Questions someone really ought to ask Mulroney
I was going to post a list of suggested questions for tomorrow's ethics commitee hearing, but this cat beat me to it. It's pretty comprehensive....
ERRATA: Aside from putting CGI for GCI throughout, I can see only one clear error in the piece -- in question 4b, where it is stated that GCI had a commision sales agreement iwth Airbus. So far as I am aware, the only such agreement was with International Aircraft Leasing, Schreiber's Liechtenstein-based shell company. Schreiber then paid Moores via a complicated chain of bank transfers.
As for omissions, if I think of any other pertinent questions to ask I'll post them. Readers might consider doing the same.
12/12/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
35 Comments
... Number 10H is great.
... "So Brian, what did you do with roughly a third of a million dollars in cash?"
... I imagine one would drop in on Bank Manager Sleazy, and slip him a few envelopes with a wink.
Questions for Andrew Coyne:
1. Are you or are you not directly or indirectly related to Pierre Trudeau and/or his offspring?
2. If so, does this cloud your judgement both on the Meech Lake vs strong federal government question and your personal feelings toward cousin Trudeau's nemisis Brian Mulroney?
... Dear Anon...
... This issue has nothing to do with partisanship... good try.
... Personally, I am the bluest Conservative in the land, but I would like to see Mulroney spend his next years alongside Mr. Black.
Like most Cdns, I can't watch anything to do with Schreiber. It's deadly dull, and mostly irrelevant to what's happening now. The opposition parties are trying to make hay out of it, while the Tories find ways to undermine KHS's story. Quite predictable.
It's killing the news and its bad television to boot. Next!
I guess the old saw that "politics makes strange bedfellows" applies to political writing and cheerleading as well. For instance:"The Ceaucescu moment in Paul Martin’s short, disgraceful career as prime minister........So you will perhaps forgive me when I say that if this election has no other result, if it achieves no other end, but to send Mr. Martin far, far out to sea, it will be enough. Him, and the thugs in his entourage........Not even the serial fiascos that marked his time in office -- the health care giveaway, the equalization mess, the asymmetric federalism debacle, the missile defence fumble, the three budgets in two weeks, the attempted bribery of opposition MPs, the defiance of Parliament and of constitutional convention in the face of four consecutive non-confidence votes........the campaign that he and his minions have waged over the last eight weeks -- by turns empty, dishonest, hysterical, vicious, crude, demagogic, shrill, incoherent, divisive, xenophic, hypocritical, not to say staggeringly incompetent -- makes his impending departure from the scene a positive delight. I am literally counting the hours.......It will be recorded that in this election, the Martin campaign commissioned, produced and ran ads (at public expense) suggesting that his opponent was, inter alia, plotting with separatists to destroy the country, bankrolled by extremist elements of a foreign power, and in a glittering tour de force, bent on imposing martial law. (“In our cities.”) It will further be recorded that when called out on that last bit of filth, he claimed -- without flinching -- that he was just making a point about logistics."
I remind readers of this blog of AC's opinion of PMPM, only because he now lovingly quotes a blog with a "Thanks Jack" side board on it, something only the truly hardcore Martinites can display without dying of embarassment.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
There are some ugly, small little men, making themselves even uglier and smaller right now.
best sound bite from Mulroney
"the get out of Jail affidavit"
much more succinct than "lies like a cheap rug and plays Parliament like a bunch of fools so he can avoid deportation"
I think Mulroney just wiped the floor with the committee today.
Next.
The committee members were cowardly jackals nipping at the heels of the aging lion.
Turns out the aging lion is still king of the jungle.
As Jean Lapierre has alleged, liberal committee members were acting and asking questions on behalf of our public broadacaster and its "reporters".
We need a public inquiry into our public broadcaster.
I am having a hard time believing that Andrew is being quite honest with us... a bit of a fiasco on CBC tonight as it is unbelievable that you could be so incredulous that Mulroney was actually being straight up... so Karl Heinz is to be believed? Give me a break that you could be so one sided.
Andrew's Stevie Cameron impression tonight on the At Issue panel was hilarious. His rage was obvious to any serious viewer and his credibilty blown.
He must have been upset when not a single person in the crowd shared his outrage and instead asked him about important current events.
Given Andrew's truth crusade, its interesting that he never bothered to ask Mansbridge who at the CBC was writing the Liberal parties questions in today's hearing - as alleged by a former Liberal Cabinet Minister.
