There were always doubts whether David Johnston would be able to keep his Conservative ties out of his proposed enquiry into Brian Mulroney's dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber and those doubts have now been confirmed.
The Globe & Mail reports that Johnston, who was supposed to advise Harper on the terms and scope of such an enquiry, has instead gone straight for the political levers, informing Harper that he need not stage - or stagemanage - the promised enquiry if he (Harper) is satisfied with the Commons ethics committee enquiry.
If that's Johnston's attitude before an enquiry can even be commenced, it's pretty clear he's more than willing to carry water for Stephen Harper's political agenda should the hearings go ahead. You can't pretend to be objective and unbiased if you launch yourself into this proceeding with political jockeying of this sort.
For someone who has been a Dean of a Law School, Johnston's recommendations seem weak.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to have pre-judged some evidence. Has he assumed that Mulroney did not receive an Airbus kickback, because Schreiber and Mulroney agree that the $300,000 (or $225,000) was a retainer for future work?
But it's illegal to bribe an elected official. If Schreiber was bribing Mulroney, he is not going to tell us.
Mulroney's behaviour was consistent with the belief that he had been paid for services rendered. He did nothing to earn $225,000 (or $300,000). Perhaps, in his own mind, his justification was “It’s my fair share of those done deals.”
There was illegal behaviour on the part of the Germany companies, who paid $28 million of grease-money on four Canadian deals. Mulroney’s $300,000 (or $225,000) came from the remains of the grease-money.
In 1995, Mulroney got wind of the Airbus investigation, and he put a pack of attack lawyers on the case. Who tipped Mulroney? Was there a mole in Justice that breached his or her duty, and thereby obstructed justice?
Did Mulroney obstruct justice in attacking the Government with a defamation claim? He had full knowledge of the $225,000 (or $300,000), but he sued for defamation like a whore suing for loss of virginity. (No whore like an old whore, eh?)
In 1996, Mulroney gave false or misleading testimony under oath. Is that not criminal behavior?
In 1997, Mulroney, a lawyer, unjustly accepted $2.1 million; but he would not have received the money, if he had been truthful when giving his testimony under oath.
In 2004, Kaplan made published the Secret Trial. The Government had access to the testimony of the trial. In 2004-05, the Martin Government did not start an action to recover the $2.1 million. Why not? What was the reasoning of the Department of Justice? Was Justice trying to hide it’s willful incompetence on the Mulroney file? If so, did such constitute obstruction of justice?
Ditto for 2006-07, the Harper Government did not start an action to recover the $2.1 million. Why not?
Gosh, I expected more from a Dean of a Law School. But what do I know? I’m mere citizen.
I fully agree with you, anon. Johnston does seem to have veered well out of bounds into the political realm, a place where his independence can't help but become compromised, and he does indeed appear to have prejudged facts without getting much evidence. I think this fellow's impartiality is in some question and this even before any enquiry opens. Not a good development.
ReplyDelete