First, before starting on this please go out and read the article on wikipedia about Mr. Schreiber and you can find it here. It's not a long article but there is a good start there and without that base you really don't understand anything. Some of you will skip the article and simply continue to read on and all I can say is - what do you do when you live in a shoe?
Pressing on...
A basic concept in financial investigations or audits is to "follow the money". How much money was involved? Who got it. When did they get it? What benefit did they give up for it? These are all basic questions. Despite that simplicity we often find that tracing the funds and documenting the cash flow is frequently difficult often because the original transactions were set up to be difficult or impossible to trace. And there is also the question of legality. Some transactions are perfectly legal and some are not. And to add to the complexity some transactions are ethical and some are not. And drat! you can have an unethical yet legal transaction or perhaps even an ethical illegal transaction!! And layered on top of that you can have a difference of opinion which tends to really screw things up. Lets talk about money.
We can say that in business there are two types of money; dirty money and clean or laundered money. To use an example that will help us later - in the case of commissions paid for aircraft sales -once the sale has been achieved the salesman will be paid a commission. The aircraft company (or its agent) will cut a check to the salesman based on a claim the salesman has made for the specific sale. The salesman will then deposit the check into a bank account he controls. To facilitate transactions the paying company might place the commission on deposit with the salesman with the expectation that detailed accounting information would be provided as the funds were disbursed. This in its simplest form is a perfectly legal financial transaction and results in "clean money". The salesman is required to submit tax returns on this revenue including any expenses encountered to obtain the sales.
In the airbus case I am not sure at this time that this is what happened. I just have not had the opportunity to review the facts here. But its very likely that one of two things happened - ie that the commissions were paid with clean money or that in fact the commissions were paid secretly with dirty money and without appearing as such on the books of the aircraft company. Lets just make one huge assumption at this time that the funds were paid to the salesman with clean money. Keep in mind too that we are trying to keep this discussion somewhat simplified to aid understanding. A fat book could be and I am sure will be written on it!
OK.
Now, armed with this money, the salesman pays off the expenses associated with obtaining the aircraft sales. It would appear that in the case of Karlheinz Schreiber that he made some cash payments. Now dress me up and call me stupid but think about that. There is only one reason to make a cash vs a check payment and that is to hide the transaction. One could safely conclude that any cash payments represented dirty money. The receivers would not be declaring those funds and they also would not want anybody else knowing that they received the funds or why.
You might want to re-read the previous paragraph. Its not something to skim over. There are some deep thoughts and truths there.
Lets consider cash. I once worked in a bank. I understand cash. The thing that I understand the most is that I never have enough of it. Bank notes are normally arranged in groups of 50 bills and you can place two groups of 50 bills together to make one bundle of 100 bills.
- $20 bills X50 = $1000 number of bundles for $100,000 = 50
- $50 bills X50 = $2500 number of bundles for $100,000 = 20
- $100 bills X50= $5000 number of bundles for $100,000 = 10
Now we see a bit of a problem here. Just how are we going to get 10 bundles of $100 bills into an envelope? Yet the media has been reporting that in the case of Mr. Mulroney an envelope with the $100,000 in it was passed to him. Members of the NDP have more correctly been describing it as a bag of money. Hmmmmm
The bullshit alarm just went off!
Update December 12/2007 I just learned from watching the ethics committee of Karlheize yesterday that in fact $1000 bills were used. As only one bundle of these notes would be required to make $100,000 then in fact a bag would not be required and the suckers would in fact fit in an envelope. It is interesting to note that the RCMP and Attorney General requested that the bills be recalled and this was done by the Bank of Canada in 2000. The reason was that the bills were being widely used in (drum roll please,,,,) money laundering! Ha!
But lets push on. Once a large cash payment has been made consider for a moment how you would feel if you suddenly had $100,000 in cash. How would you feel? I suggest that your very first thought would be almost ecstatic joy because that would have been the most cash (most likely) that you ever had in your entire life. The second thought would be "oh dear" " I need to protect this" "somebody else might steal it"
So almost immediately you are faced with safeguarding your money. If you have access to a secure safe you could put it in there. You could place it into a safe deposit box in any bank for less than $100 a year. In both cases there would be no record of the transaction. You could safeguard your dirty money. If you were incredibly stupid you would immediately deposit the cash into your bank account thus causing a recordable transaction to occur.
