Der skandalnamenkontest
A large group were variants on Air- something-or-other: Aircash, Airgraft, Airbags, etc. Of these, I think the best were Airbust (contributed by an anonymous entrant) and Airbucks (another anonymous entrant).
A second group was built on the sturdy Schreiber- chassis: Schreiberola, Schreiberfreude, etc. Of these, the most euphonious were Schreibergelder (Joan Tintor) and Schreiberbriber (Canada Goose).
A third group suffered from too much cleverness, at the expense of clarity: for example, Brieber, or Leaderhoser. If you have to explain it every time, it's not going to work. Pay Comeau, the Hotel Lobby, and the Pasta-Fee Catastrophe display something of the same affliction, while being too specific to cover the many facets of this affair -- though I admit to a certain fondness for the Pasta Disasta.
Yet another group was not nearly clever enough, being but variants of the dreary -gate or -scam conventions: Airgate, Schreibergate, Bribescam, etc. It was the purpose of this competition to avoid such dullardry. An honourable discharge, however, to the impeccably Germanic incomprehensibility of swinetroughschreiblerooneywermachten- riddleunterleafienscandalaliebchengate.
So, unless I hear prolonged squawking, I'm going to put four nominations up for you to vote on: Airbucks, Airbust, Schreiberbriber and Schreibergelder. (Yes, I will allow write-in candidates.) These get at the essential elements of this complex business -- Schreiber, Airbus and money -- without unduly narrowing its scope.
Bear in mind as you vote the need for ease of use: we want this to enter the language, which can only happen if it's quick, catchy and rolls easily off the tongue. Imagine it as it would appear in a sentence: "The xxxx affair took a fresh turn today when..." or "the key to understanding xxxx is..."
Now vote.
12/02/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
62 Comments
Airbust or bust
Boo Boo Boo!
As the author of the heavily lobbied (by me) but overlooked AirCache, it appears I was not pandering enough to the guilty until proven innocent theme that appears to run through AC's final choices.
Airbucks comes closest to my theme,(2nd generation), but what about this write in candidate, along the same lines:
AirCoyne (this investigation may be becoming his not so secret obsession)
Now, wouldn't that be poetic justice for the rest of the losing entrants if this won the contest, and he was forced to include it in his columns?.
C'mon. Vote here! :)
I think Schreibergelder gets to the heart of the matter. Danegeld was used to pay off ravaging vikings; guilders are (were) Dutch currency; and the scandal isn't so much about Airbus, as Schreiber waltzing around sprinkling money on less than scrupulous politicians, innocent or not, no is disputing the fact that cash was dispensed in brown paper bags. Plus, it comes close to my contribution, VanderZalm version 2.0, which didn't make the final cut.
"Airbucks" has my vote. Short enough
to enter the lexicon and refers
to the essential feature to the
scandal -- cash bribes.
Immigration Heretic
I'm going to be, uh, uber-boring and ask why scandals need snappy names at all. Why don't we just call it the Mulroney-Schreiber affair? You can say and write that reasonably quickly and it requires no further explanation.
The obsession with naming scandals stems from Watergate envy (although my own favourite scandal name of the 20th century has to be Teapot Dome). "Watergate" was a nice, simple, euphonious word and made sense for that particular scandal so it stuck. But why does every scandal need to be boiled down to one snappy word?
I blame The New Republic for this fetish. Back in the '80s, they got tired of the fact that every scandal ended up having the word "gate" affixed to it, so when the 1986 Reagan arms-for-hostages scandal broke, they ran a contest to come up with a cool name for it. The winner -- Iranamok -- caught on exactly nowhere except TNR itself. Everybody else used Iran-contra, and that's what everybody (even TNR) calls that today. A sensible outcome, and one that we should emulate here.