Anonymous, he was hardly brimming with rage, but perhaps he had a tone of indignation. Having seen over an hour of the Mulroney testimony today, I have to say Mulroney behaved like he was caught with his pants down.
His body language, the words he chose and lengthy explanations were all designed to appear as though he was providing full disclosure and coming out strong, yet it was all bluster. I like Mulroney, but he looks really 'small' in this whole affair. He had some great moments too (as a lawyer) and could be convincing (if you didn't know the background to this story). The jokes were good too.
I am resigned to the fact that this is what politicians do - they make deals and the successful ones do lots of deals. You need only look at Cretien par example. Those that are shocked by the hidden side of politics are naive.
Yes, we still have to keep our elected officials on task and ensure accountability the best we can, but you can't be in every hotel room, lounge, golf course or washroom stall. This stuff happens...
So this parliamentary review committee should do this worthy chore, even if the outcome is only to shine some light in the dark corners of some backroom dealing.
Anonymous, are you sure you're not Ben Mulroney?
Keep on Coyne!
Mulroney claims he did in fact promote Thyssen tanks with the late Boris Yeltsin and the late Francois Mitterand.
I predict a further inquiry will reveal that this is corraborated by discussions he had at that time on this very subject with Pierre Trudeau, Ronald Reagan and Kurt Waldheim.
Oh and the discussions he had with the unnamed Chinese official? Deng Xioping.
Chantal Hebert was the only person on the panel who had a shred of credibility.
Andrew's outbursts appeared to lead the panel in the direction of his strongly held views that Mulroney is dirty -
Chantal stood up to him. I'm guessing the longer Andrew keeps up his crusade - the fewer people will continue to read his material objectively or at all.
In prison ministry, the inmates had various sayings, one was memorable: you cant con a con. How did KHS play Mulroney, how did he con the con? Easy- Mulroney isnt a con, thief or "liar" insofar as the only victim of his fibs are himself.
KHS is playing his last grift; he cant bluff anymore, if he has an ace up his sleeve, he has to play it. Mulroney called everyone: KHS, the committee, the inquiry, the press...raised the bet and put everything on the table. Fold or play.
Of course, thats the grift, that maybe KHS has a play. SO play for another round at the Inquiry. Keep the witchhunt going with promises of damnation and revenege.
It is scandalous that we would spend money and air time giving this cad a forum from which to tarnish the reputation of an ex-PM. Enough is enough.
I apologize for the length of this comment
Today Mulroney gave an explanation regarding the envelopes full of cash. In criminal law this is akin to offering up an alibi.
In R. v. Hibbert [2002] S.C.J. No. 40 Arbour J. writing for a majority of the Supreme Court held, and I quote from the headnote
"The law with respect to the rejection of a defence of alibi may be summarized as follows. In the absence of evidence of concoction (deliberate fabrication) an alibi that is disbelieved has no evidentiary value. A disbelieved alibi is insufficient to support an inference of concoction or deliberate fabrication. There must be other evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the alibi was deliberately fabricated and that the accused was involved in that attempt to mislead the jury. It is the attempt to deceive, and not the failed alibi, that supports an inference of consciousness of guilt….When there is evidence that an alibi was fabricated, at the instigation or with the knowledge and approval of the accused, that evidence may be used by the jury to support an inference of consciousness of guilt. In cases where such an inference is available, the jury should be instructed that it may, not must, be drawn. A fabricated alibi is not conclusive evidence of guilt."
Arbour J. summarized the state of the law with respect to the rejection of a defence of alibi.
• In the absence of evidence of concoction (deliberate fabrication) an alibi that is disbelieved has no evidentiary value
• A disbelieved alibi is insufficient to support an inference of concoction or deliberate fabrication. There must be other evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the alibi was deliberately fabricated and that the accused was involved in that attempt to mislead the jury. It is the attempt to deceive, and not the failed alibi, that supports an inference of consciousness of guilt.
• In appropriate cases, for instance if there were multiple accused, the jury should be instructed that the fabricated alibi may be used to place the accused at the scene of the crime, but may fall short of directly implicating him in its commission.
• In appropriate cases, for instance if there were multiple accused, the jury should be instructed that the fabricated alibi may be used to place the accused at the scene of the crime, but may fall short of directly implicating him in its commission.
• When there is evidence that an alibi was fabricated, at the instigation or with the knowledge and approval of the accused, that evidence may be used by the jury to support an inference of consciousness of guilt.
