Conservative MPs seem to be breathing a huge sigh of relief that Karlheinz Schreiber hasn't nailed Brian Mulroney with stories of the former PM plotting with Schreiber to swing the Air Canada deal to Airbus Industries. They're beside themselves that Schreiber hasn't confessed to bribing the prime minister of Canada. Wowee, zowee!
"Based on everything we've heard so far, there appears to be no violation of the code of conduct that was in place at the time or any other wrongdoing. It just appears to be a failed business deal between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber," said British Columbia Conservative MP Russ Hiebert.
What a difference a day makes. Before Schreiber testified, Tories were howling how the elf from the Schwarzwald was an awful man who, no matter what he said, wasn't to be trusted. No way, no how. Now that this supposedly dishonest conman has said Mulroney wasn't in on the Airbus deal, it's suddenly, "move along, nothing to see here."
Just another business deal, eh Russ? Then why did Mulroney go so far out of his way to conceal it? Why did he state, under oath, that he'd had no dealings with Schreiber except to meet the guy a couple of times for a cup of coffee? It was on the basis of that claim that Mulroney pocketed $2-million tax dollars. But what Schreiber is saying is that your pal, Mulroney, was lying through his teeth - then and ever since.
Why did Mulroney take Schreiber's money - as part of just another business deal - and then not report it on his tax return? What about the business of Mulroney contacting Schreiber's lawyer, Robert Hladun, asking for a written statement denying that any money had passed between the two? What about the curious "voluntary disclosure" to Revenue Canada after that statement wasn't forthcoming?
Just another "failed business deal"? Say what? Sorry, nothing Schreiber's said takes Mulroney off the hook. If anything, it sets that barb just a little deeper.
10 comments:
You guys are beating a dead horse. Neither the public or the media are behind you on this one.
And that is where we differ, my friend. I think a great many in the Canadian media and the public are waiting to hear Brian Mulroney explain what he did and what he said he did and why those two don't seem to add up. Schreiber was never much more than a sideshow, although it would be great if he would reveal who, Conservative or Liberal, got do dip into the Airbus Industries' Schmiergelder. Airbus gave him that money for a reason and Schreiber has never pretended otherwise.
Read Schreiber's testimony ... is this the way we want our governments to be run?
Cat, I'd be willing to read a transcript of Schreiber's testimony. Where do I go?
"I think a great many in the Canadian media and the public are waiting to hear Brian Mulroney explain what he did and what he said he did"
Well I watched pretty much every politics show today and they were all saying that this whole thing is a joke. There is no smoking gun, the only one accusing Mulroney or Harper of anything has testified that neither one of them did anything wrong. If Mulroney took Karl's money and didn't live up to his end of the agreement then that is a dispute between two private citizens. The fact that they spoke about Mulroney working for him while still an MP doesn't mean squat, lots of politicians line up a new job when they are about to leave office including Liberal PM's. There is also nothing against the law about accepting cash. The only thing you got to go on period is that Mulroney didn't declare the money right away, that certainly does not warrant a full public inquiry that will cost 30-50 million dollars.
If you watch CBC's Politics show today (available on their website) they also talk about a new poll coming out right away that shows support for the Conservatives is getting stronger and Canadians are happy with the way the government has handled the whole affair. The smear gang all took their shots at finding a scandal today and they came up empty.
Anon, I understand your take on this, I really do. What you're missing is that the guts of this story has little to do with Schreiber beyond the fact of his payments to Mulroney, his payments to Moores, Murloney's sworn evidence during his discovery and the strange business with Mr. Hladun. I spent many years investigating and litigating fraud cases (and I was pretty good at it), too many to be impressed with what I heard from Schreiber, the Tory MPs in the committee and, above all else, the TV shows. I might add that, prior to law, I was an Ottawa journalist (back in the day) so I know how much reliance to place in media accounts. My advice is not to get very carried away at this point. The good stuff is yet to come although I wouldn't bet the farm on it being particularly well handled by this committee. What I wouldn't give to be able to have just a half hour to examine Schreiber and Mulroney. Back to back. One right after the other.
Well I don't agree but at least you make a good argument instead of just throwing insults like most of the bloggers. Personally I cringe when I think of all the money that is being spent (and will be spent) on this when I know that nothing new will come out of it. So far the commitee has acted like a bunch of fools, they ask a leading question, pray for a juicy answer and then look dejected when the answer doesn't help their case. The Conservatives are no better, they only seem interested in establishing a safe distance from the whole thing, guess I don't blame them for that but I'd like to see better. The worst of the bunch is Pat Martin who is trying to paint every government for the last 40 years as sleazy, he certainly doesn't let the facts get in his way.
- Jason
Schreiber said today that he and Mulroney had no business dealings in the time frame in question, while in office.
Mulroney received a retainer from Schreiber for future services, I think you do not declare earnings until they are earned.
It can all be explained; that's why after 8 years of investigation and Fifth Estate specials and now Ethics Committee, Mulroney is still in the clear.
The real scandalous bits will come out in Mulroney's testimony...
I think you do not declare earnings until they are earned.
Huh? I think the wheels of your spin-mobile are coming off there, Wilson.
You declare (or should declare) funds received during a fiscal period. I'm singularly unconcerned about whatever motivated Schreiber's largesse with regard to the indigent Brian Mulroney (unless it really was Schmiergeld), but it's Mulroney's behaviour over the years that needs to exposed. And if Mulroney behaved unethically or illegally, he needs to be punished.
The biggest thing that sticks in my craw is how Mulroney abetted the foreign influences that facilitated his rise to power. It calls into question the legitimacy itself of Mulroney's tenure as PM over a period many of us think the country should have been spared.
I get migraines remembering those years...
Before Schreiber testified, Tories were howling how the elf from the Schwarzwald was an awful man who, no matter what he said, wasn't to be trusted. No way, no how. Now that this supposedly dishonest conman has said Mulroney wasn't in on the Airbus deal, it's suddenly, "move along, nothing to see here."
Not quite, at least not for me, personally. I don't trust Schreiber any more or less today than I did yesterday or the day before.
It's simply that those who wanted to assume that, for example, Mulroney took bribes re: Airbus had little to rely on other than what they assumed Shreiber would say. As of now, it would appear that those people have even less of a leg to stand on, at least as far as that issue goes.
Post a Comment