From one Herb to another - this isn't about the scandal. This is pure political entertainment as far as I am concerned. There is nothing in this political circus that will affect the lives of ordinary Canadians when the results are revealed. This isn't like asking why Police say a person dies in their custody after taking Tylenol - the results of any inquiry into that "might" impact the lives of Canadians and how our police forces are managed. Nope, this is rich, powerful men ripping off other rich, powerful men all in front of cameras and we get to name the show.
So, I vote for something as entertaining and foolish as possible - just like the circus it is - swinetroughschreiblerooneywermachten-riddleunterleafienscandalaliebchengate.
Schreibergelder! It's got that great medieval ring.
Andrew:
Thats 3 times now that you've failed to mention the critical part of Schreiber's testimony.
As long as you keep avoiding it, I'll keep posting it:
If there was anything of significance from his testimony, Schreiber put to rest the decade long media and Liberal conspiracy that Mulroney had received secret commissions from Airbus.
Funny that didn't appear in your executive summary, the Globe and Mail, the Fifth Estate or Don Newman's "news" show.
Lets put this together:
1. Mulroney successfuly sued the government for 2.1 million because the government accused him of illegal activities related to Airbus.
2. The parliamentary committee now investigating whether that settlement should be repaid has just learned from the only man who could possibly connect the dots to support the governments allegation. Schreiber has told that committee in no uncertain terms that there is NO connection to Airbus.
3. Consequently, the Mulroney libel settlement stands.
4. The only person in the universe with more incentive than the CBC, Stevie Cameron, Allan Rock and the Globe and Mail to link Brian Mulroney to Airbus is Karlheinz Schreiber. Notwithstanding his dubious character, even Schreiber couldn't make the link.
5. Unless a new bombshell is forthcoming, this is inquisition is about the private dealings of a private citizen.
5. Unfortunately for you and Don Newman, you need a new name for the scandal. May I suggest you call it "The very public investigation into the private life of Brian Mulroney"
Brian,
Let me try to reply to your repetitive post.
So far Schreiber has ONLY not linked the $300,000 given to Mulroney to Airbus.
He has not yet, however, addressed where the $10 million in Airbus commissions from the 1988 sale went. So, the book is not yet definitively closed on who rec'd this funding and for what.
Andrew,
Depending on how this ball of string unravels, it may simply be too early to decide on a name for this scandal, or whatever it is exactly.
Oh for Christ's sake, Brian, you insufferable troll. That's not what he said. He was asked whether the money came from the Airbus account. But there was no Airbus account, as such: there was an account -- actually several -- set up to receive all of the secret commissions, whether from Airbus (the Air Canada deal ) or Thyssen (the Bear Head project) or MBB (the Coast Guard helicopter deal, although these payments wound up being rerouted straight to him).
Here's the precise exchange, from Thursday's hearing:
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Schreiber.
Mr. Schreiber, it's our goal to follow the money and also follow the paper trail in the coming days and weeks that I hope that we have together.
A simple question about the money, first of all: Did the cash payments that you gave to Mr. Mulroney come from the account of the secret commissions on the Airbus sale?
Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber: I rest on my—
Mr. Pat Martin: Surely, that's a very straightforward question. You must remember where the money came from, Mr. Schreiber. Which bank account did it come from? It went into the “Britain” account. Is that correct?
Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber: You know all this from The Fifth Estate. It's shown —
Mr. Pat Martin: Where did it come from? Did it come from the account of secret Airbus commissions?
Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber: No.
It came from the account where all the money went in.
That would be his International Aircraft Leasing shell company's account in Liechtenstein. From there the money was transferred via a complex chain of transactions, first up to his Kensington Anstalt holding company, then over to his Zurich account 18679, before being deposited in one or another sub-account for its intended beneficiary, including the FRANKFURT account through which Frank Moores was paid (another complex chain of transactions) or the BRITAN account, from which the $300,000 in cash for Mulroney was withdrawn.
