Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
August1991

Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

Mulroney a Crook?  

73 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

On a separate thread on an unrelated issue, jdobbin made the folloowing point:

I disagree with you about Dion ncessarily knowing about criminal behaviour happening in Quebec. It's like saying everyone in the Conservative party must have known that Muloney received money from a secret fund used by Airbus to pay commissions.

So, I thought I'd start a thread on whether Brian Mulroney was a crook or not - and then we can discuss it separately from other issues.

Stevie Cameron wrote a book On the Take that accused Mulroney of being a criminal. (I read this book and since it has numerous errors of fact, I discounted her accusations.) Among the accusations were that a German, Karl-Heinz Schreiber, gave money to Mulroney to influence Air Canada's decision to buy Airbus aircraft.

William Kaplan then wrote a book Presumed Guilty showing clearly that Cameron's accusations were false. (I read this book and found it well written.)

The Liberal Party attempted to investigate Cameron's accusations and Mulroney eventually took the government to court for slander and won a $2 million judgment.

Then Stevie Cameron was found to have been an informer for the RCMP while it was conducting its investigation against Mulroney.

In a final twist, Kaplan wrote a second book A Secret Trial in which he claims to have been duped both by Mulroney and Cameron. Pertinently, Kaplan stated that Schreiber gave Mulroney $300,000 cash after Mulroney had left office. (I haven't read Kaplan's second book.)

So, I'll now turn the opinion over to Andrew Coyne:

Questions like: What was the payment for? Mr. Schreiber has given several explanations for the payments, none of them substantiated. At various times, he has maintained that Mr. Mulroney was hired to help him promote a pasta firm he was starting, or to represent him in other business dealings, or because the former prime minister needed the money, or even out of gratitude for Mr. Mulroney’s supposedly critical role in the unification of Germany.

Just so we’re clear: There’s no suggestion, and no evidence, that Mr. Mulroney did anything wrong here. His spokesman insists that “all income was declared, and all taxes paid.” But then why is the whole business so shrouded in murk? As Mr. Kaplan asks, “what assignments were undertaken? How much time was put into the file? Was the fee proportionate to the service? And why cash?”

I'll add this:

What are you trying to say here? That because the government dropped it's lawsuit that Mulroney is innocent? Unfortunately, the evidence didn't come out until recently Link
You are calling that CBC hack job evidence?

The only source they had is Karl Heinz Schreiber.

The CBC report linked includes this line:

But in 2003, Mulroney indirectly acknowledged he did receive money from Schreiber but as payment for his help in promoting Schreiber's pasta business.

So, there is a source other than Schreiber. There's Mulroney. But Mulroney declared the money as payment for services after he left office.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of the CBC report was far from giving Mulroney the benefit of the doubt.

Again, there wasn't enough evidence for the Liberals to proceed with prosecution or even fight a wrongful prosecution case in court. They settled for $2 Million.

Mulroney has been out of office for 13 years. The Liberals have been found to illegally have diverted over $1.1 million in tapayer money, in a *judicial inquiry*. Why the focus on Mjlroney?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mulroney has been out of office for 13 years. The Liberals have been found to illegally have diverted over $1.1 million in tapayer money, in a *judicial inquiry*. Why the focus on Mjlroney?

Typical response. Why should Mulroney have to be ethical just because the liberals weren't? :lol:

Again, there wasn't enough evidence for the Liberals to proceed with prosecution or even fight a wrongful prosecution case in court. They settled for $2 Million.

There isn't enough evidence to prosecute the liberals either. Even those previous liberal members who were implicated in the scandal, do you think they will be prosecuted? Not likely. That doens't mean they aren't guilty. Even chretien is suing the government for defamation, similar to what Mulroney did. I wouldn't be surprised if he won. That's politics for you, steal/accept bribes and when you are accused of wrongdoing, turn around and sue the government for even more money :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There isn't enough evidence to prosecute the liberals either. Even those previous liberal members who were implicated in the scandal, do you think they will be prosecuted? Not likely. That doens't mean they aren't guilty. Even chretien is suing the government for defamation, similar to what Mulroney did. I wouldn't be surprised if he won. That's politics for you, steal/accept bribes and when you are accused of wrongdoing, turn around and sue the government for even more money :lol:

Hmmm, the only accusation is from Schreiber in the Mulroney case. Everything Mulroney did was above board.

