# Poor, poor Mulroney...



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

_"Luc Lavoie told CanWest News Service that when Mr. Mulroney left politics in 1993, he had money pressures since he was "not a rich man" at the head of a young family with certain lifestyle expectations."_
---------
So that's why he took brown envelopes....
3 times....

What about taxes?
That isn't anyone's _"God damn business."_

Sob, sob....
And why did Muldoon need the money? 1.6$ Million for his house + 1$ million for renovations

All this while "Mr. Mulroney was driven by the RCMP to Chateau Mirabel to meet Mr. Schreiber while still an MP in late August, 1993."

So he took the money so that he could live in luxury? Talk about being entitled to entitlements...


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

...let's add Chretien to the list and clean house properly.

Same cats, different colour


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *How poor really was Mulroney?*
> 
> Nov 22, 2007 04:30 AM
> BOB HEPBURN
> ...


TheStar.com | comment | How poor really was Mulroney?

poor???........sure


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Of course Mr. Mulroney was poor, the poor sod has less money than Berlusconi!!! (And in an entirely different league than the Sultan of Brunei)

I wonder why he'd bother with a measly $300,000; that would pay for less than half of a closet in his manse??? And don't forget that he was a Corporate man, and made lots of cash in the metals industry.

Something is very stinky in Denmark...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He needed the $300,000 in cash as tips for pizza delivery.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> ...In my world, the guy on the couch or working at two jobs is poor....


Look Mulroney, the poor bastrad, was reduced to living in public housing while serving as Prime Minister and as the Leader of the Opposition for that matter. 



> ...Mulroney and his family lived at 24 Sussex Dr., the official residence of the prime minister.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Look Mulroney, the poor bastrad, was reduced to living in public housing while serving as Prime Minister and as the Leader of the Opposition for that matter.


:lmao: :lmao: :clap: :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

BigDL said:


> Look Mulroney, the poor bastrad, was reduced to living in public housing while serving as Prime Minister and as the Leader of the Opposition for that matter.


And 47 Forden Cres. needed that inhouse pool...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

There should be a telethon across Canada some weekend to ask Canadians to donate money to help support Mulroney and Conrad Black. The money raised could help pay for some if not all of their legal bills. Anything over and above these bills could be kept by them as a "gift" from the people of Canada. Gifts are not considered taxable, so this will help to give both men a fresh start in life. 

I hear that the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe has arranged with CBC, CTV, Global TV, as well at the Globe and Mail and all of the six major banks in Canada, to serve as a conduit for this money. TV and radio will be taken over for a 48 hour period, and there will be volunteers in all of the banks to help collect this money. They came up with a great idea of garnishing everyone's wages, but they felt that this could only happen to those, like myself, who work for a provincial or territorial government, or who work for the federal government. There would be too many people left out in the cold from being forced to contribute to this "worthy" cause. It was felt that providing Mulroney and his Lordship .01% of the federal surplus this year would be a national alternative. According to CBC.com, "The September figures boost the overall surplus in the first six months of the fiscal year to $9.3 billion ...." So, this would result in a tidy sum to help these two "poor men" in their time of need.


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

What _can_ I say?

My heart bleeds vomit for the man and his impoverished and underprivileged family.

I recall reading that Mulroney had to undergo a circumcision as an adult. It would seem the end of his appendage was where the bulk of his brain cells were located.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Zenith, I guess we will put you down for less than a $10 contribution.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, we can't do anything about his reputation, but so far we have raised $28,837,038.78 for their legal expenses. I am told that this is not enough, so we are all going to have to dig down deep to help these two men in their time of need.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The storm deepens......



> Group slams Ottawa over Schreiber probe
> 
> The Canadian Press
> November 26, 2007 at 12:39 PM EST
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> The lawyer for German-Canadian lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber lashed out at Prime Minister Stephen Harper Tuesday, accusing the prime minister of misleading Canadians about his desire to hold a public inquiry and get to the bottom of Mr. Schreiber's $300,000 cash payments to former prime minister Brian Mulroney.
> 
> Edward Greenspan said Mr. Harper's government, and specifically Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, are doing “*everything [they] can to send” Mr. Schreiber back to Germany and derail the inquiry that Mr. Harper promised*, Mr. Greenspan said.
> 
> “It seems to me the government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth and really, the appearance is that there was never any intention to have a public inquiry. That's what it looks like to me,” Mr. Greenspan said in an interview.


globeandmail.com: Harper out to derail Schreiber inquiry: Greenspan

Accountatibility and openness?
Harper could always say that Trinidad and Tobago support his position....


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The storm deepens......


How long are we gonna put up with these corrupt criminal scum??! When are we gonna rise up and throw these Lie-beral theives out on their asses?!   

oh, wait ... who are we talking about today? 

Nevermind. 

Oh Crap, I got spittle on my keyboard.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

It looks like this inquiry is not going to show anything we didn't already know. It appears that Mulroney did nothing illegal and it looks like this inquiry was a big waste of time and money.  

He will probably sue us again for more money.  

The opposition comes off looking a little silly for pushing it so hard and making it political, when it could have been investigated by the RCMP. The NDP come across as idiots as usual by not maintaining decorum. Harper comes out of it with the least damage but still looking bad for having given in to the opposition calls for the inquiry. He should have stuck to his guns. 

I guess Dion will have to keep looking for an issue to run on. This one isn't going to taint the Conservatives. 

Now get ready for mud to be thrown back at the Liberals for shady deals done under Chretien.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It looks like this inquiry is not going to show anything we didn't already know. It appears that Mulroney did nothing illegal and it looks like this inquiry was a big waste of time and money.


It appears that Mulroney did nothing illegal? Whose word are we taking here?

Obviously, someone has this process completely pre-judged. Let the inquiry do its work.

If all it takes is an offhand statement by some criminal that something never happened, why have courts or inquiries at all?


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

HowEver said:


> It appears that Mulroney did nothing illegal? Whose word are we taking here?


Obviously the word of a major Mulroney apologist.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

zenith said:


> Obviously the word of a major Mulroney apologist.


Or the opposite, if you read what I wrote correctly. Take another try at it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

HowEver said:


> It appears that Mulroney did nothing illegal? Whose word are we taking here?
> 
> Obviously, someone has this process completely pre-judged. Let the inquiry do its work.
> 
> If all it takes is an offhand statement by some criminal that something never happened, why have courts or inquiries at all?


The RCMP and Revenue Canada looked into it before. Mulroney took the government to court for libel and won.