This seems to be a recurring problem in this discussion: the people who declare airily that there's no story here, it's all just Schreiber's word against Mulroney's, do not appear to have informed themselves of the particulars of the case. We're not relying on Schreiber's word: we've got his bank records. The Fifth Estate has had them since 1999. So there's no mystery where the cash came from. The questions begin there: what Mulroney did for the money, what he did with it, who else Schreiber paid and for what, why Schreiber was paid, and so on.
Those interested in following a couple of sample money trails can go to http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/moneytruthandspin/money.html. Or read Harvey Cashore and Stevie Cameron's meticulous reconstruction in The Last Amigo. Only do not waste any more bandwidth spreading this myth.
The last word in the third sentence should be italicized. As in, "He was asked whether the money came from the Airbus account.
And back to the contest.... My vote is still for Canada Goose's "Schreiberbriber".
Andrew:
That's a neat little trick: pretend that the people who defend Mulroney (or seek real evidence before they find him guilty) haven't informed themselves on the details.
By transitive property then, the only people who can speak with authority on the issue are you, Stevie Cameron and the Fifth Estate. Its no coincidence that all three of you happen to endorse the same theory that Mulroney is guilty.
Are William Kaplan's 10 years of research and 2 books on the subject not credible because his conclusion is not the same?
Forgive me Andrew, if I don't share your view: one that lends credibility to Stevie "I'm the secret police informant" Cameron and a CBC "maybe 9/11 was caused by Bush" documentary.
This post has been removed by the author.
I await your response Andrew. In the meantime, I will begin the mind-numbing task of counting to 12 billion.
1,2,3,4,....
"Distinguished by their adequacy"?
Er, thanks.
Just a taste from the last time this thing reared its ugly....well rear....
Mr Coyne from
February 26, 2004
Globe buries lede!
But l'affaire Stevie (what did she know and when did she tell the RCMP she knew it?) is just the first course, the amuse bouche. The real meal is buried in about paragraph 14 of the Globe's second story:
Mr. Greenspan said it will eventually emerge that top figures in the Liberal government approved the investigation of Mr. Mulroney, knowing full well it was being launched based on information from an anonymous journalist.
Now the backfill. The said Mr. Greenspan is the eminent and indeed omnipresent Eddie Greenspan, Karlheinz Schreiber's lawyer in the Eurocopter proceedings, which (sigh) went on in secret for months before their existence was revealed. (Secret trials: in how many ways does our system need reform?)
It was in those hearings that, as we now learn, Agent Cameron was prepared to emerge from deep cover to testify, but only "for the purpose of the prosecution of Brian Mulroney."
And Eurocopter, another case of alleged influence peddling (or attempts at same) in the awarding of Canadian aerospace contracts, leads us inexorably back to the Airbus affair, and the investigation of Mulroney.
"We are at the front end of what will ultimately prove to be an incredible scandal," Mr. Greenspan said yesterday. " . . . I think we have to get to the bottom of it."
Add that one to the pile.
Sad to think we have been thinking about this for almost 4 years, in its current form. AND that the hints and allegations of something have been around that long.
And is this article the hint of what is to come.....the final unveiling....col mustard in the library with the candlestick.
Anyway AC it is interesting jumping into the time machine with Mr Peabody and going back 3.75 years, when it looked like a LIBERAL scandal.
PS And Brian, I wouldn't asume AC is in league with Agent Cameron, unless you have seen their matching decoder rings..
Another frightening look back...this time 10 FREAKIN YEARS AGO
http://www.andrewcoyne.com/columns/Southam/1997/ztd176_Airbus_lawsu.html
Money quote (one of many prescient ones by the way)
"It is indeed a mystery what point Mulroney hopes to establish by these renewed hostilities. To protest against the apparently unfounded accusations to which he was subject, he lobs about a few of his own, namely that the leak of the Swiss letter was a calculated attempt to distract public attention from the near loss of the Quebec referendum. To redress his claims of political interference in a police investigation, he demands political interference in a police investigation. And to demonstrate his unimpeachable integrity, he accepts a payment of $2-million to settle a lawsuit, then turns and threatens to bring the same suit again. If his purpose was to show that he could not be bought, he has made that point in spades.