The Liberals were found by a judicial inquiry of misappropriating more than $1 Million dollars.

There is a difference between Mulroney being paid for a business deal with money from a business man and the Liberals misusing government money.

I take your silence on the 13 years later part of it to mean you recognize this really shouldn't be an issue this late in the game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, the only accusation is from Schreiber in the Mulroney case. Everything Mulroney did was above board.

And evidence from Mulroney himself. First he denied recieving money, then later admitted to it. Which of the following 'facts' do you take issue with:

1) Mulroney recieved $300,000 from Schreiber

2) Mulroney previously denied having accepted the money

3) Mulroney now admits to taking the money but says it was for 'business consultation'

Now, if we assume that only number 1 is true, that in itself is a huge conflict of interest. If we assume that number 2 is also true that shows even more questionable activities by mulroney. Why would he deny accepting money from Schreiber if it was for something as innocent as business consultation?

The Liberals were found by a judicial inquiry of misappropriating more than $1 Million dollars.

Once again, divert and deflect. Nice tactics.

There is a difference between Mulroney being paid for a business deal with money from a business man and the Liberals misusing government money.

So you aknowledge he recieved the money? Now why did he deny it in the first place? Why would Schreiber lie when he said that mulroney did not consult with him on business (except for one pamphlet)? Tell me honestly, is it not a conflict of interest in doing business with this man?

I take your silence on the 13 years later part of it to mean you recognize this really shouldn't be an issue this late in the game...

Oh, so if it's something that happened 13 years ago it's not an issue? So Mulroney isn't corrupt anymore since 13 years has passed? Oh I see, in that case maybe we should think about re-electing Chretien as prime minister in 13 years. By that time, the sponsorship scandal won't be an issue, and if anyone tries to bring it up we'll just say "this really shouldn't be an issue this late in the game..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They used to say that Mulroney was quite likeable close up, but that from a distance he appeared a bit less enchanting. They said similar things about John Turner. Whether or not one would like to buy a used car from Mr Mulroney, no credible suggestion has been made that he misbehaved in office. The suggestion which was made, cost the accusers a lot of money, and was declared false.

The most damaging thing about this affair was that the RCMP got information from the Swiss under false pretences, thereby damaging Canada's reputation amongst security services abroad, and lessening the possibility of informal cooperation in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, the only accusation is from Schreiber in the Mulroney case. Everything Mulroney did was above board.

The Liberals were found by a judicial inquiry of misappropriating more than $1 Million dollars.

There is a difference between Mulroney being paid for a business deal with money from a business man and the Liberals misusing government money.

I take your silence on the 13 years later part of it to mean you recognize this really shouldn't be an issue this late in the game...

It seems to me that the two accusations have two things in common; Francophones and Quebec. It is well known that among the main features of the Anglosphere (link) are "individualism, rule of law, honoring contracts and covenants beyond family and crony circles, and the maintenance of freedom in the first rank of political and cultural values". The cultural expectations of the Francophones are entirely different, and IMHO lead to their repeated involvement in scandals on both sides of the political aisle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

I think that Mulroney is as innocent as Orenthal. "Not guilty in a court of law" doesn't mean you didn't do it. Without more evidence, only Mulroney cam say for sure whether he received kickbacks, and 'billing for consultation' has to be the greyest area to examine. As for Schreiber,...from....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Schreiber

Schreiber had previously been a key fundraiser in Mulroney's successful campaign to win the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party in 1983.

