Old friends who never met
He had "no specific recollection" of his first meeting with Schreiber, though he could say it was "in a business context" (he told the ethics committee it was "through the political process"). He didn't remember whether it was in Alberta or Quebec. He had "no idea" whether he was a political contributor. He did not know of any relationship between Schreiber and Airbus ("not at all") nor did he know of any commission sales agreement between them ("never"). He did not know that Schreiber was a friend of Franz Josef Strauss, although he said he read it later.
Talking of Strauss, what Mulroney did not know about Schreiber paled in comparison to what he did not know about Strauss....
"I did not know Strauss myself," Mulroney said, "nor did I know any of his family." Mind you, "I knew of Franz Josef Strauss," but "I didn't know him personally. I never met him."
What did he know of him, then? Well, not that he was chairman of Airbus, that's for certain ("no idea"), although he knew that he was premier of Bavaria, and had been minister of Finance in the Federal Republic of Germany.But met him? Never. Didn't know him. Nor any of his family. What are we to make, then, of this recollection of happier times by Pat MacAdam, Mulroney's longtime aide, in a recent newspaper column?I remember the first time Karlheinz and Brian Mulroney met in 1984. The office of Brian's longtime secretary, Ginette Pilotte, was on one side of Mulroney's office and mine was the other bookend. We were the "gatekeepers."
Max Strauss, the son of Bavarian premier Franz Josef Strauss, paid a courtesy visit. Brian and the senior Strauss were old friends. Karlheinz Schreiber, who was unexpected, accompanied Max.Emphasis added. Could Pat's memory be playing tricks on him? Getting on a bit, isn't he? Except here he is saying the same thing on CBC Television in the fall of 1999.
"I met him [Schreiber] when he used to call on Mulroney. He was looking after the Franz Josef Strauss interests. The father, Franz Josef, was a good friend of Mulroney's in years gone by. The son used to call on him as a courtesy call. I was the gatekeeper then, and kept the appointments, and he'd come in with Max Strauss ... oh, maybe five, six, seven times a year."Good friends? Six or seven times a year? How could MacAdam be so mistaken? Or has he not had time to read Mulroney's testimony?
12/19/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
27 Comments
And your point, which is an excellent one is that BM couldn't talk under oath because everything he said would have been perjury.
As the old adage goes: "It isn't the crime, it's the cover-up..."
BM's image, his reputation and place in history - his most cherished possessions - are now utterly and irrevocably ruined by the contradictory testimony he gave this month. He is Slick Willie North.
I have been astounded at how many journalists were deflected by the thin patina of charm and good humour displayed by Mulroney at the hearing. His testimony was a house of cards. Thank goodness, you weren't sucked in.
"Does he take us for fools?"
Why yes, he does. And he's right. Doesn't anyone get it? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I reiterate: When this country gets serious about prosecutions, with real penalties, then the corruption will be cleaned up.
Mulroney is a symptom of this country's Perry Como style justice system and anemic ne'er do well parliamentarians.
Always remember Nixon's memorable advice on beating a perjury rap:
"I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall...."
Canada, you got what you deserved. You're just po'd that he didn't take you for dinner and dancing afterward.
The real story here is that there is no story. No kickbacks + no abuse of power + no bribes + no corruption = no story.
8 years of an RCMP special investigative unit, 9 lawyers from the Department of Justice, 28 CBC documentaries and 2 Stevie Cameron books have landed us exactly nowhere. Not a shred of evidence of criminal wrongdoing and even today - no one is suggesting as much.
The lead RCMP investigator resigned in shame the day before he was about to be disciplined for his unethical behaviour (i.e. personal vendetta and leaking information to Stevie).
The Dept of Justice lawyers alleged Mulroney was a criminal and received 5 million in bribes based on evidence from Stevie Cameron. Allegations were leaked to the media to destroy Mulroney's reputation. Government later forced to apologize to Mulroney the tune of 2.1 million and close the case.