It probably would be a good idea to go back and re read the last paragraph again. There is a gem of a thought there. Can you find it?
Exactly! If the person receiving the money deposited it into his bank account he is incredibly stupid or completely honest. There are no other choices. If honest he would declare the income on his income tax returns. If on the on the other hand, he kept the funds in cash and didn't declare it as income -it's a very clear indication that the individual was a true scoundrel and was attempting to hide the source of the money and likely the reason for receiving it. .
What did Mr. Mulroney do with the cash? Why did he receive the payment in cash? Did he keep it as cash or did he deposit the funds to his bank accounts or perhaps did he deposit the funds to somebody else's' bank account or did he give the cash to somebody else to settle a debt? At this point we don't know. We do know that it was reported he failed to declare the income to Revenue Canada until much later. This is a bad sign. But we don't have the complete picture yet. We have just enough of it to be very suspicious of Mr. Mulroney the 18th Prime Minister of Canada.
I think it is possible to make some conclusions at this time concerning the Karlheinz Schreiber affair. These will need to be confirmed later but here goes:
1. Karlheinz Schreiber is not stupid. He was trusted to handle large sums of money and operated several businesses and held positions of responsibility and authority. He rubbed shoulders with some of the world's movers and shakers. He also kept excellent records!
2. Brian Mulroney is not stupid. He was the Prime Minister of Canada, had an illustrious, successful career in politics and business and was one of the great men of his time. At first a lot of people loved him then after two terms in office they hated him and voted his party out of office with a vengeance seldom seen in Canada leaving his replacement the first woman Prime Minister in Canada with zero support and left holding the bag so to speak. The bag, unfortunately, was not full of money. It was full of bull poo.
3. Politics is about power and money. Here we see an insight into how money came into the political realm. Normally this occurs outside of the public vision. Remember, the Prime Minister is paid peanuts in Canada. Although many living expenses are covered while in office a PM-normally well educated and often a professional - makes much less than he or she would make in private life or for than matter than working as say the CEO of a government corporation. It's almost that the system demands the PM is independently wealthy or left pretty much improvised after his term in office if he is not wealthy to start out. In short the system almost forces the PM to look for additional financial assistance as he exits the job and to also look for a soft landing at the end of his term. And how does one live the high life as demanded by the office and raise a family too? Its bullshit. Unfortunately for Mr. Muroney he was not wealthy when he entered or left the job.
4. Its very likely that Karlheinz Schreiber and people like him did in fact pay money to political, business and government officials in return for benefits. This is how business is done. Even on a smaller scale it is not unheard of for a supplier to come around with gifts at Christmas or a bonus or some form of gift -for services rendered. The hourly rated unionized worker normally does not see this although occasionally even they get a voucher for a Christmas turkey or a bottle or some gratuity should the situation warrant it. It really is amazing how much good will a free Christmas turkey will generate in comparison to the feelings of resentment from a worker if presented with a check for $28.32 and as a taxable benefit.
In the case of Karlheinz apparently $10,000,000 in airbus commissions where distributed in Canada. Obviously the $300,000 paid to Mr. Mulroney was a drop in the bucket. Where did the $9,700,000 go? Will the inquiry go into that?
5. Lawyers and Commentators are drooling over this one because they will make millions of dollars in what they can claim is righteous employment. Snouts deeply wedged in the government trough they will perform their jobs with a patriotic passion seldom seen except in times of war or at hockey games.
6. There is now a complex relationship between the Karlheinz Schreiber inquiry and the next federal election in Canada. Since the government is in minority a loss of a confidence vote will generate a general election. Many scenarios are possible. But keep in mind that the objective of all political parties is to either hold their own or gain seats. If they feel this is likely possible they will pull the plug on the government. Personally I support our present Prime Minister as a good and honest leader. I think both Dion and Layton are good, intelligent men but I just can't identify with them and prefer PM Harper. (Some may disagree but they would be wrong!)
7. Where were the RCMP, Revenue Canada the Auditor General and the Justice Department in all this? All four departments cheerfully come down like a ton of bricks on the smallest infraction the average citizen might make. Knock Knock anybody home!
8. That spin doctors are now working full time on these issues and when you watch the spin you get a glimpse of where they want to manipulate your brains. How stupid do they think we are? (surprise we are not THAT stupid!)