Perhaps Mulroney is right to demand a royal commission of inquiry. If nothing else, it might determine whether the settlement was money well spent."
My goodness, Ecclesiastes was right...there is nothing new under the sun.
One final salvo from Mr Coyne. It seems to have held up well
http://www.andrewcoyne.com/columns/Southam/1997/zxy54_Airbus_hypocrisy.html
"Whatever legal and political issues the matter might have raised have been overtaken by a much larger and more visceral debate.
More than a struggle for interpretation of the Mulroney years, the Airbus controversy has served as a kind of collective catharsis. Whatever the government may or may not have done to Brian Mulroney, for the media it has released pent-up feelings of guilt and resentment over their own much worse mistreatment of the man."
So which way are things swinging now?
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Stephen.
Obviously, I don't think Andrew and Stevie Cameron are in the same league but AC has only himself to blame for that comparison.
Coyne points his readers to Stevie Cameron's "investigative journalism/RCMP informing" and the Fifth Estate's 10 year campaign against Mulroney as the sources for information on the Mulroney Schreiber affair. AC isn't bothered by the fact that these sources have already found Mulroney guilty.
I'm still waiting for Andrew to respond to my previous post. He starts out with the premise that he is right and anyone who might disagree is uninformed. Its a hilarious position to take, but I suppose one can never really lose an argument if they employ his strategy.
Any predictions on how many substitutions/sign-in tag team switcheroos we'll see tomorrow from Team NDP: Mulcair-Martin?
Six? Seven?
I'd like to see the Conservatives do the same trick. Maybe have Dean Del Mastro play now you hear me, now you don't with Myron Thompson - now that would be entertaining tv.
Derek:
It really depends on how you are counting said switcheroos. If you count Martin to Mulclair then back to Martin as 2 distinct switcheroos, I would go with 8.
A few questions I would pose:
1. Mr. Schreiber, how many times did you meet with Robert Thibault, when did you meet with him, and what was discussed at these meetings?
2. You've testified under oath that you made a deal with Mr. Mulroney in December of 1993. Your new affidavit tells a different story - that you made the deal in June, 1993. At which point did you perjure yourself, then or now?
3. When is Andrew Coyne going to respond to my post, Mr. Schreiber?
ahh Derek those tweedledee/tweedldum moments really are quite funny. I guess we have a new game....Where's Pat?
One moment he is at the table grilling the perp the next moment woosh he is gone, or is that him with a beard.....and then woosh...Its Pat, being nice to the witness trying to get him schnitzel and beer....
Taking Brian's definition, I would guess 6...."Yes wink I can name that scandal in 6 switcheroos."
Kind of like watching the sheik and rowdy roddie piper on Saturday Afternoon Tag Team Wrestling.
Sorry to be so flippant over such a potentially serious issue but this is a bizarro process. I got to admit it is scarey seeing how comfortable Martin adn Mulcair as grand inquisitors, questioners with unlimited power....brrr, shiver down my spine...
And Thibault's DEEP baritone....voice of God ;-)
You'll notice from his above comments, AC sees nothing significant about KHS failing to link Airbus money to Mulroney.
According to Andrew, its what Schreiber didn't say. Maybe the money is Airbus money, even if Schreiber didn't spell it out for us. (i.e denied) Which begs the question, why wouldn't Schreiber have taken the opportunity to spell it out for us?
Afterall, Schreiber is linked to Airbus, Schreiber is linked to Mulroney and therefore Mulroney MUST be linked to Airbus. (1+1=3).
Despite the lack of a-proof-is-a-proof, Andrew entertains wild speculation rather than factual evidence because the accusations and innuendo fits the mold of what he already believes.
Fair enough. I happen to believe it was Professor Plum in the Kitchen with the Lead Pipe. Funny thing is, Andrew and I have the same amount of credible evidence from which to base of our allegations.
Whaddya call someone who writes about this scandal a lot?
SchreiberScriber.
