Foul deeds will rise

Part II: The cook, the thief, his wife & her lamp shades

2008-02-22T20:31:00.000-08:00

François Martin, Brian Mulroney's former chef presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 7. Martin was called before the Committee to confirm or deny reports that he witnessed, "cash [coming] in like it was falling from the sky" at 24 Sussex. The following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. This is the second half of Martin's testimony--return to the first half by clicking here: Part I.

The cook, the thief, his wife & her lamp shades

5:17 PM
Martin (NDP): we have no questions for this witness other than to thank him for attending.

Del Mastro (CPC): thank you for appearing today. Know it was inconvenient. Don't be intimidated by questions. Can you tell us what involvement or first hand knowledge you have about Bear Head Project (BHP)?

François Martin: none. Sorry.

Del Mastro (CPC): Can you tell us what involvement or first hand knowledge you have about purchase of Airbus (AB) by Air Canada?

François Martin: same answer, none. I'm better at cooking than I am at that stuff.

Del Mastro (CPC): Can you tell us what involvement or first hand knowledge you have about consulting agreement between Brian Mulroney (BM) and Karlheinz Schreiber (KHS)?

François Martin: only what I know from media. Nothing else.

Del Mastro (CPC): Can you tell us what involvement or first hand knowledge you have about correspondence from PCO to PMO re: KHS to current PM Harper?

François Martin: none, none at all.

Del Mastro (CPC): I'm satisfied that you have no information to share w/this cmte about the BHP, AB or the consulting agreement, or btwn KHS and Harper.
(grumbling from somewhere)

Del Mastro (CPC): No, no! I have time. I'd like to remind the chair, and members of this cmte of the directive we agreed to---examinations of ethical code of conduct, to review matters relating to BM AB settlement...including allegations related to BM by KHS and handling of correspondence between PCO and PMO. Mr Martin, on behalf of myself (??), I'd like to apologize to you for the ordeal you've had to go through....it was most unnecessary. And I remind all my colleagues that they should exercise due consideration when they are doing this to a witness. I have nothing further! (smug bastard)
5:20 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): Ooooookaaaay...well, Mr. Del Mastro, maybe I should at least remind you that the witness list was approved by the comte in December. (grumbling from CPC) I understand that the conservatives did not suggest ANY witnesses for the purposes of this cmte, but as a cmte, we had a process list, and it was agreed. Sometimes witnesses are misquoted. Mr. Martin has found that this has happened to him.

Szabo (chair, LPC): M. Martin, have you ever met KHS?

François Martin: not that I remember, no

Szabo (chair, LPC): up till 89, you never saw KHS at 24 Sussex?

François Martin: I don't remember that gentleman. Perhaps w/my agenda, menus, he might show up there, but I was responsible for working in kitchen.

Hubbard (LPC): as the chef there, you were responsible for kitchen and looking after guests. You must've done a very good job, b/c you worked so long and people spoke very highly of you. Did you have a budget or how did you manage your activities?

François Martin: I had an unlimited budget-carte blanche...

Hubbard (LPC): (laughing) we had Mr. Spector here. Do you watch this at all? Too busy? Watch news, watch TV about all this KHS and BM thing?

François Martin: I watched 6 o'clock news w/Norman Spector

Hubbard (LPC): when Mr. Spector came, there was a Mr. Pratt who told him to be careful about what he told the cmte. Pratt is a very high-priced lawyer who works for BM. Did you get a letter like that, telling you to be careful about what you say?

François Martin: I didn't receive anything. I would have told you, here.

Hubbard (LPC): it wouldn't be sitting in a box somewhere? (chuckling) (FM laughs too) It amuses me that Norman Spector got a warning. I'm like Del Mastro in that I appreciate your coming, but we had all sorts of evidence about money being transferred to 24 Sussex and they alluded to fact that someone was bringing cash over. Mr. Spector even left accounts here showing some of that money spent on lamp-shades--nearly every week they bought a new lamp-shade! (HUH?! That's some hard partyin'!). A lot of covers, and so on...lot of damages...when you worked there, did you have any evidence of wild parties and things being broken?

François Martin: No.

Hubbard (LPC): want to thank you for coming and glad you have a good job where you are.

5:25 PM
Ménard (BQ): Just one question. I think everyone's curious: did you ever meet Stevie Cameron?

François Martin: yes

Ménard (BQ): did you ever speak to her?

François Martin: yes

Ménard (BQ): did you tell her what had happened?

François Martin: yes

Ménard (BQ): what you told Cameron...is that what she wrote?

François Martin: no. What I said today was true. She turned what I told her into prose.

Ménard (BQ): well, I wouldn't call that prose when you talk about numerous envelopes of money, that's not what you've told us today. You said it happened only once. That's what you told Stevie Cameron?

François Martin: yes. Told her I had 1500 petty cash and that I'd also gone to pick up envelope from Fred Doucet's office.

Ménard (BQ): so you must have been very astonished by what she'd written

François Martin: yes, I was.

Ménard (BQ): she was lying, then?

François Martin: she certainly changed my story

Ménard (BQ): ok, that's all I wanted to know

Szabo (chair, LPC): in December, when we composed witness list, the process was to comm. w/each of received witnesses. Do you recall telephone conversations w/asst clerk, "Julia?" Julia's the asst clerk, and her job is basically to find out your availability and times when you would be travelling, etc. She makes very detailed notes and on review of those notes, the first time she contacted you, you told her you wouldn't come, is that right?

François Martin: yes, b/c I was very busy. It was the end of the year.

Szabo (chair, LPC): the quotation was that "you were very disgusted by what was going on at 24 Sussex and that you didn't even want to talk about it." That's correct?

François Martin: I said 'disgusted'? Yes, I may have said that.

Szabo (chair, LPC): I know you didn't want to come. I know that you were disgusted with what was there, and as a consequence, you worked long hours, you needed to get out of there, and you did. What did you find so disgusting about working at 24 Sussex? I remind you that you're under oath. I don't know if anyone's tried to coach you on your witnessing, but I think it's important that you answer.

Del Mastro (CPC): (angry) Point of Order! How is that related?

Szabo (chair, LPC): He's a witness! (to Del Mastro) You're debating! Not a point of order.

Szabo (chair, LPC): (calmly to FM) Mr. Martin, could you try to answer for us?

5:30 PM
François Martin: I was young at the time. I was 24 when I came to 24 Sussex. And at one point, I found that there was a lot of spending...the style of living was extravagant and the style didn't suit me, so I decided to go practise my profession elsewhere. That's all. I was a professional and wanted to do something different.

Szabo (chair, LPC): It's important for you to be on the record as to why you responded to Julia that way. Your answer seems perfectly reasonable. I thank you for being here. I will excuse you now.

François Martin: (leaves)

Szabo (chair, LPC): colleagues, you've received a document from Clerk regarding powers to call for records. Gives you info regarding our ability to subpoena tax returns, etc. Any questions?

Wallace (CPC): If motion comes up to subpoena, I would like the law clerk to be there.

Szabo (chair, LPC): absolutely. This is just FYI document.

*adjourned*

Stay tuned for: Schreiber's attorney, Marc Lalonde; GCI & Bear Head Industries hack Greg Alford; former Mulroney crony, Fred Doucet!
Or...return to Part I: "The cook, the thief, his wife & her envelopes").
Lampshade kitteh adapted from a Birthday card I received from Mr. Kitty (Avanti Press Inc, photo by Michelle Reynard, 2007)
Smug Del Mastro created by moi--including the shitty halo (I don't have a very steady hand with that paintbrush, yet).

Part I: The cook, the thief, his wife & her envelopes

2008-02-22T17:22:00.000-08:00

The cook, the thief, his wife & her envelopes

4:58 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): our next witness is M François Martin, the former chef in PM Mulroney's official residence, 24 Sussex. He held that position for four years and resigned in 1989. Good afternoon, M Martin. Take your time. This is an information meeting. The cmte is doing a study and we are trying to gather info relating to ethical conduct and rules. This is a cmte of parliament and it's normal practice for us to swear-in witness. Anything you say is protected, and can't be used against you in any way. Asst. Clerk will swear you in.
(M. Martin is wearing a grey, informal long-sleeved shirt that is open; first three buttons undone?!)
(M. Martin is sworn in)

Szabo (chair, LPC): ok, now that you're sworn in, the question on everybody's minds is...(smiling in a really goofy, slightly embarrassed way) You are now with the world-renowned Cirque du Soleil correct?

François Martin: yes

Szabo (chair, LPC): what do you do?

François Martin: I work for the head office in Montréal.

Szabo (chair, LPC): I want to take this slow and I want you to relax. (Where have I heard THAT before, lol). Anyone who comes before the cmte for first time wonders about the process...you were here during part of M Lavoie's testimony and observed that...you should know that M Lavoie has been here for many, many years and knows this process well (!!!) Want you to understand that this isn't a court. We're conducting a study. Want to better understand a pretty complicated situation. Your position, working at 24 Sussex, having occasion to see, hear things...know who came around...might help us understand relationships among many people. You're one of many witnesses, so I don't expect that you're going to help us in broad ways but I have a feeling that the kinds of things you can tell us will give us a good sense. Any testimony or evidence you give is protected by parliamentary priv. Can't be used against you at all. Because you were an employee, from all we know, you did a very good job for the PM at the time. We've asked you here to help us and that's exactly why you're here. Express your opinions and feelings freely. Answer to the best of your ability. We'll try to take time to properly explain ourselves. Any questions?

François Martin: not really, but it was about 20 yrs ago, so I'll try my best to remember.

Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Dhaliwal will ask you a few questions.

5:04 PM
Dhaliwal (LPC): I'm interested in you describing the details of your handling cash at 24 Sussex during your employment. You would pick up envelopes of cash for BM's office, is that correct?

