Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[M.Dancer]

Nevermind, I'm just a crappy googler....

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTV...hub=TorontoHome

Peter Shoniker, a former crown attorney and currently a Bay Street investment lawyer, was charged with money laundering in June 2002 after a sting operation by police that involved the movement of $750,000 cash to a U.S. bank.

Ironically, in a wire-tapped phone conversation with an undercover investigator, the court heard Shoniker say his calls would not be monitored.

"There isn't a ----ing judge in the city who would grant an authorization on my line."

[Shakeyhands]

well there you go, lovely story.... but would Mulroney make such a colossol error. I'm thinking not.

[jazzer]

Mulroney wouldn't be the first policitian to accept brown envelops across a restaurant

table.

Edited November 1, 2007 by jazzer

[Higgly]

I'd need to see stronger evidence than the word of a guy like Schreiber. The guy is fighting extradition. You have to ask... Why now?

[Moxie]

Didn't the Liberals pay Lian Brian two mill in a slander case?? He was also cleared by the mounties after they investigated him for several years.

I suspect the Liberals (they are in the middle of a mind melt down) are reviving this little non-event to distract the voting public from their lack of leadership as the official opposition. Sorry but they fooled me once shame on them, fool me twice shame on me. I'd becareful if I were Dion, Lian Brian may go after the Liberals again for more taxpayer money to bail them out of another Libel Civil Suit.

[Michael Bluth]

I suspect the Liberals (they are in the middle of a mind melt down) are reviving this little non-event to distract the voting public from their lack of leadership as the official opposition. Sorry but they fooled me once shame on them, fool me twice shame on me. I'd becareful if I were Dion, Lian Brian may go after the Liberals again for more taxpayer money to bail them out of another Libel Civil Suit.

Definitely.

The Liberals are trying to make anything stick in an attempt to pull attention from Dion's terrible track record as leader.

Seems to be working a little bit.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

And now the questiona are, Brian, what did you happen to do with all that CASH?

Mulroney was the one that created the laws on such large cash transactions.

It is not, nor has it ever been, illegal to deal in cash. But, if Mr. Mulroney did what most people do when they receive a substantial payment, which is to enter it in Canada's business system, the cash should have generated a legally required paper trail.

Such documentation would have come about because of two decisions that Mr. Mulroney made: Regulations that his Progressive Conservative government created in 1991, and the fact that the former prime minister received a $100,000 payment from Mr. Schreiber on Dec. 8, 1994, in the United States. That country then had some of the most rigorous cash reporting requirements in the world.

The origins of Canada's cash reporting laws can be traced to a meeting of representatives from 15 countries in Paris in Mr. Mulroney's fifth year as prime minister. The U.S. government was in the thick of its "War on Drugs" and was pressing other countries to tighten up cash reporting laws to better track the illegal profits.

[Guest trex]

Mulroney was the one that created the laws on such large cash transactions.

Well these news sources do not even use the word "alleged" when describing that he received $300 K in cash from this slime ball, so they must be pretty confident that he did, indeed, accept the money. And the fact thet he did claim some extra income post-hoc, makes it lok like he's trying to tidy up some loose ends there. The question now is, did he lie under oath at any time, by denying that he met Schreiber, or that he accepted money?

[Michael Bluth]

Well these news sources do not even use the word "alleged" when describing that he received $300 K in cash from this slime ball, so they must be pretty confident that he did, indeed, accept the money.

That shows huge belief in the 'news sources'.

Given that the previous Liberal government spent tens of millions on this vendetta, both in the courts and in a settlement with Mulroney.

Are taxpayers really being asked to renew this witch hunt?

[August1991]

I know that others have started threads on the latest revelations in this ongoing saga. I thought however that I'd post quotes here from the very good Globe article. (In fact, the Globe article seems mostly based on research of the CBC's fifth estate.)

Looking above in this thread, the issue turns on $300,000 received by Mulroney - as Andrew Coyne has fairly stated.

Mulroney has admitted to receiving the $300,000. Moreover, Mulroney has said that he paid tax on the $300,000. What is new is that Mulroney did not pay tax when he received it. He paid tax much later - apparently when it was suspected that he had received it.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who received $300,000 in cash from German-Canadian deal maker Karlheinz Schreiber in 1993 and 1994, did not pay taxes on the payments in the years he received the money.

...

Although many of the people involved in the discussions between the Mulroney and Schreiber camps have elected not to speak publicly, it can be said with certainty that Mr. Mulroney did not disclose the cash payments as income in the years that he received the money. He later exercised the legal right of any Canadian to come forward to the Canada Revenue Agency and paid what he owed.

The CRA offers people the right to disclose voluntarily any earnings and pay the tax owed. To use this right, it must be clear that the declaration is truly voluntary. (This voluntary declaration can't be a way to solve a "tax problem". Otherwise people would take the chance and not declare income and then "voluntarily" declare once they learned of an investigation.)

The CRA created its voluntary disclosure program in 1973 so that taxpayers could declare unreported income without fear of prosecution. Tax lawyers and CRA officials often refer to the program as a “win-win” situation; it's an opportunity for taxpayers to rectify past errors and an opportunity for the government to collect funds it might otherwise never receive. CRA literature calls it a “fairness program that is aimed at providing clients with an opportunity to correct past omissions.”