Since 1999 the Canadian resident has fought extradition to his native Germany due to allegations of fraud, bribery and failure to pay $20 million in taxes to the German government on commissions related to sales in the 1980s of Airbus jets. [1]

In October 2004, Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler ordered Schreiber to surrender himself to German authorities. [2] Schreiber, however, remains in Canada pending the exhaustion of his appeals.

Mulroney also was involved in other criminal activity after he left the PM's office. He went on to join the board of directors at Archer Daniels Midland...and then they got busted...

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1058-7195...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

Just a short read from this link...

and below...

http://www.endgame.org/corpfines1.html

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)

199?

$100,000,000

ADM paid a $100 million fine and three of its executives --- Mark Whitacre, Mick Andreas and Terrance Wilson --- were sent to prison for fixing the price of lysine, a feed additive for livestock and poultry. http://www.ea1.com/CARP/

Archer Daniels Midland

Cerestar Bioproducts

Hoffmann-La Roche

Jungbunzlauer

Haarmann & Reimer

2001

$120,500,000 total

"The European Commission fined Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Archer Daniels Midland Co (ADM), Jungbunzlauer AG, Haarmann & Reimer Corp and Cerestar Bioproducts B.V. a total of $120.5 million for participating in a price-fixing and market-sharing cartel in citric acid." (Corporate Crime Reporter, Dec 5, 2001).

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)

2004

$400,000,000

to settle price-fixing suit (June 21, 2004).

Another bit of a read on ADM and 'influence-peddling' is here...

http://www.electricarrow.com/CARP/agbiz/111.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving deals that are at arms length (which Airbus was) isn't illegal or a big deal. Morally questionable, maybe, but far from illegal.

We didn't get ripped on the purchase, so what does it matter? Helping out friends is the nature of business, and Mulroney got us a reasonably good deal in the process, not any lesser a deal than was offered by Boeing. Two equal deals, you give it to your friend. Why not?

The big and easiest way to show there is no evidence, the government settled with Mulroney on a defamation lawsuit, they knew they couldn't prove a damned thing. Mulroney showed alot of guts suing the government for defamation, you don't do that if you are guilty generally... especially not when the defendant has limitless resources to defend themselves.

He made a deal with his friend, yes, but not a bad deal, so I could really care less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Giving deals that are at arms length (which Airbus was) isn't illegal or a big deal. Morally questionable, maybe, but far from illegal.

Actually, it was illegal. In 1999, Mulroney lied about it and there wasn't evidence to convict. In 2006, there is probably evidence to go to trial. The file is now in Conservative hands. What will they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving deals that are at arms length (which Airbus was) isn't illegal or a big deal. Morally questionable, maybe, but far from illegal.

Actually, it was illegal. In 1999, Mulroney lied about it and there wasn't evidence to convict. In 2006, there is probably evidence to go to trial. The file is now in Conservative hands. What will they do?

Hopefully nothing, nothing wrong happened. What was the crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Giving deals that are at arms length (which Airbus was) isn't illegal or a big deal. Morally questionable, maybe, but far from illegal.

We didn't get ripped on the purchase, so what does it matter? Helping out friends is the nature of business, and Mulroney got us a reasonably good deal in the process, not any lesser a deal than was offered by Boeing. Two equal deals, you give it to your friend. Why not?

The big and easiest way to show there is no evidence, the government settled with Mulroney on a defamation lawsuit, they knew they couldn't prove a damned thing. Mulroney showed alot of guts suing the government for defamation, you don't do that if you are guilty generally... especially not when the defendant has limitless resources to defend themselves.

He made a deal with his friend, yes, but not a bad deal, so I could really care less.

So, if the "liberal-friendly" ad firms had done good advertising work you wouldn't have cared that they contributed a million dollars to the liberal party?

By the way, isn't chretien now suing the government for defamation? Are you saying that makes him innocent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if the "liberal-friendly" ad firms had done good advertising work you wouldn't have cared that they contributed a million dollars to the liberal party?

By the way, isn't chretien now suing the government for defamation? Are you saying that makes him innocent?

There's a significant difference between structured defrauding of the taxpayer and violation of campaign finance regulations and accepting the arms length reasonable bid from a friend.