The CBC mockumentaries have done nothing but assist a fugitive from justice avoid extradition. Stevie Cameron is a reporter who doubles as a government agent. The entire RCMP ivestigation and subsequent lawsuit was largely based on her allegations which were later found to be entirely baseless. So baseless that Linden Macintyre and Harvet Cashore who produced 28 documentaries suggesting otherwise are now admitting that there is no Airbus affair.
The only witness against Brian Mulroney isn't even pretending Mulroney was linked to Airbus or that influenced government to award contracts.
The only influence Mulroney had on a Schreiber contract while he was in government was to personally kill the Thyysen contract. Hardly the actions you'd expect of someone on the take hey Andrew?
After all the smoke and mirrors, we have a business transaction by private citizens. Once you get done with Mulroney Andrew, perhaps you can look into my neighbour's finances. I'm pretty sure he hasn't filed his 2006 taxes yet. Lets call a public inquiry.
I have to agree with Grenya on this Coyne, after all your ink, so what?
You seem to becoming a bit indignantly rabid in your pursuit of Mulroney you are judging him against a standard you wouldn't apply to others (let's say Jean Chretien just to stir the pot).
No politician in this country has been elected because he was telling the truth; no voter in this country ever wanted to be told the truth.
"I reiterate:" - Anonymous
I do wish all of the anonymous commenters would at least use a nickname so I/we could follow who's who.
And, while I too largely agree with Grenya save for his first para, I would ask BGrenya two questions:
1. Which of BM's stories do you believe - his sworn testimony in 1996 or his lastest explanation. I.E. Which time is he materially lying about a sum of cash that would have seen you or I subject to a tax audit and much, much worse had we received such a sum of cash.
2. Obviously, you vehemently do not want a public enquiry. This goes against the stated wish of a former PM who emphatically wishes to clear his name. As it seems you are a supporter of BM's why do you go against his desire in this regard? As BM has said, he has nothing to hide.
From my perspective, even though it will cost 50 MM or so, if one of our former PMs wishes to have a full public enquiry to clear the air, so be it. And maybe, while we are at it, we should do the same favour for Jean Chretien and the scandal rumours that have swirled around him.
Is your next column going to be about how OJ might have got away with murder?
I too would like to see BM do time in jail if he commited crimes. It seems to me however, he has already been cleared of any wrong doing.Does anyone believe that anything will change?
No doubt the Liberals as well as many of the rest of us are enjoying seeing BM's reputation take a beating but this is going to be costly good fun.
The other obvious point to all of this is to somehow tag the current gov't to this affair. You know full well the opposition will use any flimsy detail to try and paint a cover-up of all this by Harper and Co.
This is the MO of the opposition,particularly the Liberals.
Former prime minister testifies under oath that he does not know, and has not met, a central figure in the Airbus affair. He is directly contradicted, more than once over a period of several years, by his own appointments secretary. Please comment.
One of the problems that Gov't lawyers would have had in the 1996 deposition was that it would have been difficult to disprove Mulroney's claims of not knowing of having met Franz Joseph Strauss. Like references to Yeltsin and Mitterand in the recent Committee hearing, Strauss had passed away by the time Mulroney testified(Oct 3, 1988 according to wiki).
I thought another portion of Mulroney's 1996 testimony also seemed to be at odds with his recent claims.
(pg 41)
Me CLAUDE-ARMAND SHEPPARD:
Q- When did you become partner of Ogilvy Renault?
A- Some time in the...
Me GERARD TREMBLAY:
Recemment, la?
Me CLAUDE-ARMAND SHEPPARD:
Q- When you...rejoined your firm?
A- I rejoined the firm in...I was to rejoin the firm...I left office on the twenty-fifth (25th) of June, nineteen niney-three (1993), and I was to rejoin Ogilvy Renault after Labour Day
.
Contrary to the view that I have considerable wealth, I don't and I asked if I could begin working on the third (3rd) of August, nineteen ninety-three (1993). And I did, I began working immediately on the third (3rd) of August, nineteen ninety-three (1993), a month or six weeks in advance of my anticipated date of return...