François Martin: no, I didn't pick up envelopes for PMO. Once I picked up an envelope from an office, which was Fred Doucet's at the time. A brown envelope that I brought back to 24 Sussex

Dhaliwal (LPC): what was in the envelope?

François Martin: I have no idea. I was going into the office at Langevin bldg. I remember b/c before that, Mrs. Mulroney had asked me to make a deposit of 10K in the Bank of Montreal. On Sparks, behind Longevin. I deposited the 10K, and then did errands. I remember that Doucet envelope, b/c it looked similar to the one given me by Mrs M, but I have no idea what was in the envelope.

Dhaliwal (LPC): you said there was lots of cash at 24 Sussex when you worked there. Is that true?

François Martin: a lot of money where? Don't understand the question.

Dhaliwal (LPC): at 24 Sussex Dr.

François Martin: I had a 1500$ petty cash for the two residences at the time. Don't remember any other money circulating or moving around. Nothing of the sort. (Wow...this is interesting)

Dhaliwal (LPC): there was a special safe that was installed in your office to handle or hold cash-can you confirm that?

François Martin: I can confirm that there was a safe in my office, but I don't know what was in it.

Dhaliwal (LPC): (sorry--missed question b/c the English-sound-channel was still muted when the translator finished w/Martin's answer. Grrrr!)

François Martin: the PM and his asst Rick Morgan

Dhaliwal (LPC): who kept track of money coming in and out of safe? Morgan?

François Martin: to my knowledge, yes, but those are the people who used safe. Don't know if it was money or documents or what. I was busy running two kitchens and organizing staff. I didn't have my ear to the door, listening to what was going on.

Dhaliwal (LPC): you said earlier that the envelope from Doucet--same or similar envelope that you deposited into Bank of Montreal?

François Martin: similar to an envelope, ONCE, for Mrs. M, in a bank acct that belonged to her. I see nothing illegal in that. It was an ordinary errand that I was running.
(it is becoming clear that Martin is not going to confirm Stevie Cameron's story, at least not today)

Dhaliwal (LPC): did you do other banking, aside from this, for Mrs. M?

François Martin: no, never

Dhaliwal (LPC): did you have any other dealings in cash, flowing from Mr. M?

François Martin: no

Dhaliwal (LPC): did you see any of the following...Jerry Doucet?

François Martin: don't remember. No idea.

Dhaliwal (LPC): Schreiber?

François Martin: don't remember, either. Sorry, it was years ago...

Dhaliwal (LPC): (missed it)

François Martin: don't remember. Perhaps. I have my date book and menus for all the dinners that I could pass on to you, but I don't remember names exactly of the people.

Dhaliwal (LPC): I'd ask for those records to be given to us

Szabo (chair, LPC): which records?

Dhaliwal (LPC): for those dinners...

Szabo (chair, LPC): you have to be WAY more specific...he worked there for four years...let's be reasonable. What are you looking for?

Dhaliwal (LPC): go through his records, these are the names of people seen at 24 Sussex Dr.

Szabo (chair, LPC): is that clear enough? Is it with respect to specific functions? Political? Visitors?

Thibault (LPC): point of order? (acknowledged by chair) perhaps I can recommend that we don't move on this now, and in the future we can decide what docs to ask people for

Szabo (chair, LPC): that sounds like a good approach. Moving on...

5:11 PM
Ménard (BQ): You say that once Mr. Doucet gave an envelope, but you didn't know what was in it.

François Martin: right. That happened once, when I went up to his office

Ménard (BQ): and once, at Mrs. M's request, you had an envelope w/10K to deposit

François Martin: that just happened once.

Ménard (BQ): Ok. Not several times. You know that all kinds of stuff has been written about you....

François Martin: yes

Ménard (BQ): ALLLLLL sorts of things (smiling mischieviosly).

François Martin: no, I've heard some reports, but...

Ménard (BQ): I'll bet you're interested in what people are saying about you...

François Martin: No, not really (smiling)

Ménard (BQ): we were told that you had said that the 'cash fell from heaven' at 24 Sussex. Is that true?

François Martin: yes, that's true...well, I'm from a family of 8 kids. So it wasn't an extravagant lifestyle. So I'm sure I said it was an adjustment to come into a place like that...
Ménard (BQ): you were reported that it was CASH money that was moving around, as if from heaven

François Martin: no, no...there were expenses, accts all over Ottawa for my purchasing, etc, but I didn't see CASH moving around the house, so to speak

Ménard (BQ): I'm sure there were major receptions, so you needed large budgets for those. When you did that, was it the Mulroneys who paid or the gov?

François Martin: I have no idea. I submitted my invoices and received cash or from open accts. The invoice was sent to someone (probably in gov) who paid for it. I really don't know how it worked administratively

Ménard (BQ): it was reported that you said that Mrs. M regularly asked you to transport envelopes from PCO

François Martin: no.

Ménard (BQ): that's wrong?

François Martin: inaccurate

Ménard (BQ): it was also reported that you said Mrs. M gave you a number of envelopes of cash to deposit in Wellington branch of Bank of Montreal. But there was only one envelope. Did you say to someone, "But it's not true!"

François Martin: by "someone," who do you mean? Yes, I told the people around me. Did I challenge the article? The answer is no.

Ménard (BQ): did you speak about it w/Mulroney family?

François Martin: no, I didn't defend myself

Ménard (BQ): and how did you defend yourself against lies?

François Martin: there was no point. People can say what they like. Lots of reports, for e.g. that I wasn't on good terms w/Mrs. M, but that wasn't true; we were on very good terms when I was there. So there's just no end to it.

Ménard (BQ): since this cmte has been sitting, and you knew you would be appearing, has anyone contacted you about what you might say to this committee? No one has contacted you?

François Martin: yes, numerous journalists contacted me, but I never returned calls. La Presse, G&M, numerous papers.

Ménard (BQ): anyone from BM's entourage, directly or indirectly?

François Martin: no, not at all. None.

Ménard (BQ): alright. And now you apparently saw BM take something out of a safety deposit box that was as big as a refrigerator...

François Martin: but I don't know that it was money. It was always envelopes, could be documents...

Ménard (BQ): were you always there when BM took things out of the safety deposit box?

François Martin: do you mean as large as a fridge? It was about 4' tall

Ménard (BQ): no further questions

Coming up next: Part II ("The cook, the thief, his wife & her lamp shades"). Or, return to Lavoie's testimony (Part I)
Revolting, sexist blender ad via The Daily Mail

Lavoie testimony, Part VI: A high-maintenance relationship

2008-02-21T03:29:00.000-08:00

Former Mulroney Dep. Chief of Staff and ~~PR flack~~ Communications Director Luc Lavoie presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 7. The following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. This is the final installment of the Lavoie testimony. To return to the beginning of this series, click here: Part I.

A high-maintenance relationship

4:38 PM
Lavallée (BQ): when we look and see who benefitted, we see that the letter of request (LOR) to Swiss authorities, we see that the only people who benefitted from LOR were the people around BM, b/c indeed it allowed him to collect 2.1 mill. Do you know the name of the person who leaked that LOR?

Luc Lavoie: I don't know. The settlement in Jan 97 said that the inquiry would be continued. There was more than one leak. 5 leaks.

Lavallée (BQ): but the first leak, to Financial Post..

Luc Lavoie: (interrupting) excuse me, that was not the first leak. The first was written by Agence France Presse (AFP), then Der Spiegel, then Maclean's. At that time, we were monitoring to see which leak would be the first to be published. Friday, Nov 17 5pm, a journalist I didn't know called BM's office, it was referred to me, and he spoke about leak, and we gave a short stmt prepared by lawyers.

Lavallée (BQ): any idea who was the leaker?

Luc Lavoie: we could go on speculating, but very honestly, I have no idea what source of leak was. Some leaks, I can imagine, let's say Stevie Cameron played a major role as both a journalist and a police informant. She had a code attached to her name and all of a sudden, one of the calls was from her...she was probably the one at the root of the letter.

Lavallée (BQ): yeah, but she didn't write it.

Luc Lavoie: well, the officer she worked with was Fiegenwald and he was the one who wrote the letter

Lavallée (BQ): does he write in German?

Luc Lavoie: no, it was translated in German. Originally in English.

Lavallée (BQ): there's something odd--there are a number of things that BM didn't tell you, but you were his spokesperson. His press officer, his adviser! You're the person to whom he should have entrusted a great deal of info. I'm sure you're extremely talented (*flirt*), and I've worked with clients in an agency, and normally we get the client to tell us his entire strategy...at the level you were, you should have asked questions. The reason you didn't ask questions--was it b/c you felt on shaky legal ground? Or b/c BM knew everything wasn't above board?

Luc Lavoie: there were two periods. 95-97, a time where it was my job to be BM's PR consultant. I could devote all my time and resources necessary to serve him. As of 2000, when I joined Quebecor, I helped him and his family when they had Communications issues (especially when he was ill), but very honestly, it was not my job, I didn't see him on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Spoke on phone, maybe 3 min, 5 min.

4:44 PM
Mulcair (NDP): going back to spring 2000, M. Tremblay, BM's lawyer, when he told you it was a retainer. You've used that word in all public stmts thereafter. There's a meaning to that word for a lawyer, but also has a meaning in terms of taxes--e.g. paid in trust, not yet considered revenue. When you learned in 2000 that he'd received money from KHS, in thousands of dollars...BM said he'd never had any dealings with him except for coffee in a hotel. At the time, did you ask if BM had reported money to Revenue Canada?

Luc Lavoie: didn't have to ask, b/c he told me he'd paid his taxes. I was told of three instalments and the taxes paid thereof. That's what I learned.