• In cases where such an inference is available, the jury should be instructed that it may, not must, be drawn.
• A fabricated alibi is not conclusive evidence of guilt.
In R. v. Cleghorn (1995), 100 C.C.C. (3d) 393 (S.C.C.) the majority of the Supreme Court held that, the consequence of failing to properly disclose an alibi is that the trier of fact may draw an adverse inference when weighing the alibi evidence. Writing for the majority, Iacobucci J., held, and again I’m quoting the headnote:
“that the consequence of the failure to disclose an alibi properly is that the trier of fact may draw an adverse inference when weighing the alibi evidence heard at trial. Improper disclosure can only weaken alibi evidence, however, it cannot exclude the alibi. The rule governing disclosure of an alibi is a rule of expediency intended to guard against surprise alibis fabricated in the witness- box which the prosecution is almost powerless to challenge. The alibi need not be disclosed at the time of arrest or at the first possible opportunity. It is sufficient if it was disclosed at a time and in a manner which would permit a meaningful investigation.”
Iacobucci J continued by writing that proper disclosure of an alibi has two components: adequacy and timeliness.
(a) an alibi should be given in sufficient time to permit the authorities to investigate
(b) it should be given with sufficient particularity to enable the authorities to meaningfully investigate
(c) improper disclosure can only weaken alibi evidence; it cannot exclude the alibi.
“As such, disclosure is proper when it allows the prosecution and police to investigate the alibi evidence before trial. The criteria of timeliness and adequacy are thus evaluated
on the basis of whether a meaningful investigation could have been undertaken as a result of disclosure. The flexibility of the standard is demonstrated by the fact that neither disclosure at the earliest possible moment, nor disclosure by the accused him-
or herself is required in order for the criteria to be met. Third party disclosure is sufficient.”
Most recently, the Supreme Court in R. v. Turcotte [2005] 2 S.C.R. 519 held that:
“where the accused failed to disclose his or her alibi in a timely or adequate manner provide[s] a well established exception to the prohibition on using pre-trial silence against an accused: R. v. Cleghorn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 175. Silence might also be admissible if it is inextricably bound up with the narrative or other evidence and cannot easily be extricated."
Discuss.
AC:
You have to admit that Chantal had a damn good point tonight about YOUR media colleagues are their disgusting double standard. They cheered and giggled when the senile old crook Chretien thumbed his nose at an inquiry several years ago.
Mulroney treats the inquiry with the respect it deserves and continue to incur wrath. All this for a PRIVATE matter, unlike Chretien's improprieties which involved public funds WHILE the crook was in office.
"They cheered and giggled when the senile old crook Chretien thumbed his nose at an inquiry several years ago."
Bingo.
Anonymous Supreme Court quoter,
I'm not sure exactly what your point is on this matter. But, in terms of Mulroney's alibi, this one point bothered me (amongst many).
He claims that in the meeting in the NY hotel where he received his second or third $75,000 payment, he spent one hour regaling all the work that he had done internationally to KHS in promoting the Thyssen project, and that KHS was quite or very pleased with his progress to that time (KHS has previously denied any such feedback or info).
This leads me to believe that, according to Mulroney, by is own admission he had earned his consultant's fee up to that time (1994) and therefore should have reported his income that year.
As for Anonymous' observation on Chantal's point wrt Chretien and the press reaction on the Sponsorship Inquiry, she was wrong on this point. Chretien was in a full inquiry, and subject to cross examination. Mulroney was in a Committee hearing - two completely different animals. From what limited examination I saw today by the skilled lawyers on the Committee, I'd say Mulroney would be well advised to advocate for no inquiry.
Derek:
I'm not sure how you can conclude that Chantal was wrong on this point. She was making an observation about the double-standard in the media. How can you say someone who has been in the media for the better part of 20 years be "wrong" on her own perception of bias?
Are you contending that she's wrong and that Chretien had no cheerleaders in the media or that she's wrong to draw a comparison between Mulroney and Chretien?
If its the latter, its perfectly fair and valid to compare the media's reaction to sworn testimony by former prime ministers. I would argue that Mulroney showed respect for a kangaroo court while Chretien showed contempt for an actual legal proceeding.
Not sure where you are going with this - usually you are on the ball.
Re: Chantal's comment:
I read a comment a while ago on SDA that JC's wife Aline was gifted a mansion from Power Corp. just a few months after he left his MP position. IF that's true we have heard nothing of it in the MSM that I know of and to me at least, it stinks to high heaven.