This seems to me to be consistent with Schreiber's testimony of Mulroney's need of money. Of course, by Aug 3rd, by both accounts, Schreiber had not gotten back to Mulroney with any details of a proposal to work together on Bear Head (not until late August).
I also thought Mulroney indicated recently he hadn't yet started work with the law firm when he met Schreiber in August.
I may be splitting hairs here, but since Mulroney made such theatre of comparing apparent inconsitencies between Schreiber's testimony and subsequent affadavit on when they first discussed working together, it seems to me he should be held to the same standard.
I don't have any problem with AC continuing to dig into this and writing about it. It may be difficult to maintain reader interest now that the Committee has adjourned until the end of Jan.
Obviously, the key will be what Dr. Johnston decides on Jan. 11th, but holding public officials accountable for questionable testimony in the MSM is fair game as far as I am concerned, inquiry or not.
this is really getting to be too much you biased libereno. Can't understand why MacLeans hired you on - best place for you would be CBC. Who Done more Damage and who were so corrupt - the libs ofcourse, and you go on and on about the Conservatives - I wonder if libs are stuffing yoyr pockets?
Somehow its getting lost on people what Mulroney was testifying about. The government alleged that Mulroney was a key player in a vast conspiracy to defraud the government since the moment he took office. They alleged that he received $5 million in bribes over the sale of AIRBUS planes to AIR CANADA.
Mulroney under oath reading the governments allegations:
"The above three (3) cases demonstrate an on -going scheme by Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Moores and Mr. Schreiber to defraud the Canadian Government of millions of dollars of public funds from the time Mr. Mulroney took office, in September nineteen eighty-four (1984) until he resigned, in June of nineteen ninety- three (1993) ."
" This investigation is of serious concern to the Government of Canada as it involves criminal activity on the part of a former Prime Minister. Further investigation cannot be conducted by the RCMP until the information available in Switzerland is received. "
Okay?
Mr. YVAN BOLDUC:
Q- Yeah.
A- Then you say: "The Government of Canada requests this assistance. We want you to freeze these bank accounts and open the various bank accounts because without this, we have no evidence that Mr. Mulroney was involved."
Bolduq - Okay
A- So you say two things. This document says: a) Mr. Mulroney was a criminal, and he was a criminal from the day that he was sworn in as Prime Minister, which is quite a remarkable...
Q- Well...
A- ... and then you say, by the way, Swiss, we really have no evidence of this, but if you open bank accounts, we... you might help us find therein the evidence that will allow us to justify the libel that we have already stated.
Let's see. Pat MacAdam wasn't examined under oath, and he remembers these things. Mulroney was examined under oath, and didn't remember these things. I can conclude from this that MacAdam and Mulroney are not one and the same person. Except, of course, that I already knew that. What more can I conclude?
Look, it's clear from the whole Schreiber smear that Mulroney is a vain fool, who thinks he's very smart and isn't very smart at all. And that was obvious before Mulroney ever took power. Being what he is, Mulroney is nicely down the food chain from a predator like Schreiber, and made for a delicious snack. It's the way of the world, but it isn't important and it isn't news.
Mulroney under oath reading more of the allegations:
As Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney would have the power to control all the business of the Government of Canada, except where the powers have been removed by statute."
That statement is false, because if that statement is... were true, Jean Chretien is responsible for this document right here, and I don't believe he is.
Q - Okay.
A- So that first statement is false. The second statement: "The powers would include the ability to have the government contracts approved or to exert influence upon the Ministers responsible. "
That statement is false. There are strict government rules and statutes that..that deal with the manner in which contracts must be analyzed
and.., and granted. Then: "On March thirteenth (13 th) nineteen eighty-five (1985), Mr. Mulroney appointed Mr. Moores to the Board of Directors of Air Canada."