And now the final link in the whole Airbus affair has stated that the payment to Mulroney had nothing to do with Airbus at all.

I am not part of the inquiry nor do I have influence on it. Based on that, your statement makes no sense. I am free to conclude what I want when I want. I realize the inquiry isn't done and they have yet to report. So far it seems like a lot of money for a lot of nothing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Or the opposite, if you read what I wrote correctly. Take another try at it.


I think he was refering to me. 

I am not a Mulroney apologist. I supported the former Reform Party who were created out of protest to what was happening in Ottawa (i.e. Mulroney). Too much patronage, too many lobbyists and too many back handed deals. 

I don't support the type of government that Mulroney ran. 

The Liberal party has more in common with that approach than the new Conservative Party does. The new Conservative Party is a fresh start, while the Liberal Party still maintains the old guard. 

What I am saying is that it appears Mulroney did NOTHING illegal. Is taking a cash payment for services unethical? Probably. Was it atypical of former Canadian governments (including Trudeau, Chretien and possibly Martin)? No. That's why we need to clean up Ottawa and get rid of this type of crap. The Accountability Act is a good start although it creates more bureaucracy and stiffles government workers. Chretien's bill limiting campaign donations was also good legislation.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"_The new Conservative Party is a fresh start, while the Liberal Party still maintains the old guard. "_

LOL... don't you mean The New Government of Canada™? Please refer to it in its proper form, if you don't mind. The People have new standards to follow.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It looks like this inquiry is not going to show anything we didn't already know. It appears that Mulroney did nothing illegal and it looks like this inquiry was a big waste of time and money.
> 
> He will probably sue us again for more money.
> 
> ...


So are these the latest Connie talking points? I've read about half a dozen blogs that parot your exact words...

Many have criticized Kalrheinz for being a less than credible witness because his alleged problems in Germany.
It’s widely accepted that the good Kalrheinz gave questionable “donations” or bribes if you wish to a party in Germany that was in power for certain favours. Now Kohl (the equivalent of our Prime Minister) was implicated in the whole scandal because of his direct knowledge. 

Switch to Canada where the good Kalrheinz is caught up with giving money to someone that was the PM of Canada… sure it was for pasta…

So we have a sitting MP accepting large sums of money in brown envelopes and you find that it’s all normal? Never mind that Kalrheinz is a lobbyist… Never mind that this is CASH… Nothing abnormal there, right VD? 
Muldoon goes on the record (or perjury if you prefer) saying he never had any dealing with Kalrheinz, heck, he barely knew the man – only a coffee once or twice in passing….
So while Harper screams about “transparent and accountable”, I’m amazed at how fast he’s trying to distance himself from Muldoon. All the while, the proceeding are funny in the sense that the Connies are transparent in the sense that all questions asked only serve to try and distance themselves more.
And for a party that ran on making the government more accountable, it’s funny how you bring back “mudslinging and Chretien”. Partisan gainsaying at its best, right VD?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The new Conservative Party is a fresh start, while the Liberal Party still maintains the old guard.
> 
> What I am saying is that it appears Mulroney did NOTHING illegal. Is taking a cash payment for services unethical? Probably. Was it atypical of former Canadian governments (including Trudeau, Chretien and possibly Martin)? No.
> 
> That's why we need to clean up Ottawa and get rid of this type of crap. The Accountability Act is a good start although it creates more bureaucracy and stiffles government workers. Chretien's bill limiting campaign donations was also good legislation.


Have you od'ed on KonKoolAid?

Harper is a patronage pig - 
He's also grown the gov and increased spending.
The "Accountability Act" is a joke by any means. 

:yawn:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think he was refering to me.


I see now, thanks.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

HowEver said:


> It appears that Mulroney did nothing illegal? Whose word are we taking here?


We're taking the word of PMO by way of the Conservative MPs...all of whom would really like nothing more than for this story to just go away fast. But it's not going to go away. And here's why. 

Schreiber alleges he gave the first $100,000 in cash to Mulroney in 1993, while the former PM _was still a sitting Member of Parliament._ That's illegal. As in if such allegations were proven to be true, somebody could be spending time in the hoosegow. 

---
Parliament of Canada Act ( R.S., 1985, c. P-1 )

Receiving prohibited compensation

41. (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.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So are these the latest Connie talking points? I've read about half a dozen blogs that parot your exact words...


I haven't read a single blog or newspaper article on this. I have been quite busy the last couple of weeks and only heard about the recent statements on the radio last night.

I have nothing to gain by 'parroting' so called talking points. 

AS, I am not saying that what Mulroney did was ethical. It's sketchy at best. If you re-read my post you will find that I don't support Mulroney or the type of government he ran. But, it looks like he did NOTHING illegal and thus, the whole inquiry was a big waste of taxpayer money.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Vandave said:


> But, it looks like he did NOTHING illegal and thus, the whole inquiry was a big waste of taxpayer money.



See my post above yours.

And while I'm at it, I'll share this bit from Andrew Coyne, writing in Macleans, offering a few points for all to consider as we discuss whether all of this is a waste of time: 

"So we never got an explanation of what Mulroney did for the money, or why Schreiber paid him in cash, or why he continued to pay him if, as he maintains, Mulroney did nothing for it. In the same way, we are no closer to understanding what Schreiber did for the $20 million he was paid in secret Airbus commissions, or what he did with it, or why it was such a big secret that both sides denied the existence of such an arrangement for years."


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> But, it looks like he did NOTHING illegal and thus, the whole inquiry was a big waste of taxpayer money.


Looks like you are a little quick on the trigger Vandave.
TheStar.com | Canada | Schreiber makes Airbus link


> Schreiber makes Airbus link
> 
> 
> Dec 06, 2007 11:54 AM
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Brian Mulroney's former chief of staff asked Karlheinz Schreiber to send money to the former prime minister's lawyer in Switzerland because of Airbus, he testified Thursday.
> 
> Mr. Schreiber told the House of Commons ethics committee that he was stunned when Fred Doucet requested he transfer cash to a Swiss bank account. Mr. Doucet was working at the time as a lobbyist.
> 
> ...


It comes down to cred and neither have much - the biggest question.....why is Geneva involved in these transactions??

If anything reeks....that's it, that Swiss accounts are involved at all.



> • *A 1998 trip to Zurich in which Mr. Mulroney met Mr. Schreiber, *allegedly to discuss $300,000 in cash payments made in 1993 and 1994.


Mulroney goes to Zurich and nothing smells???!!!!.......might book a visit to your local otolaryngologist there VD.

Always the Con puppy protecting the party's good name....