I dont know about that....thats why I posted the previous articles....
and if they get Macleans
subschreiber
I'm with Brian - both of them.
"SchreiberScriber"
Good one ;-)
Just so everyone knows:
SchreiberScriber and Pay Comeau were authored by the same anonymous soul.
And, my vote is that we somehow work the name Svend Robinson into this scandal, since high end jewelry always adds a touch of class to a bag full of filthy lucre.
Crimminy Jickets.
I'll sure be happy when the Writer's Strike ends and I can go back to work for the late night talk show circuit.
I vote for Airbucks. Clear, simple, rolls off the tongue, a nice play on the already popular name for the, the Airbus affair.
I would caution against relying Stevie Cameron's "meticulous reconstruction" as every time someone does, the fisc takes another hit. Maybe we should consider that the mounties spent 8 years and couldn't pin anything on BM, and when KHS was asked straight up if the Airbus purchase was involved he said "no".
Stevie may be rigth or she may be wrong in her construction....her "crime" was working on behalf of the government and suffering from Mulroney Derrangement Syndrome.
Her investigations may be vindicated, or not, but her "stoogeness" will forever taint everything she does on this. An ethical lapse on par with Mr Mulroney's taking cash. Mr M may be found to be worse off.
I added a new write in candidate
AirFiles....dont know why I didnt think of it earlier (maybe because it isnt good :) )
Now the Globe has added Mr Ouellet to the cast in this play. Wonder why that came out today?? And from what source, Mr Schreiber perhaps?
I suspect that Mr Mulcair gets to ask the questions about Quebec guys like Oullette and Martin gets to ask about other stuff. I also note Martin is back to his dirty harry approach, "he can go back t jail for all I care". Nice.....from such a concerned social democrat toward someone who hasnt been charged in this country and who hasnt been convicted in another.
AC, even though it is an interesting instrument arent you the least bothered by the archaic nature of, lack of right to silence, no cross ex, no defence by an advocate, no rule of law....nobody should be proud of its use, even though there MAY be a positive result from it.
Let me correct, she wasnt working on behalf of the government but the police.
It remains to be seen if the police, at the time, were working on behalf of the government or at their behest.
1) In chasing in the first place
2) In not chasing afterwards...as I inidicated, when you do the review this has consumed much political oygen for 10 years!!! And we still dont know.
Cabinet documents dont become available till 2013 on this file.
So will it be christmas?....which I assume to mean lots of information. What incentive does KHS have, I guess to be nice to them and get the pliant committee to let him out of jail to continue to testify.
Or will KHS find ways to say nothing. Why would he admit to bribery, which leaves him open to Canadian jail. At best he can hint, to try to cut a deal, taking 2 years in a Canadian jail, to avoid extradition
Should be interesting to see how he sets up his ex friend Brian...and whether the two still have common interests that perpetuate the silence.
I like "Airbucks"
i vote for "Schreiberbriber"
i like rhyming things and shiny things
AC,
You have hitched your wagon to this pathetic carny barker and his circus sideshow? Good. Your credibility matches KHS.
The link provided to the paper trail suggest yet another scandal name:
AirFrame
Mulroney is being framed by an experienced confidence artist. He's the perfect mark: ex (or soon to be ex) PM, vain, boastful, gambler, broke and lacking core values (colossal mistakes). Playing on his arrogance and pride, Schreiber pays the man to perform miracles, knowing full well it will never fly. Who cares? Mulroney is bait.
The paper trail documents start out at $2 million and end up as $1 million in Schreibers accounts, then $500K in Britan and $300K for Mulroney. Mulroney is paid to be the fall guy for an embezzlement scheme; wheres that 1.7 million now?
We are being duped by a distraction strategy: Mulroney is the scandal bait,international borders are the cover. Fraud charges in Germany? Name names and allegations to fight extradition. Mention Harper; why not the Prince of Wales?