False. First, the date is wrong. Secondly, I never appointed Mr. Moores to the Board of Air Canada. He was appointed by the Government of Canada on
recommendation of the Minister of Transport along with thirteen (13) other people, that same day. Then :
"Mr. Moores resigned from the Board of Directors, on September twelfth (12th) nineteen eighty-five (1985)..."
- false. The date is wrong -
"... when it became known that Airbus Industries was one of his clients at GCI . . ."
- false. He resigned because, as... as was publicly stated, that Nordair and Wardair were his clients, not Airbus -
"... and that he was in a conflict of interest position while Air Canada was negotiating the purchase of a new fleet of aircraft with Airbus."
Mr. Moores resigned from the Board - he was there for five (5) months - he resigned from the Board in September of nineteen eighty-five (1985) . Air
Canada did not begin to consider and negotiate a new fleet of aircraft until August of nineteen eightyseven (1987), two (2) years after Mr. Moores left the Board
You are telling a foreign government that the Canadian Government certifies these things to be facts, therefore, to be true. I could've, I think, easily persuaded Mr. Fiegenwald that rather than being.., than facts, these are falsehoods. And that somebody, I don't know who, somebody seriously misled him in conveying him information that is demonstrably false. That's what I would have been happy to discuss with Mr. Fiegenwald or his colleagues, indeed, would be happy to discuss with him today if I had the opportunity"
Alas, as is often the case, you get your answer from what the person doesn't say or do.
In this case B. Grenya has chosen not to reply to my questions or AC's request above. Thus, he demonstrates that his role is be a dogmatic defender of BM regardless of the facts as they are presented - that being the demonstrable case of a former PM lying either under oath or before a public HOC commitee hearing - either of which is a despicable, shameful act.
Gord:
Don't be impatient - I was getting to your questions.
I just wanted to first remind everyone about what the entire ordeal is about: the allegations, the lawsuit, the RCMP investigation -- its all about whether Mulroney took bribes from Airbus.
Even the committee looking into the terms of that settlement hasn't bothered to bring up Airbus. Its completely off the radar -- they're now wondering if Mulroney lobbied current Cabinet Ministers and if he paid his taxes on time.
Lets get to your questions:
1. Which of BM's stories do you believe - his sworn testimony in 1996 or his lastest explanation. I.E. Which time is he materially lying about a sum of cash that would have seen you or I subject to a tax audit and much, much worse had we received such a sum of cash.
Answer: He never lied under oath and I would suggest that if he did, the Liberals would be asking him to be charged with perjury. Please point me to the part where he lied under oath.
2. Obviously, you vehemently do not want a public enquiry. This goes against the stated wish of a former PM who emphatically wishes to clear his name. As it seems you are a supporter of BM's why do you go against his desire in this regard? As BM has said, he has nothing to hide.
Answer: I'm not afraid of a public inquiry nor is Brian Mulroney who asked for one. The question becomes this: if this is a private business deal gone bad why would we spend 50 million to get to the bottom of it?
Not even Coyne is suggesting that Mulroney abused his powers as PM, got kickbacks or bribes. So why spend 50 million on the tax and personal affairs of Brian Mulroney.
Repeat after me: The only influence Mulroney had on a Schreiber contract while he was in government was to personally kill the Thyysen contract.
Gord,
Take it easy on Bryan. According to his blogger profile he is a lawyer, so he is acting as an irrational advocate (some might call him an insufferable troll) throughout this whole Mulroney-Schreiber Affair.
Like most advocates, it is not difficult to trip him up with facts- just use his own illogical arguments.
For example, Bryan ends his latest polemic with: "Repeat after me: The only influence Mulroney had on a Schreiber contract while he was in government was to personally kill the Thyysen contract."
Now, if you look just a few blurbs earlier, he quoted Mulroney's sworn testimony where he claimed:
"The second statement: "The powers [Mulroney as PM]would include the ability to have the government contracts approved or to exert influence upon the Ministers responsible. "
That statement is false. There are strict government rules and statutes that..that deal with the manner in which contracts must be analyzed
So on one hand, Bryan is claiming that Mulroney killed a contract, whereas just a few minutes earlier, he quoted Mulroney who said he can't do such a thing.