Mulroney tried to cover up cash payments he received in hotel rooms: Schreiber

Given what we know about the "quality" of RCMP investigations these days........










getting pretty ripe......


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I was just watching CBC Newsworld and Barbara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun was describing this whole Schrieber situation is not really an issue in the public's interest, more it's for Schrieber's interest (in staying in Canada and not being deported).

The panel described Schrieber's testimony as confusing and hardly damning. Connections to current Conservative or Liberal politicians have not been proven and Schrieber is simply basking in the limelight of innuendo. This is a waste of everyone's time when more pressing issues such a global warming, poverty and crime need attention.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Good post gmark. There are definitely better things we should be worried about. The RCMP already looked into this affair for criminal acts. They didn't find anything at the time and Schreiber is definitely motived by other factors by providing testimony now. 

This inquiry is being driven by a political agenda. That makes it a waste of money. If Schreiber has something to say he should say it to the RCMP.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Good post gmark. There are definitely better things we should be worried about. The RCMP already looked into this affair for criminal acts. They didn't find anything at the time and Schreiber is definitely motived by other factors by providing testimony now.
> 
> This inquiry is being driven by a political agenda. That makes it a waste of money. If Schreiber has something to say he should say it to the RCMP.


VD, you should have tatooed "I want to believe" on your forehead...
I'm quite sure you'd be taking a different approch if this were the Liberals...

Yes it is a circus - enjoy the show for now.
Karlheinz is entertaining and so far, his story a lot more credible than Muldoons... 
We can argue that what Karlheinz says is self-serving, but so far the man has been right. 
Seems that CGI, Moores and Airbus and Muldoon are linked... 
Wonder why the Connies seem spending most of the time trying to distance themselves instead of asking questions.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> This is a waste of everyone's time when more pressing issues such a _global warming_, _poverty_ and crime need attention.


Those are hardly issues that Harper is trying to deal with...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Those are hardly issues that Harper is trying to deal with...


Well, the Liberals and NDP are doing a poor ass job making these issues more of a priority right now. Absolutely shameful that we are wasting media time and the politicians' attention on this character. Are Layton or Dion in Indonesia now? There's kind of an important meeting there right now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> Well, the Liberals and NDP are doing a poor ass job making these issues more of a priority right now. Absolutely shameful that we are wasting media time and the politicians' attention on this character. Are Layton or Dion in Indonesia now? There's kind of an important meeting there right now.


LOL - if we ask the media to drop all the truly useless garbage, the daily newspaper would be a single-sided 8.5 X 11 sheet and the evening TV news would be about 15 seconds. While this may not be the most important issue known to mankind it's far more relevant than most of the garbage that gets called "news". Britney Spears, anyone?

I think that those who are making this point are motivated by a "nothing to see here, move along folks" frame of mind. Personally I'm just happy to see some of the Cons and their buddies having to come off of their high ethical horses that they climbed onto during Gomery. Face it folks, governments of all stripes and political leanings are for sale now and always will be. It goes with the territory and the fact that they control enormous amounts of power and money. Our job as citizen's is to keep looking and keep digging to attempt to keep them from spending all of their time at the trough. Because of this I don't mind indulging Schreiber to see if there is truly something to be learned here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Same cats, different colour*

.....now who was it said that?? .....oh yeah...our greatest Canadian.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I hear Joe Clark was "ousted" with some help from "foreign money". The soap opera continues.



> Mulroney camp used German cash to help dump Clark
> $25,000 in airfares paid for supporters, Schreiber testifies
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC AND GREG MCARTHUR
> ...


globeandmail.com: Mulroney camp used German cash to help dump Clark


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ouch...that's gotta hurt...



> *Schreiber more believable than Mulroney: poll*
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I will probably always be perplexed by Brian Mulroney.

No matter how badly things go for him, no matter how many times he gets stabbed in the back, no matter how grudging or limited the respect for his legacy as PM, no matter how many polls show that most Canadians don't like or trust him, he stubbornly clings to the belief that ordinary Canadians love him and consider him a hero -- and that those who don't, should. 

He projects so much negative charisma, you could almost believe it was a miracle he won two elections. Except it wasn't. He won in 1984 largely because of the recession, fatigue with almost 15 years of Trudeau, and John Turner's ineptitude; and again in 1988 because the NDP was on a roll and split the anti-FTA vote. And maybe, you could now be forgiven for suspecting, because of dirty tricks.

I'm sure he has some real friends who aren't just lackeys and political opportunists, and good for him. But I wish we could get this guy out of the spotlight once and for all. Maybe that's why so many Canadians don't want an inquiry. Or maybe they figure a trial would be more appropriate.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

What does Schrieber mean to you and me?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm afraid that polling about such a thing is largely irrelevant since the great unwashed has almost no information on which to base its views. Like asking Torontonians if they want the Buffalo Sabres to win the Stanley Cup next year.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm afraid that polling about such a thing is largely irrelevant since the great unwashed has almost no information on which to base its views. Like asking Torontonians if they want the Buffalo Sabres to win the Stanley Cup next year.


Surely. But it does reveal that many Canadians still harbour a deep dislike and distrust of Brian Mulroney. Not that we needed a poll to tell us that.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm afraid that polling about such a thing is largely irrelevant since the great unwashed has almost no information on which to base its views. Like asking Torontonians if they want the Buffalo Sabres to win the Stanley Cup next year.


So the fact that he is loved in Quebec is irrelevant?

I wonder if they will allow his family to be placed behind him, he really wants that photo op....

Almost no information? I guess the lies and then public admissions were not enough...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

It's somewhat irrelevant that David Suzuki praises Mulroney for his environmental vision.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

gmark2000 said:


> What does Schrieber mean to you and me?


It means that the Elections in this nation have less to do with the will of the Electors, rather more to do with influence peddling by aliens. This whole scheme was cooked up in Munich, channelled through Vienna, and foisted upon Canada. The whole disturbing aspect is why? Why did the Baviarian Socialist Party, a party that only runs in the federal lander of Bavaria, have such an interest in dethroning Joe Clark; and why was Mulroney "their man". This is even more creepy that anything the CIA would cook up; though I can see how Bill Casey would become involved in such a convoluted scheme.

This goes to show that the government is not only elected by the whim of Desmarais and QuebecCor - it can be and has been elected by some drunken rich men sitting in a beer hall in Munich...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

iMatt said:


> I will probably always be perplexed by Brian Mulroney.
> 
> No matter how badly things go for him, no matter how many times he gets stabbed in the back, no matter how grudging or limited the respect for his legacy as PM, no matter how many polls show that most Canadians don't like or trust him, he stubbornly clings to the belief that ordinary Canadians love him and consider him a hero -- and that those who don't, should.
> 
> ...


