Thursday, December 13, 2007

Brian Time

I'll be updating this as the ethics committee continues to grill Mulroney - not as frantically as Kady O'Malley, but updates will be forthcoming. From what I've seen so far, Brian is certainly in fine form - despite his age, he's still an all-star at this. Among the highlights so far:

-“My biggest mistake in life, by far, was ever agreeing to be introduced to Karlheinz Schreiber in the first place,” Mr. Mulroney said. The former prime minister said his second biggest mistake was accepting cash payments from Mr. Schreiber. I'm sure Canadians would have a wide range of options for choosing mistake number 3.

-Brian says he only got $225,000, not $300,000. Well, then, that makes the whole thing seem kind of trivial, eh?

-Mulroney admits he got the first cash payment while still a sitting MP, although says no business was discussed at Harrington Lake with Schreiber while still PM.

-The opposition MPs are trying to bring the wireless lobbying issue into this, despite obvious objections by the Tories on the committee. Mulroney says he never met with Bernier while in Industry, although he did meet with him when he was in Foreign Affairs.

-The tax issue seems to be the area where Mulroney is weakest in his response. He claims the money was for "expenses" alone so that technically income. Eek! Over to you Warren:

"What "expenses" would necessitate $300,000 in advance? Was he travelling to the moon and back, on a gold-plated rocket encrusted with jewels? Was he staying in hotels on Venus, for $30,000 a night?"

10:29 am: Mulroney is just eating Sukh Dhaliwal alive. "May I just say that I thank the Liberal party for their strong defense of the GST" after asked if he paid GST on the $300,000 $225,000. Brian's also far too smart to bite when asked to show how big the envelope of cash was.

10:46 am: The irshman Brian Murphy seems a little awe struck but maybe he's just trying to disarm Brian with flattery. Mulroney re-emphasizes that he was not broke after he left 24 Sussex.

10:56 am: Closing statement. Cue the violins.

11:01 am: Szabo: "We've had a lot of conflicting testimony between our two witnesses." No kidding. Looks like Brian will be asked to come back in February...assuming no election, of course.



  • So Mulroney admits he took money while still a sitting MP.... now what?

    What's the end game to all this? What do people want to happen? Do we need a frikin' inquiry now? I don't think so...

    By Blogger Sean Cummings, at 12:53 p.m.  

  • Brian Mulroney was Canada's 2nd best prime minister!

    ... all the others are tied.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 3:15 p.m.  


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:20 p.m.  

  • Mr Mulroney also made a fool of Pat Martin. The rest of them just seemed childish. Robert Vollman, I'm glad to see you feel Prime Minister Harper is the best.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:36 p.m.  

  • Wild-eyed Mulroney bashers claiming that he broke the law are unable to tell his exactly which law was broken. I'm assuming here that said propeller-heads have more evidence that he broke the law than the special RCMP task force coud dig up in their 8 years of investigating. More evidence than the 9 Justice Department lawyers that were assinged to the case? Please elaborate on the laws that were broken.

    While we're in the business of cost-recovery, I think it's fair to ask how much Allan Rock, the RCMP and Justice spent investigating the fruitless claims of a agent stevie cameron the journalist who is on record as saying she "hates Brian Mulroney's guts".

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:00 p.m.  

  • Never took kickbacks and was never a lobbiest. And he was a lobbiest. And Karlheinz is a big ol' liar, so don't believe him. But the proof that I'm innocent is this quote from Karlheinz... I used the amount for expenses but paid tax on it, and kept it in safe secure saving vaults here and there.
    It's all there for the parsing.
    He's innocent and guilty. And no doubt is a BIG influence on Stephen Harper's idea of accountability.

    By Blogger burlivespipe, at 4:04 p.m.  

  • Oh look - it's burlivespipe rearing his ugly head again making up statements that can't be substantiated by any testimony other than his own. Secret testimony that could only be intercepted by the antenna on his ton-foil cap and decoded by his authentic Agent Stevie Cameron decoder ring.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:17 p.m.  

  • I'm sorry I missed Mulroney vs Pat Martin. I can only imagine how easy it would be for Mulroney to tear him appart.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 5:04 p.m.  

  • and now we hear the Liberals were stupid or lazy to prepare their own questions so they got the CBC to write them.