The paper trail ends at Schreiber. Its Mulroney's word against Schreiber over what and when the payments registered. There may be ethical issues about Mulroney, but unless Schreiber has evidence, we are being played.
I kind of like "Muldoughy" because it describes the players well, but put to a vote AirBucks wins on elevator pitch level alone.
I thought the biggest revelation was that there was $10,000 in donations to the Liberal party that Chretiens bagman in the province of Nova Scotia just wrote a cheque for.....
How many other businesses and "trusts" got shaken down that way.
Schreiber, for his own purposes is making this about Frank Moors....which it may be. He said again and again, Airbus to GCI and if GCI wanted to be paid in Swtzerland that was fine....which would be where it was paid.
NOw who GCI paid is another question entirely I think.
KHS is a name dropper if the worst type and the bovine's we have as MP's soak it up....oh he said gratful for German reunification....he said the United States, he said Mitterand a deal between Mitterand and Mulroney...
And he sent a letter to Harper and got a response....oh my goodness my kids get responses from Santa When they write to Sanata Claus, North Pole, Canada, H0H 0H0.....
And Szabo....my goodness I thought he was going to massage KHS feet at one point....although why the speakers warrant wasnt followed is a VERY IMPORTANT point.
What was this about kidnapping? can someone shed any light on that?
Again, Andrew may find more importance in what Schreiber didn't say. For instance, maybe Mulroney was behind the grassy knoll afterall?
With the evidence presented to date, however, I'm more inclined to believe what Schreiber did say: Mulroney was not linked to Airbus whatsoever. No influnece. Not a nickel.
Outstanding questions:
- Will Andrew renounnce his membership from the "Mulroney-Took-Bribes-Club", and publicly shame the dubious investigating of Harvey Cashore, Stevie Cameron and Linden Macintyre?
- Will Andrew Coyne finally admit that, with the evidence to date - evidence from people with every incentive in the world to destroy Mulroney - that Mulroney had nothing to do with Airbus?
FDuquette:
All of what you typed seems plausible enough - that BM was as pure as the driven snow with some ethical slip-ups, except he has offered no plausible, legal reason for his accepting 300,000 in CASH while he was an MP. That and the m.o.'s of several of those in his party - Cogger et al - who seem to have characters closer to what Schrieber seems to be.
Loath though I am to recognize anything positive in Lawrence Martin - liberal hack that he is - but he makes an excellent point in his recent column arguing that a big issue here is that foreign powers may have funded the toppling of a federal party leader.
Not that foreign interference is unknown in 'Canadian' politics (e.g. the NL referendum of '49), but it does add further corrosion to the image that the uber-vain BM is trying to create and that FDuquette is defending.
Yooohoo, Andrew. Where are you? You must be busy retracting your previous speculation on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair?
Maybe you're coming up with new scandal names to reflect the realities of the non-scandal. Are you being sworn out of the "Mulroney-Took-Bribes" club?
Maybe you can berate me and others again about how uninformed with the case we are? While you're at it, please berate Mr. Schreiber for how uninformed he is - surely someone can link Mulroney to Airbus.
Gord,
You dont have to accept that MBM is pure as snow to say that, should there be no other evidence presented, allegations that MBM received private benefit from Air Canada choosing AirBus are false.
If you go by KHS's testimony today then no money was discussed while he was an MP and the money only excahnged hands 2 months later when it was discussed.
It may stink, it may not sound right it may have hair all over it, but so far nothing is wrong.
The public leaking of the police letter that made those false accusations is what caused the payment of money to Mr Mulroney.
As for the allegations in 1983, I am a former PC and I believe them...no proof just if you want my opinion I would say they are likely true.
I just dont know how illegal it was at the time, I doubt it was legal but thats another story. We could easly look into Turner's and Chretiens leadership fundraising in the early 80's...think we will find a skeleton there. Hell lets go back to the Bordern....
Focus is, did Airbus generate illegal private benefit for public officeholders and bureaucrats involved in the Airbus, Eurocpter and LAV decisions.