Negative charisma is right.

I heard his admission of regret on the radio this morning and he still managed to sound like a pompous posing ass while he was admitting to the "greatest mistake of his life". I think he even thinks he's a hero for admitting that he shouldn't have taken the cash. It's got to simply be monstrous arrogance.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's got to simply be monstrous arrogance.


He's becoming a little to easy to predict...


> The author who broke the Mulroney-Schreiber story in 2003 expects the former prime minister to say today he accepted $300,000 in cash to lobby strictly on the international level - and not in Canada.
> 
> That explanation would contradict the testimony of Karlheinz Schreiber, who said he gave Mulroney the money to lobby the Canadian government on behalf of Thyssen Industries, a company seeking to build a military vehicle plant in Canada.
> 
> ...


Mulroney only lobbied overseas, author says


And now the money amount is changing....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

For a dry look at the proceedings check out
Maclean's Canada - Blogs | Inside the Queensway


> 12:54:37 - It will be brief, Mulroney promises. This has been another demanding and brutal time for he and his family, and it's up to the committee to judge the credibility of its witnesses. He says he has told the absolute truth and then goes on about how evil Schreiber is. He threw Elmer MacKay "under the bus," according to Mulroney. _Hmm, when was that? From all I've heard, Schreiber still adores MacKay Sr. It was almost creepy. _


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Where is Vandave? I'm waiting for the usual "It looks like he did nothing illegal".
:lmao: 
Sure people always get $300,000 in cash legally. I'd love to see the tax recipt!
:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Where is Vandave? I'm waiting for the usual "It looks like he did nothing illegal".
> :lmao:
> Sure people always get $300,000 in cash legally. I'd love to see the tax recipt!
> :lmao: :lmao:


I am here and in no way do I defend Mulroney. Let's get that straight first.

What I do not support, like the vast majority of Canadians, is wasting taxpayer money on an inquiry that isn't going to result in criminal charges. It's a witch hunt at best. All it will show is what we already know. Mulroney did something really, really stupid. His intentions were less than holy. It's not worth spending millions of dollars to show something that most people already believe.

If there is evidence of illegal activities, then it is the job of the RCMP to investigate. If people have something to say or evidence to show, then they should go through the correct channels (i.e. the RCMP), rather than some political opera.

FACT: The RCMP looked into this affair previously. FACT: Mulroney admitted previously to taking the cash. FACT: Mulroney declared the money as income.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> FACT: The RCMP looked into this affair previously. FACT: Mulroney admitted previously to taking the cash. FACT: Mulroney declared the money as income.


Please back up these "facts" with links as I don't believe you.
I do however have some "facts" for you:

FACT: the RCMP didn't have access to Schreiber's files when they did their investigation.
FACT: Mulroney claimed to have "nothing to do with Schreiber."


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I am here and in no way do I defend Mulroney. Let's get that straight first.


You sure could have fooled me.
:lmao: 



Vandave said:


> It looks like this inquiry is not going to show anything we didn't already know. It appears that Mulroney did nothing illegal and it looks like this inquiry was a big waste of time and money.





Vandave said:


> What I am saying is that it appears Mulroney did NOTHING illegal. Is taking a





Vandave said:


> But, it looks like he did NOTHING illegal and thus, the whole inquiry was a big waste of taxpayer money.





Vandave said:


> This inquiry is being driven by a political agenda. That makes it a waste of money.


As per usual it seems the best argument you have for Mulroney's innocence is that the inquiry is going to cost money. This is a sure sign of his innocence.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> FACT: The RCMP looked into this affair previously. FACT: Mulroney admitted previously to taking the cash. FACT: Mulroney declared the money as income.


Fact, the RCMP took Mulroney at his word
Fact, Muldoon stated that he had no dealings with Karl. Muldoon only declared the money (after hiding it) after Karl was arrested.
Fact, he declared the money as income only after the jig was up. His (Muldoons) story is all over the place. 
It really stinks and Brian as no credibility left. He really should come clean instead of wasting taxpayers money. 

And VD, let's put it this way, if we replaced the name Brian by Jean, you'd be one of the first screaming for blood. So, it would be nice to stop the pretense, no?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The RCMP investigations have about as much cred as the rest of the clowns in this saga.

Surely someone can demand travel records and establish any Swiss connection for Mulroney. or Doucet.

Withdrawing $500,000 4 days after Mulroney resigns on the "off chance" he'll need it.......that reeks.

No way Schreiber would do that if there were not previous discussions and he's got bank records to prove he took the cash out then.

Are there not security tapes or records to see if Schreiber was at Harrington Lake when he said??


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And VD, let's put it this way, if we replaced the name Brian by Jean, you'd be one of the first screaming for blood. So, it would be nice to stop the pretense, no?


Again I don't support Mulroney. I supported the Old Reform party which formed in protest against the very things Mulroney did. I feel that the Liberal Party is cut from the same cloth that Mulroney came from. That said, I have more regard for Chretien than I do for Mulroney. 

My support of the current Conservative government has nothing to do with my opinions on this matter.

I still bet that once this is done, old Mulroney supporters will strike back against the Liberals and start throwing dirt. Let's see how consistent you are at that time for other inquiries. 

My opinion is simple... The RCMP's job is to investigate criminal activity. That isn't the job of Parliament. If we can't trust the RCMP (as suggest by MacDoc), then holding separate inquiries doesn't solve the problem. Rather, we should fix the RCMP.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> If we can't trust the RCMP (as suggest by MacDoc), then holding separate inquiries doesn't solve the problem. Rather, we should fix the RCMP.


Read: leave Mulroney alone.
No thanks. He's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Now is not the time to take his word for things.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I find this whole veiled threat of 'well we'll see what happens when we start throwing mud yer way' kind of disturbing. I'm picturing on of the three stooges standing there holding up his fist saying 'why I oughta...'


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I find this whole veiled threat of 'well we'll see what happens when we start throwing mud yer way' kind of disturbing. I'm picturing on of the three stooges standing there holding up his fist saying 'why I oughta...'


What gets me is the idea that if the Conservatives have dirt on the Liberals that this justifies the dirt the Liberals have on the Conservatives.
*WHAT A LOAD OF BS!*


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I agree. Let's see lower con/lib numbers, and higher green/ndp numbers.