Mulcair (NDP): did you then speak to BM about that amount, at any time spring 2000-2008?

Luc Lavoie: one evening on telephone, last fall, before he testitfied.

Mulcair (NDP): you're his main spokesperson. You brought up sum of 300K. You don't have a good reason for these major contradictions? I didn't expect you to say under oath that between spring 2000 and fall 2007, with client former PM, that you NEVER spoke about money?

Luc Lavoie: but he wasn't a client last year...

Mulcair (NDP): but he used to be...

Luc Lavoie: ok, ok, but I never discussed that sum with him

Mulcair (NDP): you heard the quotes attributed to you last fall...BM never told you to correct amount you were quoted in media? 3 X 75K rather than 3 x 100K?

Luc Lavoie: he told me one night on the phone that it was 3 x 75K

4:48 PM
Hubbard (LPC): On Tues we heard from Mr. Spector that you worked in PMO around the same time. Am I right to assume that you were there as part of PC Party?

Luc Lavoie: I was never a member of any party, at any time

Hubbard (LPC): and when Mr. Spector talked of money flowing through the office, you're not aware of any of that PC Canada fund or didn't see any of that activity?

Luc Lavoie: what activity?

Hubbard (LPC): he talked about 5K/month, coming from somewhere...you don't (remember)?

Luc Lavoie: no

Hubbard (LPC): we hear that the present government has cutoff any relationship btwn BM and any of Harper gov. Curious to me why you've ceased to work with him, as of fall 2007. What reason? Tied in w/Harper government muzzling? Do you have any relationship w/Harper government, in terms of any members of the board or...

Luc Lavoie: number one, my relationship w/BM was terminated because...helping BM w/communication when it involved 6-7 calls/month was something I could deal with; helping BM when it involved 30, 35 calls/month in the level of crisis...simply incompatible with my profession (Ha! Turns out Mulroney was 'high maintenance' *snerk*). Number two...nothing to do w/cutoff by Harper government. Number three, I haven't had any contact w/Harper's ministers, but it might happen in future because our business is regulated.

Hubbard (LPC): when you have a friend who's in big trouble...and you're the expert...why would one of my best friends leave when I'm in need of help? (*ouch*)

Luc Lavoie: I don't know I'm his best friend, but we still have a friendly relationship, but I could not serve him well b/c I have a real-time job as an executive of a major corporation, and I could not perform my duty.

Szabo (chair, LPC): M. Lavoie, c'est ca! (laughing)

Luc Lavoie: thanks M. Szabo

Szabo (chair, LPC): you've challenged us a little bit. Your name might come up again, when we review at the end. Suspend for 5 min.

Coming up next: Mulroney's former chef testifies (Part I: "The cook, the thief, his wife & her envelopes"). Or, return to Part V of the Lavoie testimony ("Szabo lets fly with an awesome (near) curse-word")
Phone kitty pic courtesy of Icanhascheezburger.com

Lavoie testimony, Part V: Szabo lets fly with an awesome (near) curse-word

2008-02-21T02:52:00.000-08:00

Former Mulroney Dep. Chief of Staff and ~~PR flack~~ Communications Director Luc Lavoie presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 7. The following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. To return to the beginning of this series, click here: Part I.

Szabo lets fly with an awesome (near) curse-word

Martin (NDP): you were instrumental in relieving Canadians of 2.1 mill, no matter how you slice it. I don't know a lot about PR, but that seems like a staggering amount of money to make in such a short period of time. It's a whole whack of dough. You said gov wouldn't have settled if they knew what they know now...you said you knew that Brian Mulroney (BM) had a business relationship w/Karlheinz Schreiber (KHS)...

Luc Lavoie: (interrupting) No, I didn't say that...

Martin (NDP): well, I understood you to say that in Nov 95 there was a business relationship w/KHS

Luc Lavoie: I never said that. Not the case.

Martin (NDP): certainly BM was not being forthright w/Canadians. And we could have kept on, not to "torture" the man, but to get to the truth. Because Canadians feel it's like pulling teeth to get truth. Don't misunderstand when we say we wished the investigation had gone further.

Mulcair (NDP): in answering M. Murphy, he said that Ogilvy Renault, BM's firm, his contract allowed him to work as an outside consultant. (NOTE: Lavoie vouched for BM's December exchange w/Thibault). What did you base that on? Under oath?

Luc Lavoie: he told me that

Mulcair (NDP): but when *I* asked you if that work referred to law firm or something else, you said you had no info on that. But in response to M. Murphy, you said the contract was with Ogilvy Renault. We're going to subpoena the firm and get his contract. You said he told you he had a contract w/OR to do outside work, outside firm.

Luc Lavoie: yes

Mulcair (NDP): there was a leak, a reference to an extraordinary RCMP, Feigenwald, who was the fall-guy for the Liberals in this story, but you said that the initial leak came from Switzerland. What's your proof? The Liberals always tried to pin it on the RCMP.

Luc Lavoie: the original leak, the first reference to this matter in an article by Agence France Presse and published in front page La Presse, Montreal. No reference to BM, but investigation w/RCMP "money paid in kickbacks to Canadian politicians," that was Nov 12, 1995. AFP from Geneva or from Zurich.

Mulcair (NDP): testimony refers to GCI. What's your knowledge of Mr. Moore's involvement?

Luc Lavoie: don't know Moores, only know what I read in media

4:28 PM
Thibault (LPC): it was stated in past, by you or BM himself, in 2003 that the monies from KHS (in relation to lawsuit against BM by KHS) that 300K-and that amount wasn't disputed at the time by either party-- was for representation for Thyssen for plant in Montreal East, as well as some relation to a Pasta business.

Luc Lavoie: need more information. In 2003?

Thibault (LPC): you're familiar w/lawsuit by KHS against BM?

Luc Lavoie: I believe that was 2007

Thibault (LPC): you may be right. The claim by KHS is that no work was done to earn money. Claim by BM was that money was for pasta business and working on Thyssen plant, what was once BHP. It morphed in 1993, around time, to Montreal East (from Cape Breton). There was no argument over amount of 300K. You're familiar w/their statement of claims?

Luc Lavoie: yes, I am

Thibault (LPC): we hear in this cmte that the work BM earned was for Thyssen internationally...you're familiar w/BM's current position?

Luc Lavoie: I heard that

Thibault (LPC): he never discussed taht with you? That he was/wasn't working for Thyssen?

Luc Lavoie: I remember hearing him say he was working on Thyssen LAV project. He mentioned, further down road, that he did some work about pasta business

Thibault (LPC): But you're not a kid out of PR school. You're one of the top in country...one of the absolute best (awwww...)

Luc Lavoie: thank you

Thibault (LPC): he's hired you, he's got all these accusations against him...you know about all of these. You know that Harper has met w/BM at Harrington lake. And that Schreiber provides letter to BM to go to Mr. Harper. You're aware of that?

Luc Lavoie: afterwards...I wasn't aware of that Harrington Lake meeting until I heard it in the media

Thibault (LPC): but BM has huge problems in the media...and he doesn't tell you these things? Is it plausible deniability that he's affording you? Or is he replacing someone as the "biggest liar"...

Luc Lavoie: no, top three I said...maybe top five (laughter)

Szabo (chair, LPC): order! Mr. Lavoie, one more time: you said that you were apprised of the money transaction in spring 2000. I assume someone talked about 'how much,' or at least if I'd received envelopes w/1000$ bills, it is SO unusual, SO off the wall, that SOMEONE must have said "thousand dollar bills!" Is that correct?

Luc Lavoie: no, someone said to me "retainer in cash, in 10s of 1000s of dollars on three occasions..."

Szabo (chair, LPC): (incredulous) but this thing about 1000 currency, never came up w/anybody's discussion.

Luc Lavoie: no

Szabo (chair, LPC): (bangs table) Incroyable!
(holy shit! I think this is the closest Szabo has come to cursing! Awesome!)

4:34 PM
Murphy (LPC): in Nov 95, to CBC, you were asked if BM had any connection to Swiss accts DEVON, you categorically deny that he has any connection. Asked if there was 3rd party involvement, you said, "Absolutely not! I know that to be true! He told me" Your statement in 95 was that he had received NO money.

Luc Lavoie: that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about bank accts in LOR to Swiss in 95.

Wallace (CPC): (interrupting) I thought at 4:30 we would be starting a new witness...

Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you, if you heard in my opening stmt--and Mr. Tilson argued this--I didn't take time then, but I'll repeat to remind members, when we approved witness list, we went through it, and I explained we would put one comprehensive witness w/narrower witness, so we knew there'd be an imbalance in amt time...

Wallace (CPC): you're assuming that this is the "bad" witness and the other is not (??)

Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you, that is not a Point of Order, but I wanted to answer your question

Wallace (CPC): I think we should be following the agenda.

Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Wallace, the cmte approved and agreed that the meeting would go beyond 5:30 if necessary, so thank you.

Wallace (CPC): we're now in the third round...how long will we go?

Szabo (chair, LPC): I'll ask the clerk to get the minutes from our mtg, to remind everyone what we agreed to. Now, Mr. Murphy, please carry on.

4:37 PM
Murphy (LPC): you told the nation that BM had not received money from DEVON in 95. You thought he received no money from KHS. So how can you know that he didn't receive money from DEVON, 'cause you now know that he DID receive money from KHS? How could you be certain in 95? The answer, I think, is that BM never told you about it. You told the truth b/c he kept that from you. What do you think?

Luc Lavoie: that was a little convoluted. I don't agree with that statement.

Murphy (LPC): can you tell me the name of the consulting company? You didn't answer that question for us, before...

Luc Lavoie: I didn't answer b/c I don't know.