9. That a lot of powerful people want Karlheinz Schreiber and his records to disappear. There was a lot more than $300,000 paid out. How much and when and to who? As people in the drug trade often learn when powerful people want you to disappear often you do.
10 Anyone who says he "has nothing to hide" and "has done nothing wrong" is usually lying. I hope that lie detector tests are taken by the main players here. That may sound a bit harsh as they will be under oath but if they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide -what's the risk?
In summary, we are seeing our politicians waist deep in bullshit and sinking fast. Our worst suspicions about their honesty and methods as uncovered in the sponsorship scandal are being confirmed by this affair which at this point seems to link cash and other questionable payments to them for favors rendered with taxpayers assets. Again some financial transactions are perfectly legal- and some are not, some are ethical and some are not.
It would be a mistake to jump to conclusions. But there is such a stench coming from this affair that it must be investigated (at great taxpayer cost) and the truths uncovered. Being of simple mind, I am hoping that the investigation will show that all acted in an honourable or at least reasonably honest fashion. But knowing how greedy people are and having done many financial audits, I am naturally suspicious that the veritable thirty pieces of silver have been paid to several political types and government and private sector employees who may have sold their souls to the devil for the almighty dollar.
No doubt the bullshit will ebb and flow from this for years and several conspiracy theories will be spawned! We may actually find that this case will redefine the very reality of Canada and that we at this moment are on the slippery slope looking down into the abyss. (I hope not!)
"oh dear..."
Update Nov 17/07 Ok....where to start. Lots has happened. Karlheinz has apparently said that he would not co-operate with the investigation if he is extradited to Germany. This is an interesting conundrum. If he doesn't co-operate and given that he is in the best position to shed light on the matters and apparently has the knowledge and records of the events then there can be no effective investigation and thus no successful resolution of the matter. Its just a matter of the application of pure logic. The worrisome thing is that the government benches seem to be indicating that they will allow the extradition to proceed but that somehow Germany will allow access to Karlheinze as necessary. I think the only way one can interpret this is that the government wants to close down any real investigation and the only logic there is that they have more to loose than to gain from one which in turn means that Mr. Mulroney is not the only one involved here and that there is considerably bad more news lying in wait. Its not rocket science its just the application of pure logic and sweet reason.
In short the bullshit alarm has gone off again. I smell a rat. Or a bull. Yes it is definitely a bull and a big honking one!
I wonder what will happen next in Bullshitville? And how much will it cost us?.
Update Nov 22/07 This IS getting interesting. Mr. Luc Lavoie the ex communications director for Mr. Mulroney and skillful media manipulator/spin doctor let some news out. The news is that Brian admitted the cash payments were a "Colossal Mistake" but not illegal. And the "silliest thing" he had ever done. Nothing else of importance was said other than he was apparently "broke" when he left office.. The interesting part is why did he release this information? What effect is he trying to have. And how can a "colossal mistake" not be either ethically or legally wrong? Are they going for the ethically wrong legally right route? It would appear that is the case. It would appear they are trying to link his money woes to his actions in taking the cash. Hmmmm was the cash in Canadian or US dollars? And hmmmm how did they ever manage to stuff that much cash into an "envelope" I am telling you -you need a bag to hold that many $100 bills NOT an envelope. But I guess an "envelope" of money spins better and sounds like less. Quick now what is heavier a ton of lead or a ton of feathers? So what will be the next tid bit to be released? And how stupid do they think we are? And as far as the comment about "silliest" goes that's a term that is associated with something goofy done in jest and an obvious spin technique to lesson the significance of the action. >
Update nov 23,2007 The Commons Committee on Ethics has demanded that Karlheinze and Brian Mulroney appear before them to testify starting next week. We now enter the high drama phase of the debacle. Will he in fact show up? What will he say? What questions will be asked of him? Will those questions also display the biases and objectives each political party has here. Will something happen to prevent the procedure from occurring? Will the disclosures be made in Public so that Mr. Mulroney will have an opportunity to consider approaches to best counter them when he testifies? How will Karlheinze try to manipulate the Committee to increase his chances of staying in Canada longer? And of course how will this inquiry impact the advice given to the PM regarding the full public inquiry to be held later- Will the suggestion then be not to hold it and will that be the real objective here?
And one last point. Money laundering. The RCMP have a very good description of money laundering here. It would be very helpful for the reader to review this information.