The deal was good, what the hell is the problem?

I don't think Chretien is guilty of any crimes myself, I'm not saying suing makes him innocent. I'm saying when the party that slandered the other settles out of court, they were wrong and have no evidence.

All they'd need to do to defend their claim is that Mulroney was guilty, they couldn't, so they settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully nothing, nothing wrong happened. What was the crime?

Bribery.

Well, I still insist that the deal was arms length, it was comparable to the Boeing deal, we weren't ripped off.

Where was the bribe? Many years after when Mulroney got paid to do consulting work? Do you expect him to never work again after office just in case someone thinks something bad happened?

The government was wrong to slander him, it's proven in their speedy settlement of the issue.

I insist there is nothing wrong with giving a good deal to a friend/business partner, it was clearly arms length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I still insist that the deal was arms length, it was comparable to the Boeing deal, we weren't ripped off.

Where was the bribe? Many years after when Mulroney got paid to do consulting work? Do you expect him to never work again after office just in case someone thinks something bad happened?

The government was wrong to slander him, it's proven in their speedy settlement of the issue.

I insist there is nothing wrong with giving a good deal to a friend/business partner, it was clearly arms length.

I think it will be interesting when Schreiber is forced to open his books when extradited to Germany.

Your insistence aside, the cash paid out is suspicious and I don't think we've heard then end of this. The connections to Airbus have never really gone away. I don't care what sort of good deal Canada got if the former prime minister received money as a commission.

The RCMP has not confirmed that they aren't re-investigating Mulroney.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonis...74c&k=10101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a significant difference between structured defrauding of the taxpayer and violation of campaign finance regulations and accepting the arms length reasonable bid from a friend.

The deal was good, what the hell is the problem?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with regards to Mulroney it seems you are basically arguing that it's ok to give contracts to people who give you money ($300,000) so long as they still give you a good deal. Now, the only difference I see between that situation and adscam is that perhaps airbus was offering as good of a deal as boeing (though if they have 300 thousand to blow on what is probably considered a bribe, presumably they could have gotten the contract for 300 thousand cheaper than they did and hence that money came indirectly from taxpayers....but that's a different argument). So, if we pretend for a minute that those liberal friendly ad agencies did a good job, does it not bother you that they donated a million dollars to the liberals? Would you still be saying "the deal was good, what the hell is the problem?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brain Mulroney was a very full of himself type person who always tried to show how important he was. He did many things in his ealy years I liked and then in his latest years many I did not like and probably could say I hated him for it. When he left, he saw fit to name Rinaldo (his wifes hairdresser to a seat on the bank of Canada, and there were so many other inyour face appointments that you knew were just political payback, that it disturbed me to the max. He was drunk at the time of Oka because he was really POed that the Meech Lake failed. He is a recovering alcoholic and that thru him off the wagon. So yes I can say he did do wrong but not by the law but by decency and morales. I tolerate him having the ear of the leaders now, but only because like I said he knew how to plan and appraoch things in his early years. I would not ever want him to have any position in the government or power at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if we pretend for a minute that those liberal friendly ad agencies did a good job, does it not bother you that they donated a million dollars to the liberals? Would you still be saying "the deal was good, what the hell is the problem?"

There were some actual *contracts* given out when there was no work done.

The two cases aren't even comparable. The Airbus bid ended up being the better one for the Canadian taxpayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if we pretend for a minute that those liberal friendly ad agencies did a good job, does it not bother you that they donated a million dollars to the liberals? Would you still be saying "the deal was good, what the hell is the problem?"

There were some actual *contracts* given out when there was no work done.

The two cases aren't even comparable. The Airbus bid ended up being the better one for the Canadian taxpayers.

You are missing my point, despite the fact that you highlighted it. I was asking a hypothetical question that IF we "got a good deal" from the liberal ad agencies, would it bother you that they happened to donate a million dollars to the liberals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are missing my point, despite the fact that you highlighted it. I was asking a hypothetical question that IF we "got a good deal" from the liberal ad agencies, would it bother you that they happened to donate a million dollars to the liberals?

