over Boeing. Nobody has any evidence of this being illegal, and when the Libs tried to bring the issue back, he sued the government and won. Which means they really didn't have any evidence. I say it's all good.

From people's experiences who I know, Mulroney was one of the better PM's Canada ever had (looking back on it all). Yet some people absolutely hate him and will never stop beating the dead issues. I guess we will have to wait for these people to be in their graves before we will stop hearing this stuff, even though they have no evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I wasn't really old enough for the Mulroney years, the way I see this is as follows: a friend gave him some money in exchange for consulting on his business, which was seen by some as a bribe in order to help Airbus get a contract over Boeing. Nobody has any evidence of this being illegal, and when the Libs tried to bring the issue back, he sued the government and won. Which means they really didn't have any evidence. I say it's all good.

From people's experiences who I know, Mulroney was one of the better PM's Canada ever had (looking back on it all). Yet some people absolutely hate him and will never stop beating the dead issues. I guess we will have to wait for these people to be in their graves before we will stop hearing this stuff, even though they have no evidence.

Actually, much of the information on the money has come out *after* the RCMP investigation. Mulroney denied he had contact with Shreiber. He didn't mention the money.

The Germans want Shreiber now and could come up with information that the RCMP didn't get. It isn't over yet. It isn't a dead issue.

There are plenty of questions that are left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I wasn't really old enough for the Mulroney years, the way I see this is as follows: a friend gave him some money in exchange for consulting on his business, which was seen by some as a bribe in order to help Airbus get a contract over Boeing. Nobody has any evidence of this being illegal, and when the Libs tried to bring the issue back, he sued the government and won. Which means they really didn't have any evidence. I say it's all good.

From people's experiences who I know, Mulroney was one of the better PM's Canada ever had (looking back on it all). Yet some people absolutely hate him and will never stop beating the dead issues. I guess we will have to wait for these people to be in their graves before we will stop hearing this stuff, even though they have no evidence.

He was hated for being a polarizing figure...other than that he wasn't that corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I wasn't really old enough for the Mulroney years, the way I see this is as follows: a friend gave him some money in exchange for consulting on his business, which was seen by some as a bribe in order to help Airbus get a contract over Boeing.

Except that no consulting was done. And if it was legitimate, why did Mulroney deny it at first?

Nobody has any evidence of this being illegal,

I'm no legal expert, but if bribery is not illegal (which I'm pretty sure it is) it's certainly "immoral".

and when the Libs tried to bring the issue back, he sued the government and won. Which means they really didn't have any evidence. I say it's all good.

Chretien is trying to sue the government over adscam. If he wins, would you say "it's all good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
Former prime minister Brian Mulroney attempted to cover up cash payments he received totalling $300,000 from a secret account, Karlheinz Schreiber told CBC's The Fifth Estate.

Karlheinz Schreiber claims former prime minister Brian Mulroney attempted to cover up $300,000 in payments he received.

(Aaron Harris/Canadian Press)

Mulroney wanted Schreiber, a German businessman, to provide a statement that the former prime minister at no time solicited or received compensation of any kind from the German businessman, Schreiber said. But Schreiber did not provide Mulroney with it.

*snip*

"I was not prepared to do that because it was a clear request for, towards me to commit perjury. And why would I do that?" said Schreiber.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/31/...-schreiber.html

The government should treat this no less vigourlessly than they treated Shawinigate......keeping an eye that Mulroney might have won a lawsuit fraudently.

Documents obtained by CBC News show that the Justice Department looked into whether or not it could attempt to recover the $2.1 million-settlement Mulroney received after revelations Mulroney had accepted cash payments from Schreiber.

EDIT

This was the opening post of the former thread entitled: Disgraced PM in Alledged Cover UP, Tried to get Schreiber to make up Story.....

which is now merged into this current thread.

Edited by Charles Anthony
merged redundant thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former prime minister implicated in kickback coverup

OTTAWA (AFP) - Former prime minister Brian Mulroney allegedly tried to hide cash payments of 300,000 dollars he received from an arms dealer now facing charges in Germany, said Canada's public broadcaster Wednesday.

In an interview with CBC, Karlheinz Schreiber said Mulroney had asked him for a letter stating that "at no time did he ever solicit or receive" money from Schreiber.

On the advice of his lawyer, Schreiber declined his former associate's request, he said.

In 1995, federal police had accused Mulroney of accepting kickbacks from Schreiber while Mulroney was in office for the purchase Airbus jets for carrier Air Canada.

Mulroney subsequently sued the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for libel, and under oath, denied any dealings with Schreiber. He received a government apology and a two-million dollar settlement and the case was closed.

Meanwhile, a scandal erupted in Germany over payments Schreiber had made from secret bank accounts in Switzerland to prominent people there.

Schreiber would later say in court documents that Mulroney had indeed accepted three secret cash payments at hotel meetings in New York and Montreal shortly after he left office in 1993, from his Zurich account.

In return, Mulroney was supposed to help Schreiber establish a light-armored vehicle factory for the European firm Thyssen AG, and promote Schreiber's burgeoning pasta business, Reto Restaurant Systems International.

---------------

First he's accused, then vindicated along with $2M of our money as a nice lttle retiremement payola, then accused again. So if its found out to be true, does that mean we get our money back???

EDIT

This was the opening post of the former thread entitled: Mulroney took the money and away he run

which is now merged into this current thread.

Edited by Charles Anthony
merged redundant thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...