Which statement is incorrect? I guess it depends upon what the definition of "is" is.
So, Brian, if you say he did not lie under oath, then he lied before the HOC committee. Either way he's a liar. Maybe you should e-mail BM with that opinion.
As for the inquiry, money be damned, let's have it. BM wants it, you support BM, so therefore you should support an inquiry.
But, while you should be arguing for it, you seek to muzzle AC by slagging his postings the motive of which for observers like me is interpreted as being that you (and BM probably) do not want an inquiry.
With respect to AC's comments, ebt has already addressed them.
You'll notice that nobody has addressed or rebutted anything I said in my opening comment.
A lot of people find it perfectly acceptable that a partisan committee investigating a former PM about Airbus and the Airbus settlement hasn't asked him a single question about Airbus or the settlement.
We've moved from Airbus and bribes to Mulroney's taxes and whether he's lobbied the current government over the wireles spectrum deal.
Its worse than McCarthyism. Its the equivalent of McCarthy accusing someone of being a communist, finding out they're not a communist but throwing them in jail anyway because they didn't pay a parking ticket.
Gord: Please point me to the exact testimony in either the HOC or his 1996 discovery hearing where he lied.
Derek: Its a little rich to be accused of making illogical arguments coming from the guy who said the CBC planting questions with liberals is the same as the AECL / chalk river reactor. "Hi pot..this is kettle calling.."
With respect to Mulroney's statement he was saying that the PM can't approve contracts -- he never said he couldn't kill them. In other words, Jean Chretien never personally approved any sponsorships because he couldn't. Paul Martin on the other hand had the absolute authority to kill the sponsorship program. Nice try though.
Brian: "Its a little rich to be accused of making illogical arguments coming from the guy who said the CBC planting questions with liberals is the same as the AECL / chalk river reactor."
Second time you've tried this mischaracterisation Brian. I guess as a lawyer, you rely to a certain degree upon overblown rhetoric and people not fact checking. I believe this is the passage I wrote you are referring to. It was in response to "Anonymous" (maybe you as well) who was calling for a full public inquiry into some trivial allegation about the CBC writing questions.
This is all political. Given that Doug Finley requested the CBC review the allegations, on a day when the Harper Gov't retired the head of Crown Corporation AECL, I'd have initiated an internal review as well if I was with the CBC.
This amounts to a partisan non-story. zzzz
I'll let others decide who is credible on this point. You're not.
I think the reason that no-one has responded to your first post is that it is also full of non-truths and overblown rhetoric.
Example: " 28 CBC documentaries " I must have missed about 25 of them. Proof please.
Example: "[Dept of Jstice]Allegations were leaked to the media to destroy Mulroney's reputation." Proof please.
Example: "The CBC mockumentaries have done nothing but assist a fugitive from justice avoid extradition." What legal efforts by KHS to avoid extradition are a result of the "CBC mockumentaries"? Proof please.
Loose with the facts and heavy on the rhetoric- your modus operandi.
No credibility in my books, and I suspect in many others who read your posts.
A lot of radio silence from Derek suddenly. I guess he's too busy trying to remove his foot from his mouth.
That or Mr. Logic and Rational is busy trying to find a way to defend his earlier statements about how the CBC planting questions with the Liberals is the same as nuclear safety.
Brian, what area of law do you specialize in? Gravity?
I think you may have crammed too hard for your finals. Dropping books on the noggin from great heights can have longterm effects.
Derek:
You called me out for using illogical arguments:
So on one hand, Bryan is claiming that Mulroney killed a contract, whereas just a few minutes earlier, he quoted Mulroney who said he can't do such a thing.
I responded with:
With respect to Mulroney's statement he was saying that the PM can't approve contracts -- he never said he couldn't kill them. In other words, Jean Chretien never personally approved any sponsorships because he couldn't. Paul Martin on the other hand had the absolute authority to kill the sponsorship program. Nice try though.
