Friday, December 14, 2007

Schreiber Lashes Back

He didn't waste any time responding to Brian Mulroney's claims. Karlheinz Schreiber says there's one way to tell whether it's Mulroney or him who is telling the truth: look at the documentary evidence and call other witnesses. He says there's a lot to be learned from bank records, hotel receipts, etc.

Schreiber disputes two cornerstones of Mulroney's story. He denies Mulroney's claim that their business deal was made only after BMPM left office. And he denies that Mulroney earned the money by lobbying heads of state at the international level. Schreiber maintains there wasn't even anything, any product, to promote.

I expect the next time the ethics committee hears from Karlheinz Schreiber - that is if the Tories don't get rid of him to cover their asses - they can expect to receive a pile of documents contradicting Mulroney's claims.

So far, the best analysis of this bucket of deceit and duplicity I've read is Andrew Coyne's. If you haven't read it, take a look:


Anonymous said...

I'm a Con but I've never voted for Mulroney so I don't give a crap one way or the other. All we are getting from both sides of this crapfest is their legal documents, binders of them, from their ongoing civil lawsuits against each other. They should both get a room, carry on with their war, and leave us taxpayers out of it.

Alberta Report said...

You never voted for Lyin' Brian because you likely were'nt old enough to do so.

Those of us that remember the days of Lyin Brian, and tainted tuna know how much of a bullsh#t artist he is.

He has $2M of our money, and it appears that settlement is likely not deserved. He also appears to have violated ethics as a member of parliament and deserves to be outed for it.

Rather than circle the wagons, cons should be willing to get to the bottom of things - but then accountability is only when it suits their agenda right????

The Mound of Sound said...

I never voted for Brian Mulroney but I came of voting age just in time to cast my ballot for Trudeau in his first election.

In the greater scheme of things the Mulroney-Schreiber affair isn't much of a shackle on the workings of parliament and most Canadians I think want to know just what went on so I think, on balance, it's worthwhile pursuing.

Anonymous said...

Rather than circle the wagons, cons should be willing to get to the bottom of things - but then accountability is only when it suits their agenda right????

If you have a personal hate-on for some old geezer, knock yourself out. This guy is 5 Prime Ministers ago. Why don't we open up the Diefenbaker vault and see if he was dressing in women's clothes or something? There might be something there as well... Bottom line, half the players in this saga are pushing their 70s, the rest are dead. Can you not find some issue of current importance that can act as your Political Viagra?

The Mound of Sound said...

Don't get me going on my Diefenbaker stories! He might have been,at times, misguided and, at others, dogmatic, but JGD was always an upstanding gentleman. I met the old duffer a few times. Always admired his passion for human rights. You can judge John from left or right but you never get so low that you debate his integrity.