Should we be looking at presentations from Boeing and General Motors and Sirkorsky?
Let this play out a little more but if there is nothng there other than winks and nods I think we know all we are going to know. You cant crack a conspiracy unless someone talks, cash and private conversations are easy to hide.
Nothing to pursue yet, except ghosts....oullette....Shreiber denied any issue, charest....well maybe but if within the laws at the time then no issue, but these are tangental to why the whole committee and enquiry are there.
Stephen:
Warren Kinsella - the Bertuzzi of liberal political hacks - also makes a fine point here http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/11/26/warren-kinsella-one-good-question-for-mr-mulroney.aspx
"..."Mr. Mulroney, did you did you not receive $100,000 in cash from Mr. Schreiber while you were still a Member of Parliament?"
The answer, Mr. Lavoie now tells us, is yes. Next question: "Mr. Mulroney, I presume you are familiar with the Parliament of Canada Act, which governs the activities of Members of Parliament. Can you read to us section 41 of that Act, out loud?"
Mr. Mulroney would then read this: "No member of the House of Commons shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person..."
He would then be asked to read the related section, 41.1, which says: "No member of the House of Commons may, directly or indirectly, accept any benefit or income from a trust established by reason of his or her position as a member of the House of Commons."
..."
Also it would be nice to know if/when BM declared the money as income and whether or not he reported the GST (services for what?)and when.
You or I would be in a heap of legal trouble if we took cash for no reason from someone.
My observations/queries from today's hearing.
I understand KHS is a Canadian citizen (I don't know off hand when he became one, though I recall he rec'd a note of congratulations from Mulroney), and had resided here for sometime. I had presumed that means that he filed his income tax here in Canada. If you are a dual German/Canadian citizen, can you choose where you file your taxes? KHS is charged with income tax evasion in Germany. Why would those charges not properly apply here if he was a resident then?
It seems to me the line KHS is taking is that the 1988 Airbus commissions were the result of a direct deal between GCI (shareholders including Frank Moores and Fred Doucet I believe he mentioned, amongst possibly others) and he was unaware of how they disposed or distributed the commissions. And he made it clear that these were commissions, or success fees - ie no sales, no commissions. But it seems to me that he,KHS,also benefitted directly from the sales, somehow. While Frank Moores has since deceased, and would be unable to confirm or deny KHS's claims, I thought one comment KHS made was interesting. According to KHS, someone form GCI indicated to KHS that it was the intent or thought or plan (maybe just wishful thinking) that Mulroney might join the GCI lobby firm after politics. This seems like something worth pursuing, although easily discounted or denied by other parties. A tenuous link perhaps.
I have to add that Pat Martin's NDP schtick about big business - government corruption and his moralizing was probably best left to the spin microphones after the committee meeting, or a union meeting somewhere.
Gord,
The problem I have with following the letter of the law as outlined in the Pariament of Canada Act is when do you apply it?
The very capable and respected John Godrey recently announced his retirement next July to take up a position as the head of a biligual school in Toronto. Surely, he has negotiated his compensation and terms of employment with them while he is still an MP. Is this a breach? How is this different than Mulroney and Schreiber discussing future plans to work together at Harrington Lake?
On your second point, I believe Belinda Stronach still represents her riding while she works and presumedly gets compensated while back at Magma (It should be noted that I believe she has always donated her MP compensation to charity). Now, Magma or its associate companies often have ex politicos on their boards (Mike Harris, Brian Tobin, Frank McKenna come to mind from memory - I could be wrong). So, is she in non-compliance with the Act as well?
Don't forget, the August 1993 payment of $100k was in the last days of the Conservative's 1988 mandate. An election had to be called within weeks as the five year limit had nearly expired. Was Mulroney acting as an MP at that point? I doubt he was doing much, just collecting his MP's salary - a paid vacation perhaps. Technically he may be in breach, but is it any any different than the example provided earlier?
Maybe not.