And you lost the argument. Smackdown. With respect to your earlier statements about the CBC and AECL, I'm certain that most will agree that you aren't credible, logical or reasonable.
Regarding your new proofy-proof-a-proof-is-a-proof crusade:
Example: "28 CBC documentaries " I must have missed about 25 of them. Proof please.
- I suppose there is a difference between 28 seperate CBC documentaries and a handful of similarly themed documentaries that are aired hundreds of times. We're splitting hairs here.
Example: "[Dept of Justice]Allegations were leaked to the media to destroy Mulroney's reputation."
- I never alleged that the Department of Justice leaked them, I said the allegations were leaked to destroy Mulroney's reputation. Big difference. The fact that special agent Stevie Cameron was asking Mulroney for his side of the story before he even knew there was a story is proof that a leak occured and that it harmed his reputation. The leak is the entire basis of the libel claim and 2.1 settlement. Do your homework before you come at me son.
Example: "The CBC mockumentaries have done nothing but assist a fugitive from justice avoid extradition." What legal efforts by KHS to avoid extradition are a result of the "CBC mockumentaries"? Proof please.
- Please see Terrence Corcoran's article on my blog called "A Scandal Made for Television".
The reason I don't respond to some of your direct replies is that they don't rise to the level of requiring a response. Here's a good example:
I suppose there is a difference between 28 seperate CBC documentaries and a handful of similarly themed documentaries that are aired hundreds of times. We're splitting hairs here.
So, by this lame revisionist definition, you should have originally claimed "hundreds of CBC documentaries". Weasle words.
Do you understand what a circular argument is? Because you seem to employ this technique quite a bit.
First you wrote:
The Dept of Justice lawyers alleged Mulroney was a criminal and received 5 million in bribes based on evidence from Stevie Cameron. Allegations were leaked to the media to destroy Mulroney's reputation.
Now, when I challenge you for proof, you state:
The fact that special agent Stevie Cameron was asking Mulroney for his side of the story before he even knew there was a story is proof that a leak occured and that it harmed his reputation.
So, the allegations that Stevie Cameron provided to the Dept. of Justice were leaked back to her in an effort to discredit Mulroney. Duhhh.
And when I ask you for proof of "What legal efforts by KHS to avoid extradition are a result of the "CBC mockumentaries" you direct me to a Terence Corcoran column where he states:
What Mr. MacIntyre didn't say was the obvious, which is that Mr. Schreiber is not going to jail in Germany because he played the fifth estate as patsies. Had it not been for the fifth estate's refloating of the same old Airbus allegations against Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Schreiber would now be heading for trial in Germany on charges of fraud, tax evasion, bribery and who knows what other malfeasance and ethical breaches -- instead of regaling a Commons ethics committee with incoherent stories about money and payments that, it turns out, were never made, or have certainly not been seen to be made.
The fact of the matter is that KHS' extradition has been stayed until his appeal is presented to the Supreme Court of Canada, and a decision is made whether or not to hear his appeal - nothing at all to do with what you or TC claim. Pure rhetoric. And factually incorrect.
Sorry, I will excuse myself further from this low level of debate.
Look up! Incoming Newtonian apple.
Is there proof that a leak occurred? Absolutely - the letter to the Swiss was reported in the Financial Post a few days after it was sent to the Swiss.
Is there proof that the CBC crockumentaries helped Schreiber avoid extradition? Absolutely there is. The question is, where would Schreiber be today if the CBC hadn't aired the documentary a month ago? Its a hypothetical question but reasonable people (which seems to exclude you) would suggest that the CBC played a part in creating the conditions that eventually led to Schreiber's stay of extradition.
"Either way he's a liar"
So what? Until someone straps on some cahones in Bananada, the country with the cold winters and sleepy judiciary, you might as well sing:
"Liar, liar, pants on fire"
He lied. Big whoop.
!@#$%this...lets just get some rope and hang'em...hang'em high...that'll teach them!! and maybe these chatterers will go away...finally....