Coming up next: Part VI ("A high maintenance relationship"), or return to Part IV ("Let's not get metaphysical here...")
LOL Wallace home-made by moi. Please feel free to steal at will.

Lavoie testimony, Part IV: "Let's not get metaphysical here..."

2008-02-20T18:29:00.000-08:00

Former Mulroney Dep. Chief of Staff and ~~PR flack~~ Communications Director Luc Lavoie presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 7. The following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. To return to the beginning of this series, click here: Part I.

"Let's not get metaphysical here..."

4:11 PM
Wallace (CPC): thank you, Mr. Chair. Want to finish some of my questioning. This cmte's charged w/looking at new info that might not have been known at time of settlement. Is there any new info that this cmte doesn't know?

Luc Lavoie: no

Wallace (CPC): so your testimony today regarding the letter of request (LOR), which started lawsuit, was regarding that, in letter, it didn't just subtly accuse BM, it identified him as having done a criminal activity

Luc Lavoie: it was stated as fact

Wallace (CPC): in your view, settlement paid was b/c letter in such a form that it identified BM as a fact being involved in criminal activity

Luc Lavoie: when you're talking about payment, you're referring to 2.1 mill settlement? (Wallace affirms) That 2.1 was determined in arbitration process. He was never paid damages. The facts, as stated in LOR were completely wrong, they never had any evidence, they still don't, and the moment that the AG of Switzerland stated that there never WAS a Swiss bank acct for BM, the whole thing became a horrendous libel, which it was.

Wallace (CPC): ok. In our last meeting, we had former AG, Min Justice Rock here and he speculated that if he had known about agreement btwn KHS and BM AFTER Airbus (AB) (and nothing to do w/it), it might have had something to do w/level of settlement. Might have affected the amount. Would you like to speculate about whether you think it would have influenced things or not?

Luc Lavoie: I don't have the competence of Allan Rock, a well known top gun litigator in Ontario (laughter from cheap seats). Yes he is! (smiling at laughing goofballs). Thank you, Thomas. The reality is that I have a problem w/reasoning: you write in a letter that BM has 5 mill that he got as a kickback from sale of planes and helicopters and Bear Head Project (BHP)--you say he received 5 mill while he was in office, from a bank acct in Liechtenstein to a bank acct (that never existed) in Switzerland...you write that and 25 members of board receive it, it leaks to the media, first to Agence France Presse (AFP) and then it makes the rounds, finally ending up in the Financial Post. And then you find that indeed, after he left office, he received 300K to do work for same person, KHS. So you go, "god, that would have been great, so I could keep torturing him for years!" And I have a serious problem with that. The libel was horrendous. They had to draft it 7 times so it got to level that the Swiss would act on it...

Wallace (CPC): when you say "they had to draft it 7 times," who are you referring to?

Luc Lavoie: we found out through litigation process, before settlement, that the way it works is that Dept Justice would send letter to correspondent in Switzerland, and they say, "if I send you this, will you freeze the acct," and they say, "no, that's not enough," so they give it some more torque, and go & go & go, and the 7th draft was way worse than 1st one. They knew they'd done no investigation. They could only rely on a journalist-turned-informant and a former Chief of Staff (Norman Spector), who said BM had cancelled BHP. That's was Sgt Fiegenwald said under oath in Eurocopter trial. This letter's extremely damaging. It leaks out. And now you say, "if we had known, after BM left office...300K was paid, then we could have kept going w/torturing BM and his family." It doesn't change the fact that he never had a Swiss bank acct, as confirmed by Swiss AG, he never had anything to do w/this treatment, as confirmed by your star witness. Never had anything to do w/MBB, confirmed by Eurocopter trial. If anyone says, "if we had known a little more, we could have kept torturing him some more..." I find this offensive...

Szabo (chair, LPC): (interrupting) Ok, ok...order.

4:18 PM
Ménard (BQ): you gave some explanations about BM's behaviour. You said his financial situation wasn't very good. BM contradicted that categorically. You know very well it's different to get people to feel pain of the rich (*snerk*), and by doing this, you exposed him to this caricature...you're a PR guy.

Luc Lavoie: well, I was no longer in a PR firm

Ménard (BQ): but you're a professional. Extremely professional.

Luc Lavoie: I'll take that as a compliment, M Ménard (smirking). Just want to give you the context and tell you about the atmosphere. It was an error to do that in such a context.

Ménard (BQ): if such a transaction, why would he give an explanation of that type--why apologize? He doesn't need to apologize for getting a retainer for a genuine contract. Is that not the case?

Luc Lavoie: I'll leave it up to you to judge

Ménard (BQ): ask difficult question. I imagine you followed his appearance here. Is that the first time you heard him talk about the contract that he had w/KHS and the reasons that he had?

Luc Lavoie: no.

Ménard (BQ): he'd explained before?

Luc Lavoie: yes, a few times.

Ménard (BQ): did you know that he got the money in cash? Did you know that he kept it in cash, in safety deposit boxes?

Luc Lavoie: no

Ménard (BQ): aware of this mandate to do peacekeeping LAVs?

Luc Lavoie: knew it had something to do w/marketing of LAVs

Ménard (BQ): to China?

Luc Lavoie: not specific countries, just international

Ménard (BQ): but we know he said he went to many countries, France and even China 5 years after Tiananmen Square, w/image engraved in peoples' minds, the student run over by a tank

Luc Lavoie: (interrupting) but not a LAV... (Gah! I can't believe he said that!)

Ménard (BQ): no, but one of the most shocking images. France is quite proud and jealous of technology. When KHS was arrested, BM said he wanted to settle matters w/tax dept, and was in such a hurry that he paid taxes even on expenses he could have deducted. Do you believe that this contract even existed?

Luc Lavoie: take his word for it.

Ménard (BQ): (smiling) When you don't respond yes or no, you keep your credibility...

Luc Lavoie: there are some rules for non-responses...

Ménard (BQ): (smiling) let's not get 'metaphysical' here...(*snerk*).

4:23 PM
Hiebert (CPC): My colleague asked if you had any knowledge of certain decisions or projects while in PMO. At ANY point, while in PMO or at ANY time, did you have any knowledge of any wrongdoing, by any public official, with respect to BHP?

Luc Lavoie: no

Hiebert (CPC): while in PMO or at ANY time, did you have any knowledge of any wrongdoing, by any public official, with respect to AB?

Luc Lavoie: no

Hiebert (CPC): while in PMO or at ANY time, did you have any knowledge of any wrongdoing, by any public official, with respect to consulting agreement between BM and KHS?

Luc Lavoie: no

Hiebert (CPC): so you're telling us that you don't know of any wrongdoing, whatsoever, in any of these matters?

Luc Lavoie: no

Coming up next: Part V ("Szabo lets fly with an awesome (near) curse-word"), or return to Part III ("I know you're no stranger to profanity...")
Metaphysical Lavoie: adapted from this CP pic by Tom Hanson (ying/yang thing from here)

Lavoie testimony, Part III: "I know you're no stranger to profanity..."

2008-02-18T05:21:00.000-08:00

Former Mulroney Dep. Chief of Staff and ~~PR flack~~ Communications Director Luc Lavoie presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 7. The following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. To return to the beginning of this series, click here: Part I.

"I know you're no stranger to profanity..."

3:56 PM
Wallace (CPC): like some clarification: can you explain what you did for the PMO from 88-91?

Luc Lavoie: Deputy Chief of Staff (CoS)

Wallace (CPC): role?

Luc Lavoie: charge of logistics, operations, organized international travel.

Wallace (CPC): you left that position and the next time you worked for BM was...95?

Luc Lavoie: hired as PR consultant in 95 to help him w/completely diff project, and then in Nov, this specific case (Karlheinz Schreiber, KHS)

Wallace (CPC): so when you were an employee of PMO, could you tell us if you had any involvement w/BHP?

Luc Lavoie: none, just recollect that simply there was a project to build light armoured vehicles (LAVs) in Cape Breton

Wallace (CPC): did you have any first hand knowledge of Air Canada purchase of Airbus (AB), while you worked in PMO?

Luc Lavoie: absolutely not

Wallace (CPC): in that role, did you have any knowledge of consulting agreement between BM and KHS, while you were in PMO? Any sense of that happening? And then, afterwards, in 1995, did you know?

Luc Lavoie: (asks Wallace to repeat and he does) No (no knowledge while in PMO). After 1995, didn't know of retainer till spring 2000.

Wallace (CPC): you're well aware of letter of request (LOR) to Swiss, the one that caused gov to pay settlement. That's why this cmte's been constituted. Want to know if there's new info that would lead us to make decision any differently. Your interpretation of why gov settled is different from what members of opposition are saying...like to give you an opportunity to tell us your impression.

Luc Lavoie: there was a letter sent in Sept 95 (LOR) which the drafter--b/c it was signed by public service, but I think the drafter was a member of RCMP--stating, w/o any attempt to make it qualified or conditional, that this letter was of upmost importance, that it had to do w/activities from the beginning of BM's term to the end of it...that there was a scheme wherein 5 mill had passed from accts in Liechtenstein to Zurich, and that acct could be opened w/code word "DEVON." And LOR sent as stmt of fact to Swiss authorities...and, btw, it's interesting that SEVEN drafts of that letter had been prepared of that LOR, b/c the first draft wouldn't trigger anything from Swiss; they went to factual stmts, not allegations, so that they would trigger Swiss to actually freeze accts. We found out, from letter sent by Attorney Gen of Switzerland, one that was later famous as chief prosecutor of war crime tribunal (Carla del Ponte), there never was any bank acct in Switz that belonged to BM. There was also a copy of letter sent to every member of board of Swiss bank corp (25 BOD). Also found that the sole source of info for the LOR was a journalist who'd decided to turn herself into a police informant, and I should be more specific, b/c Norman Spector provided affidavit. Leak from day 1...reason for settlement is that AG, RCMP had no evidence whatsoever to support horrendous libel.