The cons 'conned' us into thinking they were against patronage appointments and entitlements, they went back on their promises pretty much from day one.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I find this whole veiled threat of 'well we'll see what happens when we start throwing mud yer way' kind of disturbing.


We? Who suggested we? Not me.

I am only making a prediction on what the fall out may turn out to be. I could be wrong. But, probably not. 

Masterblaster is right. Both the Liberals and Conservatives had their hands in the cookie jar. To think that one party has been perfect is completely naive. That's why I expect similar mud to get thrown at the Liberals. It has NOTHING to do with 'We'. It will have a lot to do with old Mulroney and old Conservatives supporters. 

The new Conservative party was merged with the old Reform. They were the ONLY party who talked about cleaning up Ottawa. They were the ONLY party that wanted to bring in change. They were laughed at by the Liberals and Eastern Canada at the time. 

Are they perfect now? No. Have they made patronage appointments and like? Yes. I don't support it. But I believe they are better than the prior Liberal government and they are better than the prior government of Mulroney.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> What gets me is the idea that if the Conservatives have dirt on the Liberals that this justifies the dirt the Liberals have on the Conservatives.
> *WHAT A LOAD OF BS!*


What are you talking about? Who made that suggestion?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> We? Who suggested we? Not me.
> 
> I am only making a prediction on what the fall out may turn out to be. I could be wrong. But, probably not.
> 
> ...


I wasn't referring to only your post, but was thinking about Harper's veiled threats in parliament when the libs were firing from all side on the whole Mulrooney affair.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

You surely know Vandave that many Liberals and their supporters made the exact same arguments as you are doing now prior to the Gomery inquiry — too expensive, there is dirt on both sides etc. I'd like to see if there is any connection in this to Harper's version of the Cons. It looks like there may be some new information coming out, why would we want to ignore that?

I've always maintained that no political party is immune to sleaze and this goes double once they get their hands on power. I support all inquiries of this nature if only to put the fear into the sleazy buggers that creep into any political organization with power, no matter what their leaning or stripe. If Harper's Cons already have their mitts in any cookie jars in that there is some involvement with Mulroney's influence peddling then that should be exposed. If not then good for them, maybe this type of event will remind elements within their organization to keep their noses clean. If former or current Libs get were involved with this and get exposed then that is good too. If Mulroney has done something while PM that is actionable then we should find out about it, not forget about it.

If it's necessary to stick political heads on pikes around the House of Commons to keep the sleaze balls at bay then we should do it. All investigations into our politicians potential whore-ability should be encouraged, because we know that the politicians themselves will always do everything possible to obscure it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You surely know Vandave that many Liberals and their supporters made the exact same arguments as you are doing now prior to the Gomery inquiry — too expensive, there is dirt on both sides etc. I'd like to see if there is any connection in this to Harper's version of the Cons. It looks like there may be some new information coming out, why would we want to ignore that?


I think there is a big difference between the two inquiries. Gomery was called based on the recommendation of the Auditor General who found financial oddities. The Airbus inquiry came out of opposition calls (i.e. politically driven) sparked by a convicted felon. The Liberal scandal was recent and involved active Prime Ministers. In contrast the Mulroney inquiry is 15 years late and had already been investigated by the RCMP. The scope of Gomery was to provide recommendations on cleaning up government. The scope of the Mulroney inquiry is...????

If new and credible (repeat credible) information comes out that results in criminal charges or damning links to the current Conservative Party, then I will admit to being wrong. 

I can guarantee you that there will be all sorts of innuendo and accusations, most or all of which will not be backed up by evidence. Kinda like an ehmac discussion.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Watched much of the inquiry today. I must say Mulroney came prepared. He blew some big holes in the credibility of Schreiber's testimony (Like he had much to begin with) and his lawyer experience served him well. But big questions remain.

The cash and safety deposit boxes smell to high heavens. No paper trail (though in all honesty, I don't know anyone keeping financial records past the required 7 years)? If the cash wasn't related to airbus but for consulting after leaving office as Mulroney claims, I think its likely he was at least trying to evade taxes. His actions certainly resemble those of someone trying to hide money. IF this cash was related to Airbus, I don't understand how it could have been missed in the RCMP investigation? 

Cheers
MacGUiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I think there is a big difference between the two inquiries. Gomery was called based on the recommendation of the Auditor General who found financial oddities. The Airbus inquiry came out of opposition calls (i.e. politically driven) sparked by a convicted felon. The Liberal scandal was recent and involved active Prime Ministers. In contrast the Mulroney inquiry is 15 years late and had already been investigated by the RCMP. The scope of Gomery was to provide recommendations on cleaning up government. The scope of the Mulroney inquiry is...????
> 
> If new and credible (repeat credible) information comes out that results in criminal charges or damning links to the current Conservative Party, then I will admit to being wrong.
> 
> I can guarantee you that there will be all sorts of innuendo and accusations, most or all of which will not be backed up by evidence. Kinda like an ehmac discussion.


You have GOT to be kidding.

I hope you are. really.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think there is a big difference between the two inquiries. Gomery was called based on the recommendation of the Auditor General who found financial oddities. The Airbus inquiry came out of opposition calls (i.e. politically driven) sparked by a convicted felon. The Liberal scandal was recent and involved active Prime Ministers. In contrast the Mulroney inquiry is 15 years late and had already been investigated by the RCMP. The scope of Gomery was to provide recommendations on cleaning up government. The scope of the Mulroney inquiry is...????
> 
> If new and credible (repeat credible) information comes out that results in criminal charges or damning links to the current Conservative Party, then I will admit to being wrong.
> 
> I can guarantee you that there will be all sorts of innuendo and accusations, most or all of which will not be backed up by evidence. Kinda like an ehmac discussion.


Schreiber's accusation have already resulted in some new info - we now know our former PM took a big sack of cash from a shady lobbyist. Quite the image. 

Living as long as I have I can tell you one thing - this is only the tip of the iceberg. Whenever a powerful politician gets a payoff of this nature it is no trivial matter. I want to know exactly what happened, even if it is from a decade ago. I'm not sure why anyone would want to see something like this quietly go away.

Sorry, I don't trust the RCMP much these days either, after all the crap they've been involved in the past few years.

I agree that there will be accusations and innuendo, as there was also with Gomery. I can think of several posters on ehMac screaming that both Chretien and Martin were involved in the slush up to their elbows, based on no facts. So far none has come out that directly implicates them, as far as I know. Certainly some of the biggest slingers of accusations and innuendo were the group who now sits on the Government benches in the House.