    Way cool . . maybe time for a formal investigation of the Crappy Broadcorping Castration

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:55 p.m.  

  • CBC journalists/reporters whose job it is to report the story but instead write the scripts for the liberal party?

    "Journalist" Stevie Cameron acting as a federal agent who said she'd only testify for the purposes of "prosecuting Brian Mulroney".

    And we have the audicity to question whether bias exists in the unimpeachable integrity of our media?

    By Blogger Unknown, at 7:06 p.m.  

  • My favorite metaphor for the today was that committee members were cowardly jackals nipping at the heels of the aging lion.

    Turns out the aging lion is still king of the jungle.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 7:07 p.m.  

  • Calgarygrit,

    I must admit Mr. Mulroney did go easy on Pat.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:21 p.m.  

  • After Mulroney's performance today, one has to wonder if this issue has anything left in it from which an inquiry could do some good. Moreover, Mulroney would probably do exceptionally well at an inquiry. So, what's the end game of all this? Anyone? Anyone?

    By Blogger Sean Cummings, at 7:34 p.m.  

  • The inquiry by the Ethics Committee has just begun. My guess is it will take at least six months, and the Harper one will then be gearing up. All we have so far is the sworn testimony of a man who says he hired a prime minister of Canada to lobby the government, while the prime minister was still prime minister.

    And unsworn testimony from the former prime minister that this was not so.

    Now the real work starts: round up all those who can cast light on what actually happened back in 1983 when foreign money was used to try to dump Joe Clark and install Brian Mulroney; who exactly attended the meeting back then at the Ritz Hotel, along with Mulroney, Moores and Schreiber, when GCI was discussed, and, according to Schreiber's evidence (not tested in a court of law yet), a deal was cut to take care of Mulroney; to Moores and his appointment to the board of Air Canada while having an interest in a lobby company which acted for Airbus in selling planes to Air Canada; to whether Doucet asked Schreiber to ensure Airbus commissions were paid to a lawyer of Mulroney in Geneva; to Schreiber's sworn testimoney that MacKay ("Email Mackay?") drafted the letter from Brian to Harper; and so on ....

    So many valid questions raised. There is just no way that the MPs on the Ethics Committee cannot proceed with a proper inquiry.

    Oh, and subpoena Mulroney for his next appearance so that we can have his evidence under oath, as Schreiber and many others will do...

    By Blogger CuriosityCat, at 8:18 p.m.  

  • “Robert Vollman, I'm glad to see you feel Prime Minister Harper is the best.”

    Does that mean that Prime minister harper and Prime Minister chretien are tied?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 8:31 p.m.  

  • Today Mr. Mulroney claimed that he only took cash from Karlheinz Schreiber because that’s how Schreiber wanted to pay him--and that this was a huge mistake. But Mulroney then went on to admit the following:

    1) He didn’t deposited the money into any bank account but rather kept the money in cash

    2) He didn’t declare the money on his taxes until years later after Schreiber was arrested

    3) He didn’t bring the money he received in New York back to Canada thus avoiding declaring it at the border

    4) He never sent Schreiber a receipt for the cash or any invoice for services rendered

    5) When he finally did pay his taxes, Mulroney didn’t declare a single expense associated with the work he allegedly did for Schreiber (despite that meaning that he would have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars more in taxes)

    The decision to deal in cash appears to have been at Mr. Schreiber’s urging, but all of these subsequent actions were taken by Mr. Mulroney of his own accord and all of them had the effect of concealing the money that he received from Schreiber.

    Mulroney needs to explain why his own actions--after taking the money from Schreiber--maintained the complete lack of transparency that characterized his decision to accept cash from Schreiber in first place.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:57 p.m.  

  • Let's now compare his pontification today with his testimony way back when, leading to his bilking the Canadian tax payer for $2.1 million. Of course, we know the CONs, especially the likes of Jason Kenney er Britan Gripsey, believe perjury is a misdemeanor.

    By Blogger burlivespipe, at 2:15 a.m.  

  • Did we learn anything during this whole dog & pony show we didn't know before? Was there any actual EVIDENCE uncovered? Y'know, anything that could be proven in a court of law?

    The RCMP knew all of this years ago and did nothing.


    By Blogger Nastyboy, at 9:07 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home