Luc Lavoie says he is no longer Brian Mulroney's spokesman:
"Mr. Mulroney is fighting for his integrity and the integrity of his family, and I'm fully sympathetic to what he's going through and I wish him the best, believe me, and I still consider him a dear friend and always will."
"I wish him the best, believe me." Why wouldn't we believe that and why does Lavoie think he needs to ask us to believe him? So, he'll always be Mulroney's dear friend - does that mean he'll stay loyal even if Mulroney hangs Lavoie out to dry for the apparent admissions Luc has already made?
Lavoie has given yoeman service to Mulroney for fifteen years, so why would he bail out on the guy now in his moment of greatest need?
As I said earlier, I don't believe that Lavoie's resignation or the timing of it are haphazard. I don't believe these things aren't integrated into the next round of posturing we'll see from Brian Mulroney. I suspect (and I am guessing here) that Mulroney wants time to distance himself from Lavoie and you can probably expect a total information lockdown from the Mulroney camp until he testifies. He may be planning to dodge the ethics committee by saying he'll give his evidence to the public inquiry next year. We'll just have to watch how this unfolds.
So what is Mulroney going to say when it becomes his turn to talk? Believe it or not, I don't think he knows just yet. Schreiber is supposed to be back for two more days of testimony before the committee. Documents should begin appearing at some point. And then there are other potential witnesses such as Robert Hladun whose evidence, if reports are credible, could be damning to Mulroney's credibility.
Mulroney factum filed this week. From Canada.com:
"Mr. Schreiber does not say in his 7 November 2007 affidavit that his previous statements were inaccurate or untrue," the factum filed by Mulroney states. "He does not say that his letter of 20 July 2006 is inaccurate or untrue. He does not say that his statements to Mr. (William) Kaplan (the book author) or others were inaccurate or untrue. He makes no effort to explain the inconsistencies between his 7 November 2007 statement and his previous statements."
It adds: "Mr. Schreiber's evidence in prior proceedings was accepted by the court" - a reference to the Eurocopter fraud case where an Ottawa judge denied the Crown's request to have Schreiber declared a hostile witness and found his account credible.
Mulroney's latest court filing deliberately does not deal with two other new and damaging allegations Schreiber made in his most recent affidavit: namely that in 1998 he spoke to the former prime minister in Zurich about transferring money to his Geneva lawyer "related to the Airbus deal;" and that he hoped Mulroney would take his 2006 letter to Harper to secure his help avoiding extradition.
"For the most part, the matters to which Mr. Schreiber deposes have nothing to do with this motion, and will not be responded to," Mulroney's jurisdiction motion states.
Notice this factum gives absolutely nothing away. It is all about Schreiber and his inconsistencies. Nothing more.
I think you can expect to see that approach figure strongly in any public testimony Mulroney may give. Attack your accuser. Draw on Schreiber's inconsistencies, paint him as an abject liar and then say nothing that comes from Schreiber warrants rebuttal. The second approach is to slice and dice the facts and challenge as many as possible as irrelevant. Narrow the case you have to meet on relevance and credibility.
That's not to say that Mulroney still doesn't have a lot of explaining to do. He does. But it's far easier to explain away one set of facts than two.
"Mr. Mulroney is fighting for his integrity and the integrity of his family, and I'm fully sympathetic to what he's going through and I wish him the best, believe me, and I still consider him a dear friend and always will."
"I wish him the best, believe me." Why wouldn't we believe that and why does Lavoie think he needs to ask us to believe him? So, he'll always be Mulroney's dear friend - does that mean he'll stay loyal even if Mulroney hangs Lavoie out to dry for the apparent admissions Luc has already made?
Lavoie has given yoeman service to Mulroney for fifteen years, so why would he bail out on the guy now in his moment of greatest need?
As I said earlier, I don't believe that Lavoie's resignation or the timing of it are haphazard. I don't believe these things aren't integrated into the next round of posturing we'll see from Brian Mulroney. I suspect (and I am guessing here) that Mulroney wants time to distance himself from Lavoie and you can probably expect a total information lockdown from the Mulroney camp until he testifies. He may be planning to dodge the ethics committee by saying he'll give his evidence to the public inquiry next year. We'll just have to watch how this unfolds.