Gord,
Warren is correct about the statute. When did he actually resign as an MP....if it wasnt until the election then he took his advance while he was an MP.
If he resigned as an MP on the day he left the PM ship, June 25th, then he didnt. Seems there was no cash till August. The election was in September I believe.
The question is a technical one, what is the penalty for taking your first paycheque after you have announced your resignation.
Fair question, is Paul martin getting any kind of a paycheque now from anyone? He certinly isnt acting as an MP much?
Did Jean Chretien resign as an MP right away? Did he start a job before his MP resignation took place...just asking? And what is the penalty, I really dont know.
Oh...just looked it up....as with many things Warren the truth may look to be ther ebut more to the story
1) No member of the House of Commons shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person,
(a) in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House; or
(b) for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence any member of either House.
Neither a nor b, which warren neglected to include, applies and therefore irrelevant.
You are allowed to receive compensation from other sources as an MP. Lets be clear.
They cannot be related to anything before the house or for influencig the house.
Oh an even if he was the penalty is
Every member of the House of Commons who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars and shall, for five years after conviction of that offence, be disqualified from being a member of the House of Commons and from holding any office in the federal public administration
You can tell this is almost over, and not to the satisfaction of the PPG, (300 giant mouths sharing one tiny brain) when in any scrum you can hear the CBC's resident harridan hag, Julie vanDouchebag spit bile as she shouts her questions.
my gawd - Warren Kinsella distorting data, quoting out of context, presenting a false image ?
What next, he'll write a book about dirty tricks in politics and still believe in fairy tales about how great a PM Cruton was ?
I am shocked I tell you, just shocked.
Can we please drop this topic? this is boring.
Ok, is KHS lying when he says there were no kickbacks to Mulroney for the Airbus purchase? They both hate each other, and if KHS ever said it, it would be a mortal blow to Mulroney.
I just don't get why KHS would lie about such a thing if it indeed happened. He has no reason or incentive to do so.
Can't we all just get along?
Gord Tulk -
I dont think Mulroney was pure as the driven snow, he probably thought he could get money for nothing: lobby to do what? build tanks in N.S.? Laughable. How much have tax payers spent on Shaheen's oil refinery in Come-by-chance, or on SYSCO in Sydney? But KHS offered him money, he took it.
But without a contract or a receipt, KHS marked him: if needed, he cam pull Mulroney like a rabbit out of his hat and then make him disappear, like he testified today about Airbus. Now the Liberals and the RCMP look bad; but its all misdirection. KHS is the only common thread in all this.
My write in ballot is:
Schreiberdammerung. (The Ring Cycle)
The only scandal with its own touring opera company.
From the same author who brought you Pay-Comeau, Schriber Scriber and all kinds of other Tomfoolery.
Stop me before I post again.
It is absolutely WEAK that Andrew Coyne, Warren Kinsella, Kady O'Malley, etc etc have absolutely nothing to say about today
s proceedings.
Warren hasn't been able to shut the fu*k up about the Mulroney-Schreiber story for 3 weeks. And today his blog fills us in on his favorite Sex Pistols song.
Andrew has posted five or six columns/posts in as many days. Today we get nothing. Name that Non-Scandal, Andrew.
Does anyone doubt that Don Newman's show would be running 24/7 if Schreiber even hinted to the committee that Mulroney was dirty?
Does anyone doubt that Warren or Andrew might have something to say on their blogs if that was the case?
What a complete SHAM.
dude, we love that you have a "certain fondness" for pasta disasta, but we totally thought we had a deal. reconsider ... we don't want to call harvey cashore, but we will.
"Schreiberdammerung. (The Ring Cycle)
The only scandal with its own touring opera company.
From the same author who brought you Pay-Comeau, Schriber Scriber"
You get my vote!
Schreiberdammerung. Now THAT'S classy.
I call it Schreiber Scheisse in my articles.
write in candidates:
nothing-gate
waste-of-time-scam
der noskandelinhere
Brung-ya-gate
Tanks for the Memories