2. Insomnia put me in a position the watch the At Issue segment on the National tonight and I think you showed a considerable amount of restrained rage at the conduct of BM.
This is the same dissembling, BSing, buffaloing BM that you and I and many others had to deal with during his tenure as PM. Most acutely for me at least that was during the Meech Lake episode. Ironically but perhaps not surprisingly BM has fallen back on the same strategy that he used during Meech - to call for a public hearing. The Charest Commission back then completely backfired by providing a rallying point for the anti-meech forces. I expect the upcoming inquiry will have similar results - this time the complete ruiniation of BM's public image and political legacy.
As you pointed out on the panel AC, BM's explanation of the services he provided for the dough are simply not to be believed - he had several opportunites in the past to explain and didn't - until now when his in a public forum.
But you nor any of the other panelists brought up one important point:
Mulroney apparently maintains that he didn't know KHS until he was PM. What about the donations etc. in the coup-d'etat of Joe Clark? Was he completely unaware of such goings on?
3. I don't know whether you were aware of the breaking story about the CBC providing Qs to the LP committee members during the filming of the panel but I would like to know what you think should happen in that regard.
I'm saying that Chretien seemingly survived unscathed from an inquiry where he was testifying after being sworn in, before a retired judge, and subject to cross examination from all concerned parties, at a point when much testimony from many witnesses had previously been deposed.
Her error was comparing an inquiry as described above, with the hearing that transpired today. Perhaps, had Mulroney appeared under similar circumstances, much of his testimony could have been previously corroborated, or disputed, and the suggestion of a double standard by the media would not be a consideration.
To claim a double standard, you need to be comparing similar circumstances. This clearly was not. Questions that journalists and individuals like myself have may be the by product of the rush to have the two principal witnesses appear first. I understand that in ideal conitions (such as in an inquiry) they would come much later.
She did not take this into consideration in her comments.
With respect Derek, she didn't take differences between the two processes into account because its irrelavent. She was specifically referring to the media and their reactions to testimony from the two men.
That there was a judge/commissioner involved in one and not the other means nothing in the court of public opinion or the opinion of journalists.
Your argument only clouds her original statement.
As it turns out, Andrew was sayiog basically the same thing that Chantal did re: the media's reaction to Chretien's testimony:
On Feb 10, 2005 Andrew says: Maybe you and I were watching different shows. If you were one of my media colleagues, you saw a bravura performance by an old pro still in top form. On the CBC, a misty-eyed Don Newman reported that Jean Chretien had hit “a home run.” Elsewhere it was described as “a knockout punch,” a “slam dunk,” and inevitably, “a hole in one.” You get the point: It was all a game, with the press gallery in its preferred role as scorekeeper. If you were like me, however, and I suspect a good part of the public, you saw the former Prime Minister of Canada engaged in what in another context would be called contempt of court. After hours of questioning by the Gomery commission as to what he knew of the errant sponsorship program, questions to which he offered, by turns, sneers, evasions, and professions of his own, as the Post’s John Ivison put it, “encyclopedic ignorance,” Mr. Chretien spent his last few minutes on the stand in a stagey, prop-filled attempt to humiliate the judge before whom he sat. I repeat: This is the former Prime Minister of Canada we are talking about -- not some juvenile delinquent in youth court. Even Bill Clinton did not go that far. Cornered, under oath, he at least had the decency to lie: the tribute that vice pays to getting caught. Whereas Mr. Chretien, whose responsibilities as Prime Minister included upholding the law and protecting the taxpayer’s interest, chose this moment to advertise his contempt for both. Which is more or less what the inquiry was called to investigate, isn’t it? Not to the media.
I just don't think Chantal's comparison is valid.
If one was to force the issue, I'd say a better comparison might have been comparing the media's reaction to former RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli's testimony before the Commission looking into the Maher Arar affair, or the testimony of Chuck Guite before the Commission looking into the Sponsorship Scandal (both of which led to separate inquiries).
Chretien, while PM at the time, had at best been considered a secondary or peripheral player when he testified before the Gomery Inquiry, and there was no specific alleagations against him personally requiring his explanation or alibi.
Mulroney, like Guite and Zaccardelli, was one of the principals.
Not the same thing.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
If anything should come from this and I am afforded input, I support Andrew Coyne as parliament's ethics commissioner. We need someone who is cynical but wanting to empower our institutions with the tools they needed to hold our politicians to account.