Wallace (CPC): you claimed that BM might've reached an agreement w/KHS b/c he needed money. BM, in front of us, claimed that is just not the case. Still stand by your stmt?

Luc Lavoie: standing by quote, but put in context: having conversation w/two different journalists, and in both cases, the quotation was interpreted differently. BM was not a man who'd inherited millions of dollars, like some in past--and I'm not saying this in a derogatory way--he was not a rich man. I was saying, when you leave office, and you want to start a new career, you might be optimistic, and you're looking to get first pieces of business.

4:05 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Lavoie, one of the mysteries of all this--and Canadians REALLY want the answer--is was it 300K or 225K? In an article Jan 23, 2007, CP, Bronskill, Bryden "Justice Dept weighed reopening AB settlement..." quoting, "The RCMP informed Mulroney in the summer of 2000 that they were aware of the $300,000 retainer from Schreiber, Lavoie said. "There were formal contacts between the RCMP and Mr. Mulroney's lawyer in which it was made clear that they knew that."" YOU made the representation to these media in Jan 2007 that it was 300K. How do you explain discrepancy?

Luc Lavoie: the number "300K" was a fig that came up in G&M, he never denied it, and it became perceived as the truth, and he never fought back. And I never asked if that was the exact amount.

Murphy (LPC): thanks. I want to tell you that none of my questions came from the CBC (Conservatives laugh and jeer at this). Mr. Lavoie...you're in charge of PR for Quebecor. BM is chairman of board of Quebecor, correct?

Luc Lavoie: no, BM is chairman of board of Quebecor WORLD, a subsidiary of Quebecor Inc.

Murphy (LPC): following on Chairman's question, you said in response that this came from media. That's true, but it came from a quote from you...unless you're quarrelling w/Ottawa Citizen story that quotes you, quoting KHS, telling Citizen that he pulled out an envelope full of cash "and BM said, "What is that?" and (KHS) said, "I want to pay you in cash." "Why would you have to do this in cash?" said Mr. Lavoie. " YOU were told by BM that KHS gave him 100K in cash and then you told Ottawa Cit in 2007, highly charged media environment (Nov 2007). How can you say that the media made this up?

Luc Lavoie: I didn't say the media made this up. The figure 300K came in a story from Kaplan in G&M, which I never fought back upon. Never specifically asked was it 300 or was it less. I knew it was in the "tens of thousands"...

Murphy (LPC): would you at LEAST admit, from a professional point of view, that it was sloppy for you to quote w/o verifying that, in a quote coming from former PM?

Luc Lavoie: (glowering at Murphy; Not responding)

Murphy (LPC): I guess you won't (*snerk*).

Luc Lavoie: (smirking, smiling)

Murphy (LPC): the PM was here saying it was 75K b/c he wanted it to be the amount declared on his tax returns, not the 300k...that will remain a question that's out there. This consulting firm that BM made after he left office, did he ever give you the NAME of that firm? Do you know if he registered it w/in Ontario, Quebec or federally?

Luc Lavoie: I knew of an existence of an arrangement at his law firm that allowed him to have a separate consulting firm. I presumed everything was fine.

Murphy (LPC): well, I look at Aug 2, 1993 w/ Renault and Mulroney...other forms of games that will remain yours alone...you know of no name of consulting firm?

Luc Lavoie: no

Murphy (LPC): going back to your 587K, your firm's bill for services rendered, before the proverbial...hit the fan. I know you're no stranger to profanity, I've seen it here (*snerk*) ...

Luc Lavoie: why would you say that? (smiling)

Murphy (LPC): in Nov 95, you were on the case, taking care of your client's interests...it seems incredible to me, and YOU were the one who put credibility on the line, when you mentioned Mr. Schreiber's being the "biggest [] liar I've ever seen"

Luc Lavoie: I retracted that...

Murphy (LPC): you said it...

Luc Lavoie: I changed my mind...I would put him in the top three (laughter)

Murphy (LPC): don't cut into my time! (more laughter) We're on the trial of maybe the second biggest liar on the scene (chorus of Ooooooh!s)

Szabo (chair, LPC): time's up

Luc Lavoie: it was just starting to be fun

Szabo (chair, LPC): well, and I would just ask members to be judicious in their language. Let's be careful, here. Ok, Mr. Wallace...

Coming up next: Part IV ("Let's not get metaphysical here..."), or return to Part II ("Why would an advisor give bad advice?")
LOL Lavoie: home-made by kitty, but please feel free to steal (link-luv always appreciated)

Lavoie testimony, Part II: Why would an advisor give bad advice?

2008-02-16T04:32:00.000-08:00

Former Mulroney Dep. Chief of Staff and ~~PR flack~~ Communications Director Luc Lavoie presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 7. The following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. To return to the beginning of this series, click here: Part I.

Why would an advisor give bad advice?

3:41 PM
Ménard (BQ): I was looking at your CV and seen you often on TV. I can consider you one of the best communicators for a firm. Experience on TV. I imagine you were hired to give BM advice on PR...

Luc Lavoie: you're saying that?

Ménard (BQ): asking the question--one of your duties was to advise him?

Luc Lavoie: yes

Ménard (BQ): in spring 2000, first time you found out BM received money from KHS

Luc Lavoie: that's right

Ménard (BQ): but in 99, when you said BM never got any money, there was never any money, at that point you didn't know he received money from KHS? (note: listen to interview, scroll down to "October 8, 1999")

Luc Lavoie: I didn't know, but I'd remind you that that conversation, in my mind, very clearly had to do w/Airbus (AB), MBB, and Bear Head Project (BHP), but you're right, I was not aware

Ménard (BQ): you saw that the issue wasn't dying out, even after settlement. Still suspicions that KHS had given BM money. I'm sure you noticed (*snerk*). You were no doubt aware of the RCMP letter sent to Swiss authorities in which...

Luc Lavoie: yes, I know it by heart (smiling)

Ménard (BQ): not surprised. So...when lawyers spoke in spring 2000, he said there was a cash retainer, 3 payments of "tens of thousands of dollars," you say. It seems like that would be interpreted in the range of ~50K, but you came up to 100K

Luc Lavoie: no. Tens of thousands...the 300K figure is the one that appeared in the G&M

Ménard (BQ): so you WEREN'T the one who said there was a payment of 100K?

Luc Lavoie: said that last fall, but first time figures put forward was in the article by William Kaplan in the G&M

Ménard (BQ): and the first time you realized BM said it was 75K, did you find out at the same time as we did?

Luc Lavoie: no, a little before that. A few weeks before that.

Ménard (BQ): I imagine you understood, as of the moment BM received cash from KHS, in cash, that if that were known, some would think that would be confirmation of what was in the RCMP's letter. But, as far as you were concerned, there was another reason for payments...

Luc Lavoie: you're referring to RCMP LOR (letter of request), I would just say we should remember that that LOR referred to a Swiss bank acct, code name "DEVON," and ...

Ménard (BQ): but there was also the "BRITAIN" acct...

Luc Lavoie: there were 5Mill dollars deposited, kickbacks on sale of AB to Air Canada and these MBB helicopters to coast guard and so-called BHP. Put things in proper context: money paid for retainer? This money paid after he left office, for different work, no connection...nothing to do with this matter.

Ménard (BQ): perfectly legit transaction? That explained basis of some rumours that were going around...

Luc Lavoie: I wouldn't speculate on that

Ménard (BQ): Why, then, did you not advise him to say publicly, that that transaction w/KHS had taken place or to advise BM to explain right away, particularly w/rumours out there. Why not say that it was for legit work (and dispel rumours)?

Luc Lavoie: Well, I've had many, many conversations w/him and wouldn't say that I never advised that. That was considered.

Ménard (BQ): when did you find out that BM had kept it in 1000$ bills, here, when he testified to this committee? Do you think that would have been tougher to explain?

Luc Lavoie: I'm sorry, could you clarify?

Ménard (BQ): it looks suspicious. Makes relationship look fishy. You must have understood that. A PM getting cash in 1000$ bills in envelope. He keeps it in a safety deposit box for years...don't you think it makes things look even stranger?

Luc Lavoie: not really

Ménard (BQ): but you don't know what he did w/cash?

Luc Lavoie: no, I don't know what he did w/his own business.

3:49 PM
Martin (NDP): You were instrumental in helping BM win 2.1 mill libel suit against gov. In settlement reached, roughly 1.4 mill went to lawyers and $587 721 went to your firm, "National Public Relations"

Luc Lavoie: no, the money wasn't to me, it went to HIM. Money adjudicated by arbitration process lead by the late Allan Gold

Martin (NDP): correct. So the 587K+ worth of PR, specific to your time as communications Director, from 1995 onwards (i.e. not to Lavoie's time in PMO). Now, a lot of Canadians want to recoup that 2.1 mill. To earn that amount (587K), you must have been quite helpful to him...BM talked about that period being very difficult for him. Did you never ask him, "If I'm gonna represent you, Brian, did you or did you not accept money from KHS? It's gonna be integral to my convincing Canadians," did you not ask him that, at any time?

Luc Lavoie: uh...not exactly. I ask a question the day he contacted me, Mon, Nov 13, 1995. I was in Ottawa, he asked me to come to Montreal to see him. I met him the following morning at his home. He told me what he was faced w/, this LOR. I asked him if there was any truth to the LOR, and he said, "Absolutely not."
Martin (NDP): so YOU weren't lying to the people of Canada. He was lying to YOU.

Luc Lavoie: there was no truth to what was in that LOR

Martin (NDP): We paid him 2.1 mill b/c it was alleged that KHS gave him money, and now that we know that he did...