A question for you Dave, did you really want the accusations during Gomery to die down and would you have been happy if the media, blogosphere and public had been sober and fair in the discussion of this? Were you willing to accept the political advantage that all that innuendo gave to your favourite party in that it tainted Martin and probably was the main reason for his election loss?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Sorry, I don't trust the RCMP much these days either, after all the crap they've been involved in the past few years.


The last few years??  Let's not forget that these are the same guys who were burning barns in Quebec back in the '70s... XX)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Let's see how consistent you are at that time for other inquiries.


I applauded Paul Martin for going forth with the Gomery inquiry and was disappointed that the sentences were not stronger.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Schreiber's accusation have already resulted in some new info - we now know our former PM took a big sack of cash from a shady lobbyist. Quite the image.
> 
> Living as long as I have I can tell you one thing - this is only the tip of the iceberg. Whenever a powerful politician gets a payoff of this nature it is no trivial matter. I want to know exactly what happened, even if it is from a decade ago. I'm not sure why anyone would want to see something like this quietly go away.
> 
> Sorry, I don't trust the RCMP much these days either, after all the crap they've been involved in the past few years.


And that should be pointed out. So far, Schreiber has been the honest one with Muldoon changing his story (he said today he was not broke when he took the money...).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Schreiber's accusation have already resulted in some new info - we now know our former PM took a big sack of cash from a shady lobbyist. Quite the image.
> 
> Living as long as I have I can tell you one thing - this is only the tip of the iceberg. Whenever a powerful politician gets a payoff of this nature it is no trivial matter. I want to know exactly what happened, even if it is from a decade ago. I'm not sure why anyone would want to see something like this quietly go away.
> 
> ...


I recall the conservative's election fortunes turning when Goodale was accused of that leak right in the middle of the election. Did that inquiry come from the auditor general??

Sorry I couldn't believe the bias of Vandave's post that I was sure he had to be kidding.

I say turn a spotlight on all of them. I don't care if it's a party I may have voted for. I may not want to see my party of choice being accused of anything but I don't want thieves for a government.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I may not want to see my party of choice being accused of anything but I don't want thieves for a government.


I guess, given Adscam, you won't be supporting the Liberals any time soon either, eh gt?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Mulroney refused to be sworn in - Schreiber did*

It's kind of telling when one refuses to give testimony under oath...



> Brian Mulroney entered the famous old Railway committee room looking sallow and apprehensive. He was even forced to repeat his whispered response when he declined to be sworn in as a witness.


In the end, nothing sticks to Mulroney

So Muldoon
1) Kept the money in cash instead of a bank
2) Did not declare the money until Schreiber was arrested (years later)
3) Did not cross the border with money, so he did not have to declare it
4) Never had any paper trail for the money
5) When he did pay taxes, he had no expenses against the money (as he stated today).

Yup, nothing suspicious here, totally believable...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I guess, given Adscam, you won't be supporting the Liberals any time soon either, eh gt?


If the ones who were charged and were found to have done something were up for election, then no, I wouldn't vote for him/her.

And that would go for the conservatives who have already been found to have done improper things with money.

It's rather amusing to me, to watch conservative supporters continue to act like the liberals are the only ones who can be corrupt.

Is it me, or does it seem just so, not hard to see?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's kind of telling when one refuses to give testimony under oath...
> 
> 
> In the end, nothing sticks to Mulroney
> ...


it'll be interesting to see if there is anything to the allegations that Harper knew about this and kept it quiet.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I want to know exactly what happened, even if it is from a decade ago. I'm not sure why anyone would want to see something like this quietly go away.
> 
> Sorry, I don't trust the RCMP much these days either, after all the crap they've been involved in the past few years.


To what end? To ruin Mulroney's reputation? He has already done that himself.

Is it to pursue criminal charges? If so then we already have a mechanism for this. 

I agree that the reputation of the RCMP has dropped significantly in the last 5 years. They were once the most respected police force in the world and sadly that is no longer the case. I think some effort should be spent in cleaning up their operations. 

I also think our Judicial system is seriously flawed and that it needs serious work as well. 

But, in the meantime, I think we have to use the systems that currently exist.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> A question for you Dave, did you really want the accusations during Gomery to die down and would you have been happy if the media, blogosphere and public had been sober and fair in the discussion of this? Were you willing to accept the political advantage that all that innuendo gave to your favourite party in that it tainted Martin and probably was the main reason for his election loss?


Did I want the accusations to die down? Yes. As a taxpayer and a proud Canadian, I don't want to see corruption. I would have preferred that the scandal never occurred. The Liberals did it to themselves. If I could magically influence what the Liberal Party did, I would choose the route with no scandal. I don't care that 'my party' would not have benefited from it. I put a lack of corruption ahead of personal political gain. I remember a similar discussion on this with AS in the past who took glee with having seen corruption by another party. 

I am not sure that we can expect the public or blogosphere to live up to some standard of 'fair'. They are going to feel and say what they want. When it comes to the media, I think we can have an expectation of 'fair coverage'. By your question, you imply that you do not believe the Liberal Party got fair coverage by the media. I have to admit some level of bias in that I always felt Ottawa and our federal system to be corrupt. I am open to hearing your rationale as to what was not 'fair' in the coverage because I can't say that I felt that way at the time.

Let's remember that Martin did not win a majority government in 2004 before the the whole Gomery issue blew up. The Liberals only held a 6 to 7 point margin over the Conservatives. Let's also remember that the Conservative Party had just formed and did even have a chance to have a policy convention. The odds off a Liberal victory in 2006 in absence of the Gomery Inquiry was nill to none. The Conservatives also ran a hell of a campaign. They trumped the Liberals time and time again on all sorts of issues and had a unified message. So I don't think Gomery was the main reason the Conservatives won a minority. I think it was one of many reasons. I would suggest that polling from the last 2 years supports my view. The Conservatives have held between 33 and 38% support for almost the whole period, which is comparable to the 36% they achieved in 2006.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Sorry I couldn't believe the bias of Vandave's post that I was sure he had to be kidding.


Apparently not, it just seems to be getting worse.... 
I'm not sure if I should pity or mock him (because usually I like him)..


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> To what end? To ruin Mulroney's reputation? He has already done that himself.


Yes he has. To what end? To find out what our Prime Minister was doing taking cash payments in shady dealings.

Before this whole thing erupted we had Mulroney as the man who never had any dealings with Schreiber and who won a $2 Million settlement from the government for even daring to investigate him. Now we have a guy backpedalling like crazy and lots of reason for further suspicion. We also know Mulroney continued to work on various lobbying efforts right up to this year when he had meetings with some of Harper's ministers. I say we need to see where this will lead. Although what Mulroney has admitted to isn't technically illegal, it's highly questionable and his actions in this matter are reminiscent of someone who has a lot to hide.