A public inquiry, ethics committee or RCMP investigation wouldn't come close to achieving what Andrew could do.
So now there are complaints that Mulroney only spoke now? Where was the, "Mr Mulroney could put this all behind him with a press conference"
That is effectively what was done here. He has provided an explaination, you now have him on record, not spokepeople or interpretations from others testimony. He has made his statements.
Now, you either believe Mulroney or disbelieve Mulroney....and if you disbelieve him, which is your and Pat Martin's right, then fine. But to continue to make allegations or say there is someting wrong you need proof to counter the explainations. Unless Mr Mulroney now has to prove his innocence, as opposed to others proving his guilt?
Where is the proof, and proof of what? Proof that he took Airbus money, that seems to be a dead horse. Honestly, this is the thing that he sued over and you have Bill Kaplan and even Linden McIntyre saying there just isnt the proof tying him to Airbus.
Oh and please none of this but it was Thyssen money. It was Schreiber money at that point. The fact that it came from Thyssen as success for an MOU that the government had signed. Please provide the proof that he knew, not when he was paid but that when his government signed the MOU that he knew he would be paid. Not a hint of that. Find proof and we can have a different conversation.
Proof that he made an arrangement while an MP,,,,well thats only if it is to lobby a sitting member of either house on a matter before the house....hmmm thats not true
So now we are into breaking the cooling off period of lobbying a government of which you were apart before your two year cooling off period is done. Mulroney's explaination is the highly convenient and novel it was only international....as I said too convenient, plausible but....even if true, arent we a long way from Kansas now?
The "rage" doesnt match the evidence. And in seeing the rage I dont blame Mulroney one bit for dribbling info out, because it only ever gets used against him, or attempted to. i.e. He is silent, he is guilty, he spoke, but look how long it took him to speak, shameless (and I dont say that lightly)
UNTIL, there is third party evidence that fuels one of the above currently discredited theories you are stuck.
Stuck with a mystery, stuck with uneasy feelings, stuck with a journo who was an RCMP informant, stuck with hazy stories from 25 years ago about whether funny accented men paid to charter airplanes...all known at the time, why not investigated by the Liberal government or election commissioner at the time?....maybe because while odious it was legal? (it msy or msy not have been but cant imagine if illegal why it wasnt looked at). And the question then becomes could this happen today in the current environment, the answer of which seems to be no.
The unanswered question is where did all the rest of the 20 million go? Schreiber was no help, and unlikely he will be until you put him on a plane or come close to doing so. If he wont talk then send him to Germany and let them decide if he is guilty of crimes over there.
Honestly, hasnt the oxygen just about left this story? Not because I want it to, but because I think it in fact has. There is no third party corroberation to implicate, and now it is turning into a get Mulroney story, which is just as wrong as a get Chretien story.
As for the media angle, why they let the story sit is worth looking at as is why "the media" are now out to hang Mulroney. The CBC/Rodriguez imbroglio is just one potential example of the too close fit between journalists, their natural political leanings, and political parties. It is never nice watching two organizations use each other so badly.
I asked once before and maybe its time to ask again. Now that you have some influence at a media organ would you institute a publicly stated policy of rotating your reporters out of your Ottawa bureaus every 2 or 3 years...break the ties that can blind.
A public statement would shame others to do the same. It is too incestuous, common friends, parties, sleeping arrangements, spouses, lovers of all persuasions, and left over time it becomes locked in stone. That is of course assuming journalism is a profession worthy of this code of conduct?
Given the special place that the press has in law and the public mythos, then one would assume the professionals would have no trouble with this.
Lead the revolution in media ethics and accountability.
AC,
Do you not have the makings of a current story now? The most disquieting thing to happen today was when it was inadvertently revealed that the public broadcaster appears to be engaged in a conspiracy to damage a sitting government using this committee and the Liberal Party as proxies. Is this not troubling?
The missing expense records are bothering me. If they existed, surely they could be subpoenaed, whether they had been used for an income tax claim or not. They would indicate where and when the money was earned. If they had never existed, their absence might indicate that the money was not earned in the manner indicated.
As long as they weren't known about and thus not asked for within seven years, after which time they could legally be destroyed.
Could that explain the extended silence?
It's hard to believe that this guy, who knows nothing, knows no one, remembers nothing, was once our Prime Minister.
Andrew, have you noticed what Stevie Cameron posted on her blog yesterday?