Luc Lavoie: (interrupting) no...

Martin (NDP): that's an extraordinary thing.

Luc Lavoie: I don't agree with what you said, by the way...

3:52 PM
Mulcair (NDP): thank you. You spoke about a lawyer who said BM received money. The one that spoke to you in 2000...

Luc Lavoie: Gérald Tremblay

Mulcair (NDP): you used the word, "retainer." Do you remember whether conversation took place in English or French?

Luc Lavoie: French

Mulcair (NDP): and he used the word, "retainer?" This is a word that is rarely used outside of the language, except in legal language. I think BM was already an associate in law firm in Montreal. Was he working as a lawyer for this retainer?

Luc Lavoie: maybe yes, maybe no, but I was in PR and we also had retainers.

Mulcair (NDP): but you would have still had to explain why he received these 100s of thousands of dollars. You had to have asked what it was for...

Luc Lavoie: the question wasn't about that. The reason M Tremblay called was b/c I was being sued by KHS for defamation, slander, and it was clear I needed that info

Mulcair (NDP): and you, M Lavoie, what did YOU understand that BM had done for these retainers?

Luc Lavoie: I understood that he took retainer to represent those firms

Mulcair (NDP): that's what you understood then? The purposes of representation?

Luc Lavoie: yes.

Mulcair (NDP): BM told us that he kept CANADIAN 1000$ bills (cash) in US, in a sdb. Can you explain that? What expenses can be paid in the States w/Canadian 1000$ bills?

Luc Lavoie: I wasn't involved, so I can't answer

Mulcair (NDP): it's your former boss who can tell us? I'm going to come back to Thibault's and Ménard's question, b/c I'm still not convinced by your answer. You're the spokesperson for the former PM and you're hired to give his version of facts and you're doing it very well. You went before cameras in fall 97 and said (three times!) "100K." I'm seeking, in vain, where BM contradicted you publicly, and I can't find it, except when he came before us and told us it was 3 X 75K, instead. Given your expertise in PR, why is it that as soon as you mentioned 100K, why you didn't immediately correct yourself?

Luc Lavoie: I would like to correct you: I didn't speak before the cameras

Mulcair (NDP): but you said it publicly. You say you have no answer to give me?

Luc Lavoie: I'm not refusing to answer. I don't HAVE an answer.

Mulcair (NDP): you said 300K. Mr. M is your client. Did he contact you right away and say, "hey, Lavoie, it's not 300K." Did he call you to ask you to retract?

Luc Lavoie: he called that evening

Mulcair (NDP): why didn't you correct stmt?

Luc Lavoie: in the media climate at time, everything was blown out of proportion. Unbelievable. It was better, rightly or wrongly, and agreed that he would come here and testify to the facts.

Coming up next: Part III ("I know you're no stranger to profanity..."), or return to Part I ("Luc & Brian, BFF")
"Can we talk" pic courtesy of this marketing wiz-cum-blogger

Lavoie testimony, Part I: Luc & Brian, BFF

2008-02-16T04:31:00.000-08:00

Luc & Brian, BFF

3:30 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): (calls hearing to order; reminds cmte on pairing of witnesses-one witness is long and second shorter, less interest, so 2 rounds for 1st, less for second). Our first witness of the day is M Luc Lavoie, former communications director for BM, up to 2007. He's the exec VP of Quebecor Inc. On Dec 15, 2007, cmte gave list of priority witnesses, including yourself. Thanks for accepting invitation. I'll ask clerk to swear-in the witness (clerk swears in Lavoie).

Szabo (chair, LPC): I know that you've followed our proceedings and you're familiar with how they work. Certainly expected that you'll help us better understand certain matters. Refusal to answer not an option. As courtesy, don't speak too quickly for translators. Understand you don't have an opening stmt today, so we'll move directly to questions. M. Thibault?

3:33 PM
Thibault (LPC): thank you for being her, M Lavoie. First, I'd like to clarify: you said in media, in answering for BM, that he had in fact received 300K, 100K each time, in cash from Karlheinz Schreiber (KHS). Accurate?

Luc Lavoie: what I said is that I didn't have exact information

Thibault (LPC): you've been spokesman for Brian Mulroney (BM) for long time. Close relationship, professionally and personally. I fail to understand how you could answer that question w/o consulting your client, BM, on the matter.

Luc Lavoie: I never discussed the specific amounts w/BM. At no time. When I was answering those questions...

Thibault (LPC): the amounts discussed came from the meeting. When did BM tell you he received the money? Not when he got them, but when he received that money?

Luc Lavoie: informed in spring 2000 by BM's lawyer. Told he received a retainer, paid in cash, from KHS, and that there were 3 payments and the amount used in conversation w/o asking how much, he said 10s of 1000s of dollars.

Thibault (LPC): you told Cashore of CBC, that previous to this date that BM had NOT received money from KHS. At one point you used derogatory comments (*cough* "biggest fucking liar") in reference to KHS and exchange of funds. On what basis did you make those earlier stmts to media, that BM didn't receive funds.

Luc Lavoie: I remember very clearly those 4 telephone conversations w/journalist Cashore of 5th Estate and at NO time did he ask me about money paid to BM after he left his position...I was spokesperson for BM from 95-onwards, and the only thing discussed was money deposited in accts, in Switzerland having to do w/purchase of Airbus (AB), MBB helicopters and the Bear Head Project (BHP), so at no time during conversation was there any discussion regarding money paid AFTER he left PM-position. If you want to go to extreme position, I would have answered the same thing, b/c what we were talking about was something contained in letter sent to Swiss authorities in 95

Thibault (LPC): in Feb 98 BM met in hotel room w/KHS (note: this was the meeting in Zurich, when KHS allegedly reassured BM that there was no evidence linking him to cash payments). Aware of it?

Luc Lavoie: no

Thibault (LPC): you've been BM's spokesperson since 95 and he never told you?

Luc Lavoie: no

Thibault (LPC): subsequently, did he speak about that meeting?

Luc Lavoie: no, never heard about it

Thibault (LPC): the only knowledge of that meeting you found out through media?

Luc Lavoie: exactly

Thibault (LPC): did you ask questions?

Luc Lavoie: no

Thibault (LPC): you were his communications Director, he was your client, you worked closely with him, the question of KHS, this exchange of money was quite important but that discussion never happened? That meeting in 1998? Never talked about it?

Luc Lavoie: no

Thibault (LPC): excuse me, that's quite recent info. How do you feel about it, that BM never told you about it?

Luc Lavoie: I don't go into that...I was very proud to serve BM. Still proud of my friendship

Thibault (LPC): did BM inform you of the meeting he had in Harrington Lake in 93 w/KHS?

Luc Lavoie: no

Thibault (LPC): did he inform you about contract which, according to his testimony, was to do business internationally for Thyssen?

Luc Lavoie: at what time?

Thibault (LPC): during your professional relationship w/him

Luc Lavoie: well, before those things were made public, and then afterwards, from Nov 95, beginning of my involvement, till spring of 2000, no these matters were never raised. Starting in spring 2000, they were mentioned but never had detailed conversation on these matters

Thibault (LPC): when you were w/BM when he was PM, when was that?

Luc Lavoie: Jan 88 to Aug 91

Thibault (LPC): so when the settlement was signed, or agreement re: BHP, Thyssen, you were aware of that?

Luc Lavoie: no, wasn't aware of that

Thibault (LPC): you were the comm. Director

Luc Lavoie: was Asst Dep Chief of Staff (CoS). I looked after Operations.

Thibault (LPC): the file was one that was important in PMO. Heard that people came to visit BM, meetings w/Tellier, Spector, and that next CoS was involved in BHP as well. You tell us that you weren't aware?

Luc Lavoie: not at all, 'cept through media.

Thibault (LPC): it was a secret project?

Luc Lavoie: can't assume that, but a lot of things go on inside a PMO (ha! No kidding, eh?!)

Coming up next: Part II ("Why would an advisor give bad advice?")
Carebears courtesy of 'My Dog is my Hero'

Allan Rock testifies, Part II: But I trusted you, lyin' Brian!

2008-02-14T05:03:00.000-08:00

Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice (1993-7) Allan Rock presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 5. As with last Fall's testimony, the following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. Part I of Rock's testimony is available here. If you missed my coverage of Norman Spector's Feb 5th testimony, please click here.

But I trusted you, lyin' Brian!

5:12 PM
Lavallée (BQ): going to ask some repetitive questions. You said that BM testified that he had no dealings w/KHS. I looked at testimony in French and wondered why RCMP convinced BM didn't do anything wrong...(bad translation!)

Allan Rock: we, as participants in civil litigation, he said he had no dealings w/KHS. We accepted that. He was the former PM of Canada. He spent 9 years in the PMO. He was sworn in as a witness, so we assumed he'd answered the question properly. The Gov concluded at time that BM had not had any dealings w/KHS. Given his answers in April 96 (here & here)

Lavallée (BQ): Would you say that the RCMP should have investigated BM's testimony, and gone in the field to find out what happened?

Allan Rock: not up to me to say what RCMP should be doing. It was SG Gray who was in charge of RCMP. He reported on it to HoC, but in my view, I'm aware of fact that RCMP cont'd after settlement, up until 2003, when they announced they were going to close the matter.

Lavallée (BQ): do you regret the 2.1 Mill settlement?

Allan Rock: No, I would just say that it's difficult, in this position, in 2008, to look back and to imagine what we would have done had we had the info we now have. As said to M. Murphy, quite sure that if we'd had the info about cash payments from KHS, if that had been known at the time, that would have had a HUGE impact on the civil case, and IMO, would not have had recommendation to settle on these terms.