So what is Mulroney going to say when it becomes his turn to talk? Believe it or not, I don't think he knows just yet. Schreiber is supposed to be back for two more days of testimony before the committee. Documents should begin appearing at some point. And then there are other potential witnesses such as Robert Hladun whose evidence, if reports are credible, could be damning to Mulroney's credibility.
Mulroney factum filed this week. From Canada.com:
"Mr. Schreiber does not say in his 7 November 2007 affidavit that his previous statements were inaccurate or untrue," the factum filed by Mulroney states. "He does not say that his letter of 20 July 2006 is inaccurate or untrue. He does not say that his statements to Mr. (William) Kaplan (the book author) or others were inaccurate or untrue. He makes no effort to explain the inconsistencies between his 7 November 2007 statement and his previous statements."
It adds: "Mr. Schreiber's evidence in prior proceedings was accepted by the court" - a reference to the Eurocopter fraud case where an Ottawa judge denied the Crown's request to have Schreiber declared a hostile witness and found his account credible.
Mulroney's latest court filing deliberately does not deal with two other new and damaging allegations Schreiber made in his most recent affidavit: namely that in 1998 he spoke to the former prime minister in Zurich about transferring money to his Geneva lawyer "related to the Airbus deal;" and that he hoped Mulroney would take his 2006 letter to Harper to secure his help avoiding extradition.
"For the most part, the matters to which Mr. Schreiber deposes have nothing to do with this motion, and will not be responded to," Mulroney's jurisdiction motion states.
Notice this factum gives absolutely nothing away. It is all about Schreiber and his inconsistencies. Nothing more.
I think you can expect to see that approach figure strongly in any public testimony Mulroney may give. Attack your accuser. Draw on Schreiber's inconsistencies, paint him as an abject liar and then say nothing that comes from Schreiber warrants rebuttal. The second approach is to slice and dice the facts and challenge as many as possible as irrelevant. Narrow the case you have to meet on relevance and credibility.
That's not to say that Mulroney still doesn't have a lot of explaining to do. He does. But it's far easier to explain away one set of facts than two.
5 comments:
When Tories circle the waggons, the usually fire inwards ...
We are about to see that happen due to the revelations to come from the Ethics Committee and any inquiry (if there is indeed one) arising from Harper's independent adviser.
Strange way to treat a close friend. I don't believe one minute Lavoie's excuse that he's too busy to speak for Mulroney. If anything, he should be sticking by his "buddy" in a time of crisis.
I think Mulroney will defend himself just fine against Schreiber's accusations. What I find puzzling is that Schreiber has a lawsuit against Mulroney. Wouldn't that be a reason for Schreiber to clam up?
It's all very confusing.
Louise M.
It is a strange way to treat a close friend if it's a unilateral move. Schreiber's lawsuit alleges what he's been telling the ethics committee - he paid Mulroney to do a job, Mulroney didn't perform, Schreiber wants his money back. Mulroney's defence is that whatever he got from Schreiber was earned. I'm less sure that Mulroney will defend himself "just fine" against Schreiber's allegatiohs. If it was one's word against the other you might be right but there's an awful lot more to it than that now.
When you add this ("just when he needed you most")resignation to the piece below from Warren K you have to wonder if the real crap is about to hit the fan...
"And it means that the Harper government has now officially ended its relationship with Brian Mulroney. It means that this affair is far, far worse than we all know, and that the Harper Tories are not prepared to go down the crapper with Mr. Mulroney.
Stephen Harper has cut loose Brian Mulroney. He's on his own, now.
It's hard to imagine SHarper, so cynical and calculating and shrewd, getting so enmeshed with Mulroney at the outset. What did he imagine he was really going to get out of the relationship? Was he after Mulroney's Quebec connections? Did he believe Mulroney could steer SHarper's CPC to a majority?
Kinsella's speculation is intriguing but is it really more than speculation?
Post a Comment