So there are various ends here. To see what our former head of government was doing and to try and figure out what a guy who dealt with undeclared cash lobbying payments was doing as a lobbyist more recently in Ottawa. There is no reason to shut this down, because there is likely more going on than the self-interested Schreiber and Mulroney have let on.

Not being a Liberal supporter I can't say I felt at all surprised to learn that there were power and money-hungry bagmen attached to part of the party structure. But the thunder of self-righteous indignation coming from the Conservative party and its supporters was truly something to behold. Especially while the whole Grewal issue was percolating at the time proving that the very self-righteous accusers weren't above playing dirty and covering up lies.

Of course the Cons and Harper know that even if there is some taint from their connection to Mulroney that rubs off on them in even a peripheral way it will be harmful politically. And they know that the opposition will play it to maximum advantage, just as they did during Gomery.

But if they were truly the principled champions of transparency and openness that they claim to be they would take any lumps and welcome any investigations. But they plan to do everything possible to bury and stall this including their recent cries of "witch hunt". This shows once again that their oft-touted ethics and principles are only situational political devices, just like any ... other ... party.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> To what end? To ruin Mulroney's reputation? He has already done that himself.


to ruin Mulroney's reputation? Oh my, that's terrible! Were you as concerned when people were accusing Martin or Goodale, both who were found not guilty of any wrongdoing?

Unbelievable vandave. The man lied. Absolutely he should be investigated. If he was a liberal you'd be all over it.


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So there are various ends here. To see what our former head of government was doing and to try and figure out what a guy who dealt with undeclared cash lobbying payments was doing as a lobbyist more recently in Ottawa. There is no reason to shut this down, because there is likely more going on than the self-interested Schreiber and Mulroney have let on.
> 
> Not being a Liberal supporter I can't say I felt at all surprised to learn that there were power and money-hungry bagmen attached to part of the party structure. But the thunder of self-righteous indignation coming from the Conservative party and its supporters was truly something to behold. Especially while the whole Grewal issue was percolating at the time proving that the very self-righteous accusers weren't above playing dirty and covering up lies.
> 
> ...


well said.

It will be interesting to see how canada's 'new' government, open and transparent government, deals with this.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Interesting comments.

Personally, I thought Mulroney's testimony approached being a "I am not a crook" moment. Only it was more "I apologize so lets forget about it."

Andrew Coyne today did a devastating dissection of Mulroney's testimony and the absence of a real explanation.

andrewcoyne.com: Does Mulroney take us for fools?



> Brian Mulroney finally comes forward to explain... and explains nothing. Or rather, digs himself deeper.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I watched a few minutes of Bullroney's testimony on the news last evening. Strangely akin to that mental image I still have from when I was wee, visiting the CNE with my dad, and witnessing glistening, spattering volumes of dung suddenly emerging from a bovine behind. I was somewhat taken aback by the spectacle, yet hardly surprised by it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Unbelievable vandave. The man lied. Absolutely he should be investigated. If he was a liberal you'd be all over it.


Why are you being so obtuse?

I have made it very clear that I support an investigation. If there is evidence of a criminal act then it is the job of the RCMP to investigate and press charges. 

This is not the job of Parliament.

You do understand this, no?

What is our goal here? Wow, they showed that Mulroney lied. So what? What are you going to get him on next? Jaywalking? His reputation was already in shambles. What is more innuendo and accusation going to prove? Nothing.

I have said all along the whole business is sketchy. But, I doubt new information will come out of this that results in criminal charges. If it does, I will admit to being wrong. If it doesn't, then nothing was served. 

What are your goals for this inquiry?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Why are you being so obtuse?
> 
> I have made it very clear that I support an investigation. If there is evidence of a criminal act then it is the job of the RCMP to investigate and press charges.
> 
> ...


Yes it is the job of Parliament as it undermines their credibility if they don't expose the truth. This has nothing to do with "criminal".


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

Brainstrained said:


> andrewcoyne.com: Does Mulroney take us for fools?


Mulroney has every reason to believe that people are fools. After all, people did vote him into office, not once, but twice!


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Just like George Bush


No, that would be voted in by the people once, and 'voted' in by the US Supreme Court once.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd even argue with the once given the Ohio mess. 

•••


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Why are you being so obtuse?
> 
> I have made it very clear that I support an investigation. If there is evidence of a criminal act then it is the job of the RCMP to investigate and press charges.
> 
> ...


I'm not being obtuse, you seem to be running us on a merry go round here. 

you support the investigation, but you don't. Which is it? If parliament didn't jump in here Shreiber would have been shipped off to Germany tout suite.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Doug said:


> I watched a few minutes of Bullroney's testimony on the news last evening. Strangely akin to that mental image I still have from when I was wee, visiting the CNE with my dad, and witnessing glistening, spattering volumes of dung suddenly emerging from a bovine behind. I was somewhat taken aback by the spectacle, yet hardly surprised by it.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

Crude and tasteless humour, my favourite kind. That made my morning when I read it earlier while having breakfast.

I appreciated the Coyne article. On one hand he has admitted to lying to the public about the nature of his association with Schreiber and in the next breath condemns the man as a liar who would say anything to save his own skin. Of course, as was pointed out by someone, the more he denigrates his former business partner's character, the more curious it seems that the Right Honourable Mr. Upstanding Integrity would have had numerous dealings (cash only, please) with such a sleaze bag, year after year after year. Yes, it's quite clear Mulroney does take us for fools. Hmmmmm .... what was that nickname he had again ... Lyin' Brian wasn't it?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> you support the investigation, but you don't. Which is it? If parliament didn't jump in here Shreiber would have been shipped off to Germany tout suite.


I have already said numerous times that I support an RCMP investigation, not a Parliamentary investigation. There is a difference.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I have already said numerous times that I support an RCMP investigation, not a Parliamentary investigation. There is a difference.


what's wrong with a parliamentary investigation? Personally I'm glad to see Mulroney finally admit he did have dealings with scheiber, and that he did accept envelops of cash.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> what's wrong with a parliamentary investigation? Personally I'm glad to see Mulroney finally admit he did have dealings with scheiber, and that he did accept envelops of cash.


I still don't think you understand my point of view or my question of, "to what end?".