...

One of the key stipulations for making such a disclosure is that the income has to be declared without any hint of an investigation by the agency. In other words, people can't wait until tax investigators discover they made a mistake on their taxes and then try to make things rights by disclosing the income. A valid disclosure must also provide a complete explanation of the circumstances behind the unreported income.

Those facts raise questions about when Mr. Mulroney filed his disclosure and what he told investigators about the income. If Mr. Mulroney made his voluntary disclosure any time after Nov. 2, 1995, he would have been aware that he was the subject of an investigation by the RCMP, a highly publicized probe that focused specifically on his relationship with Mr. Schreiber – the very person who provided him the undisclosed income.

So now the question is: when did Mulroney declare this $300,000?

Harper knows this and there's no doubt that he's been advised of the case. Hell, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin had access to Brian Mulroney's T4s.

----

This is good investigative journalism. I wish other journalists would devote as much effort to investigating Paul Desmarais and Shawinigan hotels. When was the last time the CBC devoted such resources to investigating the Liberal Party?

(It was Duceppe, the BQ and two journalists at the Globe & Mail who broke the sponsorship scandal.)

Edited November 2, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Well these news sources do not even use the word "alleged" when describing that he received $300 K in cash from this slime ball, so they must be pretty confident that he did, indeed, accept the money. And the fact thet he did claim some extra income post-hoc, makes it lok like he's trying to tidy up some loose ends there. The question now is, did he lie under oath at any time, by denying that he met Schreiber, or that he accepted money?

It would seem that the Tories wish to shield Mulroney despite the fact that taxpayers were on the hook for money and a relationship that Mulroney denied ever getting or ever having.

[Guest trex]

That shows huge belief in the 'news sources'.

Given that the previous Liberal government spent tens of millions on this vendetta, both in the courts and in a settlement with Mulroney.

Are taxpayers really being asked to renew this witch hunt?

If a crime was committed he should be punished, simple as that. Forget about what it cost before. These are the big players and its hard to take them down. It can be an expensive nasty fight. Bt he was out Prime Minister. If he was a criminal we must know.

You missed the point about the news sources, I meant that they don't seem afraid to be sued by Mulroney for making these public claims, and from what I can tell when asked about this in regards to his book, he is not denying it, but gives evasive or flippant answers.

So if the news sources ARE wrong, why is Mulroney not suing them, as he already did sue the Govt? Based on that fact it seems like he did accept the money. He is not denying it or attacking them.

[Michael Bluth]

You missed the point about the news sources, I meant that they don't seem afraid to be sued by Mulroney for making these public claims, and from what I can tell when asked about this in regards to his book, he is not denying it, but gives evasive or flippant answers.

So if the news sources ARE wrong, why is Mulroney not suing them, as he already did sue the Govt? Based on that fact it seems like he did accept the money. He is not denying it or attacking them.

The CBC is not a for-profit entity. Why should it be afraid of being sued?

Interesting how the for-profit CTV covered themselves with the following.

Newly published reports say Mulroney waited years before paying taxes on $300,000 he received from German-Canadian Karlheinz Schreiber deal maker shortly after leaving office.

Seems like the CTV has bullet-proofed themselves from lawsuits. There is not denying that newly published reports do in fact say what was reported earlier.

Or maybe they are just better journalists at the CTV.

[August1991]

In Mulroney's autobiography, a very thick book, 1121 pages to be exact, the name Schreiber does not appear in the index. Index aside, when reading it, I don't recall reading about Air Canada except in terms of privatization - or seeing the name Schreiber. I recall no reference to pasta.

Nixon's Memoirs (1120 pages) had at least an index with many references to John Dean.

Then again, Mulroney's autobiography is entitled: "Memoirs 1939-1993". Maybe Mulroney's pulling a Bill Clinton. What does 1993 mean exactly?

----

Harper knows the facts of this case. We no longer live in a political world where politicians can stonewall or take the limited hangout. Political life in the Internet world is tough.

Edited November 2, 2007 by August1991

[guyser]

The CBC is not a for-profit entity. Why should it be afraid of being sued?

Huh? to the first .

And the latter they wouldn't...much, just like CTV because they both carry insurance to indemnify themselves. Both would be leary to be sued but not when they feel they are correct.

[M.Dancer]

I remember back in the days When Michel Gratton published his book "what are the Boys Saying" a fax came into the ediorial offices of newspapers across Canada from the lawyers representing Mulroney threatening a lawsuit of anyone who dared even write a review about the book.

Reviews were written and the lawsuits failed to materialize.

[Topaz]

Harper said to today to the Libs that he would investigate Mulroney then he would have to revisit investigating Chretien and Martin. Well, MR PM, you SHOULD investigate all of them and that includes Mulroney! Isn't that the right and honest thing to do? Isn't that what you have been preaching about,....ACCOUNTABILTY!!!!!!! Who cares what party they belong to right is right and cheating the taxpayers is wrong, no matter what party does it!! BUT.... I don't think he will to protect Mulroney!!!

