You can tell me to get a life, if you want, but yes - I spent another day watching the Oliphant Commission's lawyer, Richard Wolson, cross examining former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. As you will know from my previous posting, the inquiry is looking into the relationship between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber.
As one of the commentators pointed out in reference to my earlier posting, Mr. Mulroney has a tendency to overstate; a penchant for hyperbole. The most striking example of this was his comment, made under oath yesterday, that "I have never in my life knowingly done anything wrong". That's some statement. In commenting on it, John Ivison, writing in today's National Post, stated: "Since neither Gandhi nor Mother Teresa would likely have made that claim, it could be dismissed as an irrational exuberance were it not for the fact he said it three times".
Muroney's statement, which one hopes was not to be taken at face value, in my opinion sums up most of Mr. Mulroney's testimony. He simply will not admit that aside from exercising bad judgment, anything he did in his whole relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber or anything he said in his prior testimony or discussions concerning it, was improper or wrong. Even where there are clear inconsistencies in his version of events and the statements of others or independent documents, Mr. Mulroney dismisses them either by putting the blame for these inconsistencies on others, or by not recalling them.
A few examples will illustrate this point. One of Mr. Mulroney's main contentions is that he had an on-going retainer with Mr. Schreiber which Mr. Mulroney unilaterally chose to end in 1999. This assertion is important to Mulroney's position that no moneys were received for work done or agreements made while Mr. Mulroney was still in office, and, according to him, explains why the income was not declared and taxes were not paid on the $225,000 until 1999/2000. It was, according to Mulroney, an open-ended retainer, with no set termination date.
There are, however, documents which contradict this. As I learned from yesterday's proceedings, Mr. Mulroney's close friend and advisor, Mr Fred Doucet, suggested to Mr. Mulroney in 1999, that the terms of the retainer be memorialized. A document was written by Mr. Doucet, in consultation with Schreiber and Mulroney, which described the retainer as being a three year retainer (1993,94,95) for $250,000.00. This diverges both with the $225,000 figure stated by Mulroney and more importantly with his on-going, open ended retainer version of events. Mr. Mulroney did not take issue with Mr. Doucet's document at the time the document was prepared and approved. Why not?, he was asked. The answer was to the effect that Mr. Mulroney did not actually see the document, it was read out to him on the telephone, and he did not sign it. In other words, it is an inaccurate document, even though it was prepared by Mr. Mulroney's trusted friend and approved by Mulroney himself.
On the same point of the terms of the retainer, it was pointed out to Mulroney that when he made his voluntary tax declaration in or around 2000, only three years of income were disclosed - $75,000 for each of the three years commencing in 1993. Why, he was asked, did the voluntary disclosure statement declare that the total income was earned in those specific three years if it was an open-ended retainer which was only terminated in 1999? Mr. Mulroney did not know the answer. He stated that he had nothing to do with the voluntary disclosure; it was prepared by his lawyer. How, however, did his tax advisor know to put in $75,000 a year for three years? Mr. Mulroney did not know that one either. Apparently, according to Mulroney, he must have found out somehow, but not from Mr. Mulroney. Did Mulroney know how much of his income was taxed? No - he did not know that either. It turned out of course that the agreement with the revenue authorities taxed him on only one half of his earned income. Why was that? Mr. Mulroney did not know.
Mr. Mulroney also apparently did not know that the lock on his safety box was changed. When a document was pointed out to him from the bank that stated that this was changed at his own request, Mr. Mulroney was surprised. Maybe his staff did it, opined Mulroney. He also did not know when the $75,000 was taken out of the U.S. safety deposit box. He knew it was taken out in increments, but he did not know when he did that and how large the increments were.
Brian Mulroney is a lawyer, was the Prime Minister, was the president of a company, and served on a number of major corporations' Board of Directors. He knew to a precise detail which world leaders he met, when and where. But as for his own personal affairs as they related to the Schreiber affair he seemed to know precious little.
What does this all mean? Let's see what Justice Oliphant thinks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lewis, thanks for these painstakingly informative and lucid posts. Like many people, I'm interested in the proceedings for a number of reasons, but I don't have the time or patience to follow them as closely as you and other savvy writers are doing. The rest of us are relying on you all to walk us through it.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you at this point, with respect to the statement from the bank about the changing of the lock on Mulroney's safety deposit box: You write that the bank has stated that the lock was changed at Mulroney's request, and Mulroney has claimed his staff did it. Wouldn't the bank have a record of who made the request in such an important matter? Even if it was done on behalf of Mulroney by a staff member, wouldn't a legally savvy bank have a policy in place that would dictate preserving the name, signature and title of the person who made the request? And wouldn't the bank have a record of the bank official who complied with the request? Surely said bank official, if still alive, would remember - if not the name of the person who made the request - at least, whether or not it was Mulroney who made the request? I mean, how many ex PM's does the bank get change-the-locks requests from? Wouldn't most people kind of remember that?
Is that more than one question? Sorry, and thanks in advance for your answer (s).
Thanks for your kind comments.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the safety deposit box issue. This matter was brought up by Mr. Auger, Schreiber's lawyer, in his cross. He was particularly interested in how often Mulroney visited the New York safety deposit box, when he took the cash out, what he did with it and so on. The business with the changed lock was brought up presumably to indicate that Mr. Mulroney had more to do with the box then he had let on.
I do not know if there are bank records kept regarding a request to change the lock, who made it and so on. I am not sure that the point is that critical to the matter at hand. It was amusing to note that Mr Mulroney stated, en passant, that he did not pay rental fee for the box and still owes this to the bank. He noted, in jest, that he needs the money more than the bank. The safety deposit box "rental" was set up by the bank at Mulroney's request since he was a Director of the bank. So as you can see, perhaps ordinary records and procedures might not have been followed.
When you take apart a difficult and complex knot, you have to pick away at it, until you can get one thread loose, - and then the rest will come apart, sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteAccording to what you wrote in the post above, Lewis, Mulroney claims he didn't know the lock on his own safety deposit box was changed. He suggested that his staff had had the lock changed without his knowledge.
Mulroney is as slippery as a greased hog - and, in order to take apart the gorgon's knot of his misleading statements and half-truths - it is necessary to begin by picking out one thread of lies.
The safety deposit box lock issue is critical, in my opinion, because it should be possible to prove by means of ordinary bank records that Mulroney is lying when he says he didn't know the lock had been changed.
It is not enough for persons possessed of perscipacity and good will to suspect or inwardly conclude that Mulroney is lying - it must be proven, one thread of the knot at a time.
Pick, pick, with the sharp instrument of a focused intent, - until one lie is forced into the light.
The stature of the lie is not nearly as important as the fact of it is.
Then, the house of cards that Mulroney built will begin to tremble...
With respect, Prof Klar, lest we forget the forest for the trees.
ReplyDeleteYou state:
"What does this all mean? Let's see what Justice Oliphant thinks."
The RH Brian Mulroney has not been charged with any crimes. It is his place in history that is being judged, and yes, Judge Oliphant and his ruling will certainly have some bearing on that.
The main impact of this sad and tawdry sequence of events is to have an image seared into the public mind: that of a former prime minister being paid cash in a briefcase by an unsavory and untrustworthy character.
Absent any defense save a weak and mewling insistence that he has led a blameless life, the damage has been done, whatever the ruling.
Regards,
Mike