The problem with a public inquiry is that it will not end in criminal charges. It is detached from our Judicial system. The RCMP however, do have the power to recommend charges and have evidence introduced into our Judicial system. 

Is my point of view so controversial? Chretien shares it. To quote.. "It's not the best way to solve problems, we have police for these things." Or perhaps, he is driven by other concerns (i.e. fallout from this inquiry).

We already knew that Mulroney had dealings with Schreiber and that he accepted bags of cash. 

AS, explained why he supported the inquiry. My take is that he thinks it is needed to keep our politicians honest. I don't agree. I think criminal acts should be pursued by our justice system. I think that already provides a deterrent. 

So, what is your end?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I still don't think you understand my point of view or my question of, "to what end?".
> 
> The problem with a public inquiry is that it will not end in criminal charges. It is detached from our Judicial system. The RCMP however, do have the power to recommend charges and have evidence introduced into our Judicial system.
> 
> ...


not really. Mulroney's 'storey' seems a tad different now.

but that's fine that's your opinion. I happen to agree with AS. We seem to know more details so far than if there were no inquiry and schreiber was quickly shuttled off to Germany.

We're quoting Cretien now?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper came in beating an ethical parliament drum - of course he's not even close but what else would one expect.
There are different rules for parliamentarians, for instance libel rules do not apply on the floor of the Commons.

The inquiry serves several purposes.

Was the settlement with Mulroney for $2.1 million justified or should it be re-opened?
WAS there a breach of parlimentary ethics which personally I think there was given 
- the timing of the known meeting with Scheiber 2 days before Mulroney left office
- Schreiber then withdraws $500,000 in cash four days later 
- Mulroney gets it handed in cash shortly there after
- Mulroney fails to declare it for 6 years.










and Harper MUST be perceived to being doing this "hands off" as he is already drawn in through close relations with Mulroney and a letter he "didn't see". 

Is it a waste of time and money???.....likely as the public pretty much has made up their mind.

a) Muloon and Schreiber are two peas in a pod

b) Harper and current gov have little connection.

If may well lay out further guidelines for ethical conduct of ministers leaving office so we don't see in Canada the revolving door the US suffers with procurement and gov contracts with the procurement officials charged with public oversight walking directly to the suppliers for lucrative sums after leaving gov posts.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If may well lay out further guidelines for ethical conduct of ministers leaving office so we don't see in Canada the revolving door the US suffers with procurement and gov contracts with the procurement officials charged with public oversight walking directly to the suppliers for lucrative sums after leaving gov posts.


Ahhh... finally somebody looking at the end game here.

But, would such guidelines have prevented Mulroney from taking bags of cash? No, he and Schrieber would have worked something else out. These two guys are unethical and corrupt to the core. Anybody with half a brain knows that taking bags of cash in unethical, especially if you are the PM. Mulroney obviously knew it was sketchy at the time. You don't need ethical guidelines to tell you that. 

So, I fail to see what good is going to come out of spending millions of dollars on this. Anybody....????

We have enough to worry about with our current system. I would rather focus our energy and money on improving other aspects of our government (e.g. senate and judicial reform).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Ahhh... finally somebody looking at the end game here.


I thought this was public knowledge?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I thought this was public knowledge?


I was referring to MacDoc's opinion. An inquiry isn't an end, it is a means to an end. 

I am simply wondering what people want and expect to come out of this.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> We have enough to worry about with our current system. I would rather focus our energy and money on improving other aspects of our government (e.g. senate and judicial reform).


Still prattling on I see. Why not attack real problems such as the much weakened Harper accountability act or Fortier being unaccountable and dolling out the largest government spending ever… Senate reform and judicial reform are mere diversions…
Muldoon has abuse the office of the PM, made a mockery of the justice system (and he’s a lawyer), if for nothing more than showing that Canadians value our system of governance, Muldoon should not be left off the hook as you suggest.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*VD why are the Connies protecting Muldoon so much?*



> AFTER BRIAN Mulroney’s testimony to the Commons ethics committee on Thurs*day, *Tory MP Russ Hiebert went to the microphone outside the committee room to read from a state*ment*, telling reporters that the com*mittee should drop the matter now and leave it to a public inquiry.
> 
> He said that in his opinion, if the opposition-dominated committee called more witnesses it would “clear*ly be pursuing a partisan witch hunt." *A reporter asked whether he was speaking for the government and he said it was his opinion.*
> Canadian Press reporter Jennifer Ditchburn, who is a foot or two short*er than the gangly Mr. Hiebert, peeked at the paper he was reading from.
> ...


Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I was referring to MacDoc's opinion. An inquiry isn't an end, it is a means to an end.
> 
> I am simply wondering what people want and expect to come out of this.


oooh. I see. A pop quiz.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A lasting legacy.......



> *Former PM's gift to Canada: a new word*
> 
> Dec 17, 2007 04:30 AM
> My big mistake
> ...


..how fitting..... :clap:


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hilarious.

I'm going to use it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That's so deliciously bang on, it just might stick. But not with the conservative set, perhaps?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> That's so deliciously bang on, it just might stick. But not with the conservative set, perhaps?


I'd safely say I'm conservative and I think thats hilarious! I'll definitely be storing that one to memory for use at a later date. :lmao: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good on you, then! Armed with a good sense of humour you'll likely live longer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Good on you, then! Armed with a good sense of humour you'll likely live longer.


"This morning, I called a courier and asked if we could do a "Mulroney." He knew exactly what I meant: a no-receipt, no-tax cash payment that went directly into his pocket."

Hehehehehehehe!

Beautiful! :clap: :clap:


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *PM to call limited Mulroney-Schreiber probe*
> Updated Thu. Jan. 10 2008 10:12 PM ET
> 
> Robert Fife, CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief
> ...


I think this is the right balance to strike for the Mulroney situation :clap:

Too bad Harper doesn't listen to the Carbon Tax panel with equal alacrity. 
Speaks volumes......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Haunted indeed - this just does NOT want to go away.



> *Ex-Mulroney chief of staff to tell MPs about cash*
> Updated Fri. Jan. 25 2008 2:30 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Not that I think that Mulroney wasn't dirty, my gut tells me we only saw the tip of the iceberg, but Spector, who has been a constant media pain in BC for a decade is a pompous windbag, loose cannon and general all around ass. I would tend to be pretty careful about uncritically accepting anything he has to say.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mind you between him and Karl.....does say something about Mulroney's judgement.

If he has docs.....who cares what his other misdemeanors are.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

MacDoc said:


> Haunted indeed - this just does NOT want to go away.


Yes it does. The media just won't let it.


----------