I hope the players realize that on one level the facts of this case don't really matter much. We still all have tickets on the SS. Dead Duckie that ghost ship that we board when the magic number comes up and we cease our rides around the sun and then sail off into oblivion. No matter our wealth or background deeds or whatever we all get on that old boat and I understand there are no first class tickets either. No doubt we will see Brian and Karlheinze there sitting on deck chairs jawing about old times while sucking back nice cold beers. Perhaps other souls will visit and ask for autographs. Or..I suppose there is the possibility that Hell truly exists and both Brian and Karlheinze will be down there stripped to the waist shoveling treasury bills into the boilers of hell for eternity with no beer or snacks. A sad end indeed for two over achievers.
Update November 30/2007
I watched yesterday's Ethics committee interrogation of Karlheinze Schreiber -all of it. I also listened to the commentary from our correspondents. All of that too! I am beginning to see the problems the correspondents face in summing up a complicated situation in a few words that the average person might understand. In other words how do you dumb down three hours of testimony to a 15 second clip? The answer is that it can't be done. The best I can do here is refer to a few points made -watch the entire interview if you want more detail.
One thing that was very clear is that the Conservatives are striving to smear Schreiber and are all speaking from the same song sheet to obtain their objective. It is painfully obvious that they have much to loose and much to hide and much to gain by having the process fail. I find this very disappointing as I went into this trusting them. Now the radar is turned on and we will see what we will see. Remember the conservatives are the governing party and they have access to the levers of power and you can make a lot of things happen when you control those levers and nobody will ever know how. A phone call here a nod there a frown here will set in motion all sorts of evil behavior and its all legal.
Another observation was that the (Liberal) chair of the committee Paul Szabo is under incredible stress as he deals with people who are acting like -for lack of a more appropriate term- first class a-holes. I don't know how he does it and you can sense the toll it is taking on the poor man. He just doesn't get paid enough to put up with this bullshit. I think he has been doing a very good job in a situation that time may prove is totally impossible.. . I note that Mr. Szabo is a Chartered Accountant and has an MBA and BSc so the man has a pretty impressive brain and its not surprising that he has risen to the challenge of this position he finds himself in. Well done Paul!
The NDP are clearly seeing this as an opportunity to be perceived as the white knights while the duelling liberals and conservatives strive to hide bribes and questionable behaviour from the public. Its clear they are out to score points. Its just too obvious. The fact that nobody gave them money is more a reflection of their low level of importance on the national scene that it is on their morals.
There was little in the form of new information that was released by Mr. Schrieber but there were a few interesting statements. One that the correspondents didn't pick up on was his comment when asked why he paid in cash. He said because "it was available". When you marry this snippet with a correspondent's report that his bank statements showed several millions of withdrawals in cash the light goes on. That is that Mr. Schrieber may have been making cash payments as a regular procedure -not just the cash payments he made to Mr. Mulroney. This raises the obvious question -did he actually make millions of dollars of cash payments to politicians public servants and business people in order to grease the wheels for the companies he represented. It would appear this might be the case. The entire Canadian psyche is based on a type of hypocritical smugness continually broadcast by the CBC that everything here is operated on a fair, good and honest basis -unlike other areas in the world and this testimony could bring the entire house of cards crashing down.
Yet the nature of commerce is that players exchange money and favors for advantages and favors. It's been like that since year one. In fact the World Bank reported that bribes last year exceeded one trillion dollars in world commerce. Its a fact! Its sometimes called "sharing the pie." Others not familiar with business reality call it crime and corruption. A golden rule of business is that you leave enough in a deal for the other guy. Otherwise he never comes back. This may be a turning point in Canadian history. In summary I think this might be important bullshit as opposed to the run of the mill bullshit we face every day.
Mr. Schreiber states that he won't answer questions until he has access to his papers. Seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable that he be kept in house arrest as that's where the papers are. How they would expect the man to function from a jail cell is beyond me. If placed in his situation I would probably say the same thing. And making him wear an orange jump suit, cuffs and shackles is way over the top. He also wanted some indication of the questions so he could prepare for them. Again sounds pretty reasonable to me.
