Karlheinz Schreiber has given evidence that seems to link Brian Mulroney to the Airbus affair. He told the Commons ethics committee that he was approached in 1992 or 1993 by Fred Doucet, former Mulroney aide turned lobbyist, to open an account for Mulroney. From Toronto Star
Schreiber told a House of Commons committee this morning that Fred Doucet, Mulroney’s former chief of staff, asked him to open an account in the name of Mulroney’s lawyer in 1992 or 1993.
Mulroney was still the prime minister when Schreiber alleges the discussion occurred.
Schreiber said the request astounded him.
“What the hell has Mulroney to do with Airbus?” Schreiber recalled asking Doucet, who was working as a lobbyist by then.
Doucet’s answer: “Are you naive?”
Schreiber also told the committee that he often dealt in large sums of cash.
"You get a much better price if you pay in cash."
Schreiber said the bulk of the Airbus "commission" money didn't go through his company, International Aircraft Leasing, but into Frank Moores' Government Consultants International or GCI.
NDP MP Pat Martin asked Schreiber why he'd be surprised that Mulroney might have had something to do with Airbus when he appointed 13 of the 15-members of the Air Canada board of directors, one of them noneother than Frank Moores.
Today, however, he said the conversation with Doucet about money for Mulroney took place in the Ottawa offices of Government Consultants International — a lobbying firm stocked with staffers who were well-connected to the former prime minister.
“Why would Mulroney get money for Airbus? For what?” Schreiber said he asked Doucet.
“And he said, `Airbus.’ ”
Within hours of the conversation, a rattled Schreiber said he contacted Frank Moores, another Mulroney confidant who was one of the principal owners of the lobbying firm, about the payments destined for Mulroney.
Moores told him to forget about the conversation, Schreiber testified. Others at GCI also urged him to ignore the reasons behind the request for the transfer to a Swiss bank account. Moores passed away in 2005.
“They told me I should stay away from this. It is in their hands and they look after Brian Mulroney.”
Considering all Schreiber's contradictions, etc. - proof is the proof in the words of Chretien.
ReplyDeleteSchreiber can say what he wants - does he have proof to back it up?
today:
ReplyDelete-Schreiber said he was asked to put money into an account for Mulroney re: Airbust.
-Schreiber subsequently, did not put money into an account for Mulroney re: Airbust
-Schreiber also said he did not know if Mulroney did get any money for Airbus (I assume he meant from any one else).
breif: Schreiber did not give Mulroney money for Airbust, even tho allegedly asked to.
sooooo, Schreiber has not changed his story, he has just manipulated the story in a 'suggest then withdraw' style.
facinating.
the 'letter' (blackmail?) suggests he knows where the bodies are buried, but doesn't.
Schreiber made it clear today
1) he fully expected a 'conservative govt' to set him free,
his reason: ' a speech PMSH made in Nov 2005 about cleaning up the Liberal mess'
2) he is getting the inquiry he wanted, to expose RCMP, Liberal & German govts conspiracy to put him in jail.
"I told Allan Rock, I'll see you in court"
Curious, the Chretien Lib govt paid Mulroney's costs but, also sent Schreiber an apology 'out of the blue'......
You guys are a million chuckles. When Schreiber said Mulroney supposedly had nothing to do with Airbus on Tuesday you were sending up fireworks proclaiming Muldoon's vindication. Schreiber was supposedly quite credible when it suited you. When he said today he was told by others that he was naive to believe that, the man is a pathalogical liar. You sound like utter fools.
ReplyDeleteIs Schreiber telling the truth? I don't know and, clearly, neither do you. There's nothing that can be decided on this guy's evidence anyway. He merely defines the terms of reference for the public enquiry and it's a lot broader now than it was before he spoke.
I've spent a lot of time dealing with matters like these and they don't get sorted out on the basis of one guy's testimony, much as you seem to wish otherwise. So take a deep breath, relax and let this investigation take its course.
Don't forget what Mulroney said, under oath, in 1995 and how that flies in the face of everything his spokesman said afterwards and everything out of Schreiber's documents. I'm not surprised that Karlheinz is fudging the facts but, then again, he wasn't prime minister and he didn't appoint 13-out of 15 members of the board of Air Canada including one who was the founder of a lobby firm that apparently got a big pile of money from Airbus. So, children, wrap your head around those facts because that's where the issue lies, not with Karlheinz Schreiber. Think it through, look for the patterns, figure out what needs clarification. It's not that hard a chore.
Evidence....there is no evidence.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter what is said or letters written, it's what is proved.
Eight years of RCMP investigation, and it cost Canadian taxpayers $2.1m, now we are looking at $30 m and unless there was a Liberal/RCMP coverup, the result will still be no charges.
And I am NO Mulroney fan.
Schreiber states he didn't give Mulroney Airbus money, and doesn't know if anyone else did, but implicated Doucette.
Doucette denies all allegations.
Mulroney will deny and explain (cook up a story).
No paper trail, private meetings with no witnesses, conspiracy theories.
Half the charactors are dead, companies no longer active, vital Schreiber notes and records lost somewhere in Germany, deals that start with PCs and continue with Liberals.
Nothing....the committee is going no where.
to prove what?
No evidence? Is that just your assumption or do you know that from some personal experience? I suspect there is a fair bit of evidence remaining. There are big hurdles, no question about it, but there's quite an extensive record that already exists and there's more to come. With some of the witnesses to be questioned, what they don't say may be as important as anything that comes from their mouths. You consider this a waste of time, I don't. I'm sorry Wilson but unless you can put some authority behind your dismissive claims, I'm not persuaded.
ReplyDelete