EDIT

This was the opening post of the former thread entitled: Harper throws out a challenge to Liberals

which is now merged into this current thread.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Charles Anthony
merged redundant thread

[geoffrey]

Quote or link please, I'd like to see the full story.

[Shakeyhands]

I'm ok with investigating all three of them.... If they did wrong they should be held accountable.

Here is a link to the story in The Star.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/273062

[shavluk]

Harper said to today to the Libs that he would investigate Mulroney then he would have to revisit investigating Chretien and Martin. Well, MR PM, you SHOULD investigate all of them and that includes Mulroney! Isn't that the right and honest thing to do? Isn't that what you have been preaching about,....ACCOUNTABILTY!!!!!!! Who cares what party they belong to right is right and cheating the taxpayers is wrong, no matter what party does it!! BUT.... I don't think he will to protect Mulroney!!!

HEAR !!

HEAR !!

I second that.

I watched him on TV with disgust!

[geoffrey]

I watched him on TV with disgust!

You ok with the government investigating Martin's ties with Desmarais and Carlyle and all that good stuff while they are at it?

Tread lightly here Liberals, your past is far more murkey than a shady $300k.

Let's not forget how Option Canada and the Liberal led movement during the Quebec referendum broke their own rules and overspent taxpayers money illegally. None of that matters.

Because Mulroney got $300k in a private business deal he's the devil.

At least it wasn't taxpayer's money.

[geoffrey]

Yesterday, I didn't tell you that I received $5 from my sister for bringing her a jar of olives from my last Costco trip. Does that make me a liar or a criminal?

Seriously, why is someone's personal, foreign business deals any business of you or anyone else here. I think it's pretty obvious that it was unconnected to government activity. The investigation and court case agree.

[jdobbin]

You ok with the government investigating Martin's ties with Desmarais and Carlyle and all that good stuff while they are at it?

Tread lightly here Liberals, your past is far more murkey than a shady $300k.

I'm okay with an investigation of all three if that is the only thing holding Harper back.

[Visionseeker]

You ok with the government investigating Martin's ties with Desmarais and Carlyle and all that good stuff while they are at it?

Tread lightly here Liberals, your past is far more murkey than a shady $300k.

Let's not forget how Option Canada and the Liberal led movement during the Quebec referendum broke their own rules and overspent taxpayers money illegally. None of that matters.

Because Mulroney got $300k in a private business deal he's the devil.

At least it wasn't taxpayer's money.

No, but the 2.1 million he settled for with the government was. As for the 300k, I suspect it was payment for Airbus. Here’s why:

a) The money was exchanged clandestinely (in CASH) as if one or both parties wanted to hide the transaction

b_) Schreiber alleges that Mulroney later tried to get Schreiber to attest that no money changed hands, Schreiber refused

c) Having failed to claim the sums on his taxes, Mulroney now resorts to the Fairness program to back claim the income as Schreiber’s refusal means that his secret could come out

d) The Airbus investigation hits and Mulroney plays the victim claiming that he barely knew Schreiber and thus could not have conspired with him

e) Mulroney gets an out-of-court settlement of 2 plus million dollars

f) Meanwhile, Schreiber is facing numerous legal difficulties in Canada and his native Germany, his finances are crumbling and he’s now somewhat resentful that his supposed co-conspirator is living large, so he calls in the 300k marker

g) Schreiber contends that the monies were for help in establishing an arms factory and pasta business, yet no such enterprises ever took-off and Schreiber is now claiming that Mulroney did nothing for the money and wants it back

h) Mulroney’s explanations for the funds have been evasive and stand as poor counter-arguments to Schreiber’s claims, yet in spite of the fact that Mulroney can show no evidence of work for the funds, Schreiber has lost the first battles in court ostensibly because the court expects him to produce proof that no work was done

Circles, circles, circles.

Now instead consider this possibility.

a) the 300k was an award for Airbus

b ) the cash transaction was intended (by Mulroney) to keep the funds hidden because their was no legitimate explanation for them

c) Mulroney’s failed “hush” with Schreiber was intended to put any notion of a kick-back to rest by having Schreiber deny that any money changed hands

d) Schreiber, seeing that the house of cards was coming down, refused because his best bet of avoiding charges was to keep Mulroney in equal jeopardy

e) To deflect attention and protect his alleged co-conspirator, Schreiber concocts a questionably believable line that the 300k was for work on other business ventures

f) Yet facing more daunting troubles with the law, Schreiber, being the ultimate scam artist, seeks to reclaim his bribe by arguing that Mulroney did nothing to advance his fictitious cover story business ventures

g) Thus, Schreiber and Mulroney are in court and we the public are beginning to ask questions about 300k

If the 300k was an Airbus bribe, Schreiber will never say so because it would criminally implicate him. But the circumstances of the payment make it convenient for him to pursue Mulroney for failing to earn payments for services on fictitious business endeavours.

I want, no, I demand an inquiry.

[margrace]

Investigate them all, bring it all out into the open. Don't threaten the "lefties", let it all hang out.