If I understand this correctly Mr. Schreiber had not been convicted of anything in Canada. Could be wrong there but that is my understanding. He is a Canadian citizen. As it stands he has not been convicted of anything in Germany either. So why is he being treated as a dangerous criminal? And then expected to fully comply with a parliamentary committee? And they want him to offer up ALL his personal papers!!! This seems a bit unreasonable. The low point in all this was when Karlheinze went to his home to retrieve some papers and because the man didn't allow him to wear a belt his pants fell down in full view of all the tv cameras. Gimme a break -a 73 year old man being treated like this. Its bullshit!
There is a wonderful opportunity here for Canadians to learn how business and politics merge at the highest levels. Lets call it the new reality. Will that happen? We will need to wait to find out!
Also had a chance to listen to the Eddie Greenspan (Karlheinze's lawyer) interview as he exited court today. If you ever need a REALLY good lawyer obviously here is the man. Pretty impressive. Interesting that he certainly inferred that it was his judgment (and instructions) that Karlheinze should not have talked at yesterday's committee other than to read the prepared statement. With all lawyers when they talk to the press they are drumming up business for the next case but one really must admire the man's abilities. Pretty smooth dude!
Finally it is a little scary to consider how much this is all costing. Not just the costs of the committee process but also the costs in productivity associated with millions of Canadians spending time following the story when they could be doing better things. I suggest that when all is said and done it will take over a billion dollars of time and money to put this one to rest. Several million will go to the lawyers and correspondents and politicians and public servants who are working on the case and hundreds of millions will be represented by lost productivity as Canadians tune in and follow and discuss it. There are hundreds of problems much more important than this affair that will need to wait as time and resources are diverted to deal with it. Academics will devote careers on this case. Authors will write books about it. Some dorks will even include it on their websites!
opps better go now...
Update December 1/07 So today Brian Mulroney's communication man pulled the plug on him after 15 years of service. He is also the vp at Quebecor where Brian is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Apparently Brian had introduced the president of Quebecor to the Industry Minister re cell phone service. This is called lobbying but Brian was not a registered lobbyist. Oh dear! Not again! Shakespeare couldn't have written better drama than this. Oh that it has come to this. (Hamlet I think...)
Update December 4th, 2007
Watched the entire Schreiber Ethics Committee event today. The impression this jovial senior citizen makes is good. He seems honest, he certainly is intelligent, has a sense of humour, sincere and dare I say -likeable! He also manages to stand up for himself exceptionally well and when you consider the folks in the room were pretty intelligent and had some pretty tough questions. He had that ring of truth to him. At first glance it also looked like he confirmed that Brian Mulroney did nothing illegal which was interesting given that a lot of people just hate his guts and were hoping for something nasty about the man. Unfortunately Mr. Mulroney is the type of guy you love to hate. I am not sure why. The reference to "lyin Brian" was possibly one reason he has this effect on people.
When in a flourish Karlheinze gave several books of documents to the committee it was an amazing display of showmanship. And again I think most would agree that the Chairman Mr. Szabo did a fine and impressive job.
We have some very impressive correspondents and political commentators who will spend the next few days trying to figure out what happened here so it will be very interesting to watch!
Update December 7th 2007 (day of infamy) Woops I did it again!! Yes I listened to the entire Karlheinze Schreiber ethics committee interview yesterday. I am beginning to see some very interesting developments and trends.
First of all I can see now why Canadians are ill informed. The history of the event is told almost completely differently depending on the political orientation of the person commenting. For example to a man the conservatives are out to smear Karlheinze and question the entire process. I find the line of questioning and demeanour of David Tilson and Russ Hiebert to be rude and objectionable. Now both are intelligent men and both are lawyers. Clearly their line of questioning is calculated to destroy Karlheinze and just as clearly to date it hasn't worked -for a 73 old man he is more than holding his own. (he makes them look somewhat slow!)
Secondly, I've noticed that commentators seem to be missing some points I thought were pretty important. As an example for the first time Karlheinze explained why cash payments were made. I think it went over most peoples heads! They just didn't get it. The reason he gave was that these sorts of payments had to be made in a professional manner in cash with no records of the transaction because otherwise the person receiving the money would be subject to the possibility of blackmail at a later date. This makes a lot of sense to me. In a sentence or two he explained how it was done not just by himself but in a generic sense. In short he gave the best practices for this type of activity. This is amazing information. But not one person saw the significance of it. The one commentator that did mention the incident got it backwards that the risk of blackmail was against the person giving the money. In fact it was the other way around, Duhhhhhhh! Dumkoff!