5:17 PM
Ménard (BQ): I understand that this kind of letter of request must not be shown to Minister. You've read it since then, though, this LOR to Swiss gov. Were you struck, as things evolved, that among the first people to be informed about all the doubts police had about some ind'ls that these ind'ls would be the first informed, given copies of letter?

Allan Rock: I was told at time that you had to give notice to the people who have the bank accounts in Switzerland. In other words, if the RCMP, through gov, asked for access to records involved related to Swiss acct, then holder had to be informed and given copy of LOR, which is why KHS and Moores received copy.

Ménard (BQ): they were informed of investigation and they had time to cause some accounting to disappear, particularly if we're talking about cash?

Allan Rock: they definitely had notice, but I've no idea what they did afterwards.

5:19 PM
Martin (NDP): I think I speak for all Canadians when I say that We want our money BACK (eyeroll). BM sued gov for 50 mill b/c we implied that he'd taken money from KHS. Well, he DID take money from KHS, and I take you at your word that you probably wouldn't have recommended a settlement if you'd known that then. Can't understand, why did we send letters of apology to Schreiber and Moores, as well as BM. Why did Gov feel need to apologize to them? Also, a lot of people feel that you folded too early, b/c Libs were eager to rid of investigation b/c if they dug too deep, they'd find out KHS was meeting with Andre Ouellette, and KHS was meeting w/ Doug Young, KHS was meeting w/(?? Missed it??). Schreiber was right into the LPC, just as he was into the Con party at the time. A lot of people feel you folded b/c didn't want LPC to get damaged.

Allan Rock: regarding letters, they were sent as a matter of logic and law. The advice we got from the dept was that the gist of the language used in the LOR was conclusory. Used to "alleged" but this LOR language asserted as a matter of fact that...

Martin (NDP): (interrupting) it's a little galling for Canadians to be apologizing to KHS for inconveniencing him.

Allan Rock: same language was used for other two letters as well. One of them had commenced a lawsuit also. In public interest to avoid that. In response to your other question, we were ready to go to trial in Jan 1997, we had expert witnesses...no fewer than 3-4 lawyers ready to go...subpoenaed witnesses. That night, I was told that in the fall of 95, an RCMP member had disclosed to a 3rd party that BM's name was in the LOR. If that had come up in the trial, it would significantly weaken our defence. I was ready to go to trial, and rely on our defences, until they were taken away for us. Under those circumstances, we went back to the negotiating table to make the best deal we could.

Martin (NDP): I understand that. Did you ever meet w/KHS while you were a minister?

Allan Rock: no. Never met the man.

Martin (NDP): did Marc Lalonde ever send KHS to you or other cabinet, lobbying on behalf of KHS?

Allan Rock: no.

5:23 PM
Mulcair (NDP): you said earlier that you didn't think--had no idea whether the RCMP knew of the cash payments and that Mr. Gray never raised it with you. But YOU were the one who settled the BM matter, so what did YOU do, actively, to find out where the file was at? Did you ask the RCMP what we know? Did you do that before you agreed to pay BM 2.1 mill in taxpayers' money?

Allan Rock: it was decision made by gov. I shared responsibility for responding in court. Did we do any investigating ourselves? No. We asked our legal team .

Mulcair (NDP): you're the first officer responsible for the admin of justice in Canada. You're about to write a cheque for 2.1 mill to a former PM for pain and suffering caused to him. What did you do, actively, to find out what situation was? It was YOUR decision!

Allan Rock: it was my recommendation, after we got the info from the lawyers involved. What did we do? We defended the action, we asked BM questions. Accepted his testimony.

Mulcair (NDP): what did the RCMP tell you? You must have asked them some questions.

Allan Rock: I'm sure that Mr. Gray, like myself, we looked at the facts before the courts to determine whether or not we could succeed. Once I was told that a member of the RCMP had...

Mulcair (NDP): that's an unproved allegation

Allan Rock: No, that's a reality before the court.

Mulcair (NDP): but you were the Minister. You made the recommendation. Did you ask what the RCMP knew about this?

Allan Rock: as the person in charge, along w/Mr. Gray, for defending Gov's interest in civil suit, had to do w/opinion of lawyers. Up to Jan 2nd, the lawyers thought we had a case. After finding out officer of RCMP had revealed-we realized we had to settle.

5:27 PM
Van Kesteren (CPC): while you were Min Justice, you had commenced an investigation of Air Canada purchase of AB and BHP, etc. Let me remind you that on April 22, 2003 the RCMP admitted that, after exhaustive investigation, that no wrongdoing involving AB or BHP weren't substantiated. No charges laid. Do you have evidence of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the BHP?

Allan Rock: no. May I quarrel w/your premise? I didn't start the investigation; the RCMP did. And I didn't stop the investigation; we settled the lawsuit.

Van Kesteren (CPC): any evidence of any wrongdoing wrt consulting agreement btwn BM and KHS?

Allan Rock: no

Van Kesteren (CPC): any evidence of any wrongdoing by any public official wrt circulation of correspondence between PCO and PMO, especially correspondence sent by KHS to PMS?

Allan Rock: no

Van Kesteren (CPC): any evidence of any wrongdoing by any public official wrt the AB purchase?

Allan Rock: no

Van Kesteren (CPC): given that the settlement reached in 97 was specifically tied to defamatory stmts made about him wrt AB scandal, would now public knowledge that BM and KHS had separate consulting agreement, unrelated to AB given you reason to reconsider the settlement?

Allan Rock: in response to an earlier question, I don't believe there would have been a recommendation to settle had we known about THAT cash, but having said that, we might still have settled since the lawsuit was about language used. It's a question of what terms it would've been settled on. The cash might have had a very significant effect on settlement. This case was all about reputation, and BM's concern that the LOR language had tarnished his reputation. But cash payments would've also tarnished his reputation. Had that disclosure been in 96 or 97, we would have been dealing w/diff set of facts. Either we'd be pursuing the trail (records, bank, taxes), but perhaps there would have been a settlement on other terms.

Van Kesteren (CPC): back to LOR from Sept 1995. When did you personally become aware of letter?

Allan Rock: Sat, Nov 4, 1995. Telephoned by BM's lawyer.

Van Kesteren (CPC): why didn't you act right away and squashed that thing, so we wouldn't have had that exposure?

Allan Rock: we met w/officials on Monday, Nov 6 where I read letter to myself. BM's lawyers asked it be withdrawn, but when I asked about that, it was too late. LOR had already been acted upon. Remember that this was before the Financial Post article was published. Our concern on Nov 6th was confidentiality. If an effort was made to w/draw it, it might gain more attn. Instead, we sent 2nd letter to Swiss asserting that original LOR was only allegation, and that we respect confidentiality.

Van Kesteren (CPC): ok, now I gotta ask you this question: was there pressure w/in the caucus that "hey, this is something we gotta do"

Allan Rock: no. No discussion in caucus on this. What motivated me was doing the best I could in the interest of all parties: BM, RCMP, etc. Sending followup letters to swiss, and then on Nov 18th, the top blew off b/c Fin Post published most of the letter and then BM announced his lawsuit against government.

Van Kesteren (CPC): who leaked the letter to the Swiss authorities? (Dumb-ass...nobody LEAKED to Swiss. Leak to Fin Post)

Allan Rock: Who leaked to Swiss? It wasn't leaked. Canadian consular official provides copy to Swiss authorities, police, banking etc. It wasn't a leak, it was a delivery. The question is who leaked LOR to Financial Post? Had an expert witness who would have sworn that it wasn't the Gov who leaked it to newspaper. Re: 2.1 mill settlement, the Gov agreed to apologize for the LANGUAGE of the letter, not an apology for the investigation. It was the language used that was the essential harm here.

Szabo (chair, LPC): on page 116 on BM's Day one test, he said he never had any dealings w/KHS. On Nov 10, 2007, in interview w/G&M, in which he admitted to receiving 225K, that is a direct contradiction to sworn test in discovery. Is there any recourse to reopen settlement?

Allan Rock: there is a procedure by which lawyers can move before the court...whether it should take place is a matter for the Minister of Justice and Dept Justice to decide.

Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you. Mr. Rock has agreed to answer any other questions in writing if you have any questions...

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): (interrupting) ??? We never asked him...

Szabo: I asked him...

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): but you had no right to...(?!)

Szabo (chair, LPC): well, thank you.

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): once again, you just carry on your way, the way you see fit...

Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you, Mr. Tilson. Mr. Rock, thank you again, our next meeting is Thurs, 3:30PM, we'll have Luc Lavoie and François Martin.
*adjourned*

Return to Part I ("And the LANGUAGE that they used...").
...and stay tuned for the Feb 7 testimony! I promise I'll get to it!
Naive kitty courtesy of Icanhascheezburger.com

Allan Rock testifies, Part I: And the LANGUAGE that they used...

2008-02-14T04:35:00.000-08:00

Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice (1993-7) Allan Rock presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 5. As with last Fall's testimony, the following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. If you missed my coverage of Norman Spector's Feb 5th testimony, please click here.

And the LANGUAGE that they used...

4:55 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): (introducing Allan Rock, former AG of Canada during the AB settlement; overview of rules of cmte). Would you like to be sworn in?

Allan Rock: I'd be happy to be sworn in . (clerk swears him in)

Szabo (chair, LPC): I understand you have an opening stmt...

Allan Rock: thanks. I know that we've got just 45 min before the vote, so I'll be reading my stmt. I believe it's been distributed to members, but I've tried to provide a framework for your questions. I served as Min Justice and AG from Nov 93 to June 1997. Recall that in dept Justice at time, there's something called International Assistance Group, lawyers who provide advice from other governments, eg regarding extradition. The IAG transmits to foreign authorities requests from Can police services to foreign police. The lawyers would send as a formal request from Gov Can for assistance. As 1995, 100-150 requests for assistance from justice on behalf of police depts. Every year. These letters were always treated by Dept w/utmost confidentiality. I'm told that there's never been an instance, before this one, where the contents of letter became public, notwithstanding that some of them named well-known figures. Wasn't setup to inform Minister as a matter of course. Min had no role in approving/disapproving letter going forward. Matter for police, and would be improper to have Min or AG interfering.