But we didn't get anything from them. So why ask the question?

Seems like a ploy to somehow make adscam and airbus comparable when they aren't at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are missing my point, despite the fact that you highlighted it. I was asking a hypothetical question that IF we "got a good deal" from the liberal ad agencies, would it bother you that they happened to donate a million dollars to the liberals?

But we didn't get anything from them. So why ask the question?

Seems like a ploy to somehow make adscam and airbus comparable when they aren't at all.

It's not a ploy, it's a hypothetical question. Since you obviously don't understand why I asked it, I will be a little more transparent.

What is it that bothers you more about the sponsorship program?:

a) the fact that money was wasted

B) the fact that the money was stolen

Personally, I'd say B). I don't care as much about the money, since money is wasted all the time in government and no-one is booted out for it (not that it's ok to waste money, just that it's better than stealing it). I care more about the principle behind stealing the money. So, I don't really care if we got a good deal from airbus, what I care about is the principle behind Mulroney taking bribes (and therefore indirectly stealing from taxpayers). That is the same reason why adscam is a concern to me more than the fact that money was wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With adscam the money was used to buy votes and to also make party faithful very rich and also it was used to finace the Quebec wing of the liberal party. The adscam was so entrenched into the high profile liberals that while it can not be proven the criminality of some but it points that way, and is more likely then not. Shortly you will again see books by Gagliano and others telling tales on others etc. These books will again inflame the Quebec voters and Liberal will again be on their shit lists. It is not CPC doing this but the old liberals who had the adscam dumped on them. Now they want to talk and tell all. It is going to get interesting again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a ploy, it's a hypothetical question. Since you obviously don't understand why I asked it, I will be a little more transparent.

What is it that bothers you more about the sponsorship program?:

a) the fact that money was wasted

B) the fact that the money was stolen

Personally, I'd say B). I don't care as much about the money, since money is wasted all the time in government and no-one is booted out for it (not that it's ok to waste money, just that it's better than stealing it). I care more about the principle behind stealing the money. So, I don't really care if we got a good deal from airbus, what I care about is the principle behind Mulroney taking bribes (and therefore indirectly stealing from taxpayers). That is the same reason why adscam is a concern to me more than the fact that money was wasted.

You don't have the ability to express yourself succinctly and follow it up with arrogance instead of presenting your views in a comprehensible manner? :huh:

Principles vary by person and there can be no absolute standard. That's why we have periodic elections and laws.

The Liberals absolutely, and admittedly, stole from the taxpayers in Adscam. The only case that can be made that Canadians are better off by their actions is if you truly believe that the Liberals deserve to be in government at all times, and it was *only* $1.14 million.

I care about the rule of law. The Liberals were proven to have stolen that money and admitted it.

I tend to care about the actual dollars and cents. My taxes and/or the cost of tickets on Air Canada are lower because the PCs went with the Airbus offer. Why would I care about accusations that Mulroney *might* have taken a bribe? Prove he did it. If you can do that, prove how it made Canadians worse off. Then we can consider whether or not Adscam and airbus are equivalent. Until then it's just a withc hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if we pretend for a minute that those liberal friendly ad agencies did a good job, does it not bother you that they donated a million dollars to the liberals? Would you still be saying "the deal was good, what the hell is the problem?"

There were some actual *contracts* given out when there was no work done.

The two cases aren't even comparable. The Airbus bid ended up being the better one for the Canadian taxpayers.

You are missing my point, despite the fact that you highlighted it. I was asking a hypothetical question that IF we "got a good deal" from the liberal ad agencies, would it bother you that they happened to donate a million dollars to the liberals?

If we got a good deal from the ad scam contracts, then yes, I would have been fine with it. That's all that matters, is that the tax payers got a good deal.

Being said, that was a structured defrauding of the taxpayers. Completely different, not even comparable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...