Thirdly I've noticed some commentators referring to the incredible complexity of the case. I don't think so. Its pretty straight forward. Not rocket science as they say. And the mountain of documentation is only 3500 pages. That's not a lot of documentation. Its not even a small file cabinet full. Its a three or four hour skim read unless you are really stupid. Big deal! I could do it in an hour or less but I learned speed reading while at University. Not that I want to brag or anything. (The University of Guelph the best university in Canada!!!!)
One member of the committee started babbling on about the fact that this is not the Canadian way of doing things. I felt sorry for him. He was obviously so naive on the subject as to be embarrassing. The reality of bribes, rewards and bonuses is very well established in Canadian and world economies. The world bank reports over a trillion dollars in bribes were paid in the world last year. Time to get with the program. The bottom line is that people are paid incentives to make certain things happen. To say that its not the Canadian way is to admit ones stupidity on the subject. Even Revenue Canada auditors are paid incentives in the form of preferred positions when they do well! Our Olympic athletes are going to be paid money for medals won. Lets call it success money! The same term they are using in the inquiry with Karlheinze! Ha!
The most interesting revelation was that its alleged that Fred Doucet asked Karlheinze to place airbus success money in Brian Mulroney's lawyer's swiss bank account. Karlheinze said that this came as a absolute shock to him because he was unaware of anything that Mulroney had done with Airbus. When he questions it he is accused of being "naive." And then told to leave the matter alone that they would deal with it. OK if these allegations can be confirmed AND if it can be confirmed that Brian was involved in the airbus success payments then we have an entirely different situation. Karlheize admitted that he didn't have any detail on the payments if in fact there were any. Now the allegation that a request had come to him to deposit the amount to Brian's Swiss lawyer is a bombshell. And Fred Doucet replied by issuing a statement which included
"...In testimony before the ethics committee today, Mr. Schreiber alleged that I requested that he approach the late Frank Moores and the late Gary Ouelette to request that they forward monies held by G.C.I. to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney to his alleged lawyer in Geneva. This statement is false. A similar allegation made in an affidavit sworn by Karlheinz Schreiber on the 7th of November, 2007 is also false...".
Its clear to see here that only two likely conditions exist:
1. Karlheinze is lying and Fred Doucet is telling the truth or
2. Karlheinze is telling the truth and Fred Doucet is lying.
The complicating factor is that both Mr. Moores and Mr. Ouelette are both dead and therefore cannot confirm or deny the event if it did or did not occur. To me this looks like a pretty crucial bit of information and its possible that whatever leads from this will shed a lot of light on the overall situation including the degree of innocence or guilt of Mr. Mulroney.
Finally there is a painfully obvious turf war going on between the lawyers and the committee. Like Accountants who incorrectly feel that they are masters of finance and are the only ones qualified to do or say anything of importance about the subject- Lawyers are pissed off that some other group is investigating a topic where legality and ethics are involved. Lawyers feel this is their exclusive turf. As a result they have mocked the committee and questioned its ability. The ironic fact here is that the committee is doing a heck of a good job and quickly getting to the point.
Since the event many commentators have voiced opinions on what occurred. The silliest opinions seem to be those who comment on the political bias and obvious agendas of certain political party members and then they take one of the points made as a fact! A bias is a bias and it would normally make any biased "fact" suspect. For the pure logic of this go and visit my page where I reveal the formula for bullshit.
More than anything else I am learning that commentators who have a political bias cannot be trusted to describe truth. Since they work in the media the media cannot be trusted to share the truth. This is just a little worrisome! Because if the media is not reporting the truth then (insert drum roll here .........) then its all bullshit!
It all starts up again on Tuesday 11th followed by Mr. Mulroney on Thursday.
Update December 12/07 I watched all of yesterdays interview at the Ethics Committee. Karlheinze is doing a great service to Canada by explaining how government and the private sector works especially when big dollars are involved. In effect he has opened the Pandora's box which nearly all Canadians, most media and even many politicians have absolutely no clue about.
Today he was combative and again for a 73 old man he certainly was not wilting under the so called pressure of this committee interview. He reminded members several times that questions had already been answered. He advised them politely but firmly that they simply had no concept of what was going on and I suspect he was right. He was the picture of a man in charge telling the story as it was with a ring of truth. The effect on the committee members was very interesting to watch - they dropped the rude combative attitude and simply asked the questions. I suspect they got a lot of negative e-mail from people but that's just a guess. Karlheinze is a very impressive person and I am now convinced he has a story to tell that we would all be wise to listen to and learn from.