Allan Rock: We know that on Sept 29, 1995 a LOR went forward to the Swiss authorities on behalf RCMP, w/info about, among others BM. I was not informed or consulted before that letter was sent. I first learned of it on Nov 4th of that year, when I was telephoned at home by Roger Tasse (BM lawyer). I asked that he speak w/my Deputy Min, which he did. On Nov 6, I read letter for first time. BM's lawyers wanted LOR withdrawn. Justice and RCMP said it couldn't be, b/c already acted upon. Copies already given to KHS and Frank Moores. Also worried if an attempt was made to w/draw it, it might draw MORE attn, as it had not yet been mentioned in the Financial Post. Justice did send a followup letter to Swiss, emphasizing that everything in LOR was nature of allegation only, and must be read as such. Secondly, letter asked for scrupulous respect of confidentiality. That letter sent on Nov 14th to Swiss.

Allan Rock: On Nov 18, 1995, Financial Post published story about LOR, quoting at length of its contents. No explanation re: how FinPost obtained LOR. On that same day, BM's lawyers called presser in Montreal to announce that they were launching a libel action against gov and RCMP and asking 50 Mill in damages. Gov and RCMP defended action, and made efforts to resolve litigation w/o going to trial. BM examined under oath. Answers BM gave lead gov to conclude that he'd not had any dealings w/KHS. Two defences: any communication was protected by either absolute or qualified privilege (no action could be brought); second, none of defendents published libel.

Allan Rock: Letter served KHS in German language. Someone allowed for lawyers to translate this into English-call this the "Bloom(SP?) translation." An expert who prepared report, to prove version published in Post was Bloom translation--demonstrated link. If we could prove that the reporter had used this translation, then we could show in a courtroom that persons other than the defendants had published the libel.

Allan Rock: Shortly before trial, the DoJ learned that someone in RCMP, sometime in late 1995, had disclosed to 3rd party the fact that BM's name was in LOR. Counsel advised that unauthorized disclosure would destroy our first defense, that of disclosure, and weaken our second defense. We then proceeded to enter settlement negotiations, which (Fmr. Solicitor General) Herb Gray and I announced agreement on Jan 7, 1997.

Allan Rock: There have been suggestions from the outset that the RCMP investigation was begun for partisan reasons. The settlement agreement signed by BM lays out their perspective on this: paragraph 8, the parties acknowledge that procedure used in sending LOR was same as used in previous occasions. In para 9, parties acknowledge that RCMP on its own initiated investigation, that I was not involved, and that before Nov 4, 1995, I was not aware of LOR. We all learned that using language which is conclusory when talking about allegations is wrong. I asked for that to change and appointed (someone) to look into procedures in issuing LORs. I put those recommendations in place. I am now happy to answer questions.

5:05 PM
Murphy (LPC): You mentioned that you and former SG Herb Gray announced your intention to settle in Jan 97, but wasn't until late that year that you announced the final amt of the settlement. Either at the time of the Jan presser or Oct settlement, did you become aware of the cash payments made to BM (either 225K or 300K)?

Allan Rock: no

Murphy (LPC): you're no stranger to a court room. You know what I mean by a plea deal. In BM's pleading, said that he'd never had any bank account in a foreign country, although he's since admitted to having safety deposit boxes in various countries, and said he'd never received alleged payments in request for assistance, and I don't have to remind you that Mr. Schreiber's name is there in the request for assistance. In discovery, where Gov lawyers concluded BM had never had any dealings w/KHS, this discovery was in April 96 (here and here), and they go on to paint relationship between the two as 'just in passing,' re: German unification interests, and that KHS had coffee w/BM a few times. Did you review any of the discovery transcripts or were you fully briefed?

Allan Rock: I believe there was press coverage and I was briefed on the main points of discovery. I was generally aware of what was asked.

Murphy (LPC): heard from Norman Spector that BM and KHS had more than a relationship in passing. Also said that certain people have used 'AB' as a vague shorthand for the whole affair. Would you consider, knowing what you know now, i.e. that KHS gave BM 225-300K, would you consider vague to say "I had never had any dealings with him?"

Allan Rock: well, I'm not going to try to interpret what BM said. I CAN tell you, I guess, first of all, certainly the gov concluded from BM's testimony that he'd not had dealings w/KHS. And second, I was surprised to learn subsequently, in 2003, that there had been payments to BM.

Murphy (LPC): would you still recommend that the gov enter into the 2 mill settlement w/BM (if you had the same position NOW in government)?

Allan Rock: difficult to be categorical. I can say that, had there been disclosure at the time of the cash payments made to BM, it would have had a dramatic effect on that litigation. A profound effect. Questions would have been asked, docs would have been requested, safety deposit box records, tax returns...

Murphy (LPC): you would not have authorized settlement if you'd known of cash payments.

Allan Rock: assuming that they had been disclosed...we wouldn't have settled on THOSE terms, which isn't to say we wouldn't have settled on OTHER terms, but ...

Murphy (LPC): did you believe that the RCMP didn't know of these cash payments at the time of the settlement? Mr. Spector certainly feels that the RCMP didn't know about cash when they shut down investigation.

Allan Rock: I have no idea what they knew. They never raised it w/Mr. Gray, and Mr. Gray certainly never raised it with me.

Murphy (LPC): as far as RCMP investigation...did they continue to ack the investigation was going on, even after the settlement?

Allan Rock: yes, that was one of the terms of the agreement, that the RCMP would have the sole discretion to continue the investigation until they felt it had been concluded.

Murphy (LPC): memoranda suggest (from DoJ) that they considered trying to get this settlement money back, after learning of the cash payments. Do you find it surprising that the ministers of Justice (Toews, Nicholson) weren't briefed on attempts to get back the settlement funds?

Allan Rock: I don't know what they were/weren't briefed about. Could ask court to set aside settlement agreement if determined on something less than full disclosure. I'm not here to give advice to the Justice Dept, which I'm sure they won't need, nor political advice, which I'm sure the gov wouldn't accept (big smile)
(laughter)

Continue on to Part II ("But I *trusted* you, lyin' Brian!").

Raising the Spector, Part V: The return of Grumpy Old Tilson

2008-02-14T03:36:00.000-08:00

Former Mulroney Chief of Staff Norman Spector presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 5. As with last Fall's testimony, the following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. This is the final installment of Spector's testimony. You can return to the beginning of this 'series,' by clicking here: Part I. Stay tuned for coverage of Fmr. Attorney General (and Minister of Justice) Allan Rock!

The return of Grumpy Old Tilson

4:35 PM
Mulcair (NDP): could you give name of the RCMP investigator who interviewed you?

Norman Spector: I answered chair, it was Mr. Matthews

Mulcair (NDP): you said you had another example to give to the cmte?

Norman Spector: I wrote about this e.g. in the afterward to the Kaplan book (gaaaaawd, enough about your stupid book).

Mulcair (NDP): published? Not reported but published?

Norman Spector: involves Winnipeg as well.

Mulcair (NDP): last thing: you referred to mandate of inquiry, you said rightly that PM promised full public inquiry. After his musings over Xmas, when he said mightn't be necessary, and Johnston says "well tilled ground," and he quotes Cameron to back that up. About 10 Mill, do you think the inquiry's broad enough to follow that up? Should this cmte subpoena records, tax, etc. Or does inquiry have enough of a mandate?

Norman Spector: I think the cmte should followup on these matters.

Mulcair (NDP): about Johnston's mandate?

Norman Spector: it's not broad enough.

4:37 PM
Hubbard (LPC): (yay! Kindly old ramblin' man is back!) You bring us a very interesting story as a career pub servant. You must have been very uncomfortable, watching cash being handed around and the cheques were made out in YOUR name, etc. We also found out, after you went back to BC, when the two parties were talking about merging (Reform and PC), you said you had a conversation with PMS. Mr. Harper and you discussed situation and conversation (according to you) went around relationship that Harper might have w/BM. You gave Mr. Harper some recommendations about BM relationship: you know that recommendation wasn't followed, as recently of 2006, PMS was happy to exhibit BM as one of the main architects of his victory in 2006. When you bring evidence today, about work in PMO, the advice you offered and situation as it was, with respect to people you saw coming & going to see BM, can you give our cmte the names of any of these people?

Norman Spector: I didn't recognize any of those people. I DID meet w/Harper in 2003, after article on cash payments appeared in G&M. Harper had a pained look on his face and asked me, "what should I say?" I didn't give him any advice. I was writing for Globe at time. You've put words in my mouth. I thought it was inappropriate for someone in my position to be giving political advice. I think Harper made a mistake. It's a mistake a lot of people in this country made. Only have to think back to this past September, in a 2h presentation by CTV by their chief anchor on Mr. M. It was a full blown PR exercise, and at very last min had a puffball question about cash. If entire CTV news time didn't smell something (laughter) that would have said 'proceed w/caution,' and if most experienced journalist in Canada, Lloyd Robertson didn't think, "whoah, there's something here that we should be very careful about," why would Harper, poor Stephen harper say "let's be careful about this."

Szabo (chair, LPC): you started off, provided us with puzzle pieces and challenged us to put them together. You talked about 10 mill and where did it go...do you have any evidence that this money is from Thyssen or KHS or any of his companies?

Norman Spector: it's what came out from German justice system about KHS. KHS had 10 mill to dist in