Karlheinz Schreiber knows the only thing anyone wants from him now is what he knows about the Airbus affair and his pal, Brian Mulroney.
The artful dodger intends to keep what he knows to himself, hoping against hope to cut some deal. In other words, Schreiber, under subpoena to tell all, is defying parliament to extract a deal. In my books that's extortion.
Schreiber, or probably his lawyers, have crafted his objections rather neatly. He won't testify - not quite yet. First he has to go through his papers, refresh his memory. Now, that one's reasonable. It's the second one that's cute. He doesn't want to talk until his extradition case is resolved. What he's saying is that (a) he's currently before the courts in a dispute with the federal government, (b) what he has to say may be damaging to this same government, so (c) he doesn't want to prejudice his extradition case by speaking prematurely.
Of course, the other way to look at this is that Schreiber is saying he won't talk if he's going to a German cell anyway.
Here's something I'd love to know. Schreiber says he has a raft of documents and correspondence in his Ottawa home dealing with this business. Why has no one sought a search warrant for those papers? Why would anyone allow Schreiber to cull them and possibly cherrypick what suits his purposes?
If Karlheinz is going to dummy up, let's get that on the record and get rid of him, just as soon as the court has heard his final cry for help. But let's also get those papers and see just what story they tell.
And then, let's subpoena Schreiber's former lawyer, Robert Hladun. We should get Hladun's evidence about the overtures supposedly made to him by Mulroney and Mulroney's lawyer seeking a written statement from Schreiber claiming that no money changed hands between them.
Solicitor-client privilege is broad but it's far from absolute and I think this particular exchange would probably not be protected. Hladun's discussions about it with Schreiber may be privileged but I fail to see how the actual discussions he had with Mulroney or his counsel would be covered. He owes them no privilege. As I've said before, I thin Hladun could be the smoking gun in this one. If I was counsel to the committee, I'd be serving that subpoena on him this afternoon.
FWIW--with regard to the issue of Mr Schreiber's documents and correspondence, your position coincides with that of the CPC, as articulated in Committee and to Mike Duffy by Conservative Vice-Chair David Tilson. I hope LPC and NDP members likewise move to enforce the Speaker's warrant so that we need not see more of today's sad spectacle--a shady wanted man making unrestrained mock of Parliament and Canadian law, and being abetted in his readiness to do and say anything--and only so much as--will allow *him* to escape criminal investigation.
ReplyDeleteHe was a shady character when Mulroney chose to accept $300,000 from him and just as shady when they saw each other afterward, right up to their Zurich meeting in 1999. Not too shady for Brian Mulroney or Frank Moores, however. Just as Mulroney isn't too shady for Harper. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteHello, again. Your point is well taken. I don't think I suggested anything other as regards Mr Schreiber, friend also to Mssrs Lalonde and MacEachern, if association equals guilt. My point is that his motives are transparent and he is making Parliament look both foolish and partisan to the point of obsequiousness on this. While the committee comported themselves like grown-ups--for the most part--toward each other, they proved themselves ready to act as accomplices in this man's endeavours to avoid justice for their own political ends--namely to link the odour still attendant on Mulroney (the 18th, not 22nd, or 21st, or 20th, or 19th) Prime Minister to the present government. OK, well fair enough, I suppose. I just hope the stink and the servility don't simply taint all involved.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, my name is Damon; I am the last Anon; I never voted for Brian Mulroney (while he accomplished things I do respect, I find him personally odious, and feel he almost destroyed the country over a vainglorious obsession with Constitutional legacies); I am, however, as you intuited, no doubt, a supporter of what Liberals were very recently calling the Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party.
In the interests of full disclosure. All my best to Mssrs Brison and Turner. ;-)
No, association doesn't equate to guilt. I'm sure Schreiber rubbed shoulders with any number of prominent people in Canada, in Germany and elsewhere. It's those that got cash-stuffed envelopes and then pocketed $2-million from the Canadian taxpayers that interest me. Good to hear from you Damon. I share your views about Mulroney's vainglorious consitutional obsession. I appreciate your civility.
ReplyDelete