After listening to the commentators I again realize the political, partisan and biased content they are spewing out. How stupid do they think we are? I will never trust a political "expert" again to interpret any political event to me in the media. Although to be fair I do see that the CTV and CBC political anchors are making an attempt to present both sides of the story!
Another interesting development. Apparently when Brian Mulroney testifies on Thursday his wife and four children will be present in the room. Its not immediately clear why. The obvious reason would be to support him. There is always a reason why people do things. Normally they act in a certain way to generate a benefit. Now what is the benefit of having your entire family in the room with you when you testify? Would this tend to modify questions from members out of respect to the family? Would this tend to generate a level of sympathy for the individual? Would this indicate that the charges are so serious that family support is required to prevent an emotional collapse? Do all of the above apply? Will the family be used as props? Its difficult to decide if this is simply a wonderful example of Canadian family support or a dreadful attempt to manipulate events by diverting attention from possible wrongdoings to a more positive view of this ex Prime Ministers' life. Mr. Mulroney has a very attractive wife, and excellent kids. But that is not the point here. So it will be very interesting to watch on December 12th. Mr. Mulroney has had a lot of time to prepare and has the advantage of seeing all the testimony to date.
Update December 13/07 Oh Boy! I watched the entire Brian Mulroney interview. Basically he said Karlheinze was lying about everything except in the several situations where he commented that Mulroney had done nothing wrong. Brian infers that in those cases he was telling the truth. Mr. Mulroney sounds like he is lying. That ring of truth that jurors look for to tell just what the truth is -is absent. Yes he was an impressive talker but not impressive enough to prevent all those red flags popping up as you listened to him. The story line about the cash was beyond belief. Not only did he admit taking the cash he also admitted to placing it in a safety deposit account rather than a bank account. The only reason one places money in a safety deposit box is to hide it. Now lets do the math. You would loose someplace between 8 and 10% on the cash if it just sat in a safety deposit box for a year. You would loose about 2.4% for inflation. The ONLY reason for keeping cash in a safety deposit box is that you want to hide it from prying eyes. The taxman has prying eyes. So do the media. But they cannot see into your safety deposit account. And Brian spent most of his energy trying to destroy the character of Karlheinze simply because he knows that if people believe him he (Brian) is in deep do-do.
The other observation painfully obvious is that the conservative reps on the committee were clearly -too clearly- asking staged questions for their man Brian to answer. AGAIN how stupid do they think we are? I think by being so obvious about it the Conservatives are turning a lot of voters off. Not good.
I am also starting to respect some correspondents more than when this all started. Mike Duffy CTV and Don Newman CBC are both pretty good. (Even Mansbridge seems ok) Even Craig Oliver is starting to make sense to me! (good grief!)
So we are at a point where Brian and Karlheinze are both saying opposite things. Who is lying the most? Who is more believable? At this point in time my opinion is that Karlheinze is more believable and is in fact giving the Canadian public some excellent quality information on how things work in Ottawa. Interesting to note that Karlheinze offered to take a polygraph. Brian Mulroney made no such offer.
Now this is NOT a court of law and there is no way for sure to determine guilt or innocence of either man. All this process does is to place both in the public spotlight and allow the viewer to take a measure of the men and form an opinion. The public inquiry has a much better chance of success in determining the truth.
Overall, its a sad situation for both men and both families. Somewhere in there two powerful locomotives went off the tracks. Both of these men are smarter and more successful than 90% of the population but what a mess they find themselves in! "Oh that it should come to this" -hamlet. As we sit back in our comfy armchairs and watch this drama unfold. Two aging gladiators clanging away at one another. When they should be sitting back in comfy high backed chairs tugging on a Cuban and sipping on some good scotch- thinking about past triumphs and telling tall tales to the young. I think both men could tell great stories.
so what will happen next then? stay tuned!
Apparently Karlheinze said he was disgusted by Brian's testimony and wondered how he lived with himself. I have an answer. Brian Mulroney has been caught. He is now doing everything he can to protect himself and his family from his actions. If that means an elaborate if unbelievable ruse then he will do it. It's just not in his nature to drop the hyperbole and fess up. His ego is too big and the stakes are too high. He would be dropped like a hot potato from his numerous directorships and face financial and social ruin. So, the irony of all this is that although it has been pointed out numerous times by Brian and the Conservatives that Karlheinze is capable of doing anything to stay out of Germany its obvious to anyone with a brain that Brian is working just as hard to save his sorry self. In a way - it's all pretty funny, in another -pretty sad.
So the Bullshit alarm has been sounded. Its out there! We just aren't sure which corner of the ring its pointing to at this point.
Update January 16,2008 Nothing much to report at this time. Apparently there will be an inquiry and it will be a narrow focus AFTER the Ethics Committee is finished. That's of course if there isn't an election in which case everything stops. Here is a thought for you. When the powerful wish something to happen it almost always does. So working backwards but looking forward (yes it does make sense) - whatever does happen will be a function of the manipulation the powerful have laid on us. Our only hope is to figure out what the rascals are doing. Sometimes you can figure that one out by watching what they are doing. Because they don't do anything without a reason. Clear as mud eh! I am left with the opinion that some people must think the public is incredibly stupid. Not true!
Update Feb 25/2008
I watched the entire Ethics Committee again today. There are certain advantages to being retired and having some free time that you can do anything you want to in.
After watching the committee members perform several times you get a bit of a feel about what kind of people they are. You get to see past the obvious political stuff and get some measure of their character. None of these people are stupid. The opposite is true -they are actually all pretty intelligent. And you can see the strain and effort they are taking to understand the testimony and ask pertinent questions. Its not easy to do and I can see too -not easy for a correspondent to summarize and report on. Mixed with the drama of the situation in which reputations and finances are at stake there is humour and I think a typical Canadian approach and response to the event. It seems that they are all there to play a part. Ok so much for that - what did we learn?
Elmer McKay is one powerful, confident dude. He was careful to continue to maintain his friendship with both Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schrieber. It was amusing to hear that both men were phoning him incessantly bitching about the other and trying to find out what the other was thinking and doing. . It sounded like a couple of old ladies (no disrespect). My impression was that Mr. McKay was telling the truth. He admitted he didn't know who was telling the truth. He pistol whipped the Chair for being unprofessional and got him removed for the interview. Probably a good lesson for the Chair who did apologize for some comments and facial expressions. We learned that Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schrieber were engaged in a bitter personal fight and there was some confusion in there just who was to blame. But we knew that already. I guess what we really learned was that Mr. McKay was not willing to take sides with Mr. Mulroney (or Mr. Schrieber) and that was perhaps the most interesting thing learned from him other than the gossipy things about them bitching about each other. Next, Mr. Schrieber.
Its even more clear that Mr. Schrieber is an intelligent, successful individual. He is very impressive. To me he has the ring of truth to him, something I don't detect with Mr. Mulroney. He is also funny. When he said he had a gun and forced Mr. Mulroney to take the money that was hilarious even though the committee tried its best to ignore that one and press on. In his opening statement Mr. Schrieber refuted Mr. Mulroney's claims and it sounded reasonable to me. The comments about WardAir and their deal with the govt if they bought Airbus sounded very interesting too. If they bought airbus that would force Air Canada and Canadian to buy airbus to compete and that would also lead to American carriers buying Airbus. I don't recall any of those details in the media of the day so this is all news to me. Also the links between the government of the day and the friends of the government of the day getting benefits was interesting. The country might owe a big debt to Mr. Schrieber by the time its all over! He has opened that Pandora's box where the elected government ensures its friends receive preferential government business- something that we had suspected all along but which now is being dragged into the public spotlight.
I can visualize a geriatric Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schrieber in an old age home wailing away at each other with canes and drooling. They are getting close to that now! Grumpy old men.
They say that you can tell a lot about a man by his dog so I have obtained pictures of both men's dogs. (This has not been an easy task_
Mr.Shrieber's dog would look like this....
Mr. Mulroney's dog can be seen here.
Link to the other page on Mr. Mulroney
LINKS
Globe and Mail $300,000 payments and taxes
Andrew Coyne .com blog envelopes of cash
National Post Mulroney Air Bus cash
The Last Amigo: Karlheinz Schreiber and the Anatomy of a Scandal book by Stevie Cameron
RickMercer.com funny!
OK OK get me back to the index page please!!
© 2007,2008 CanadianBullshit.com
Web Design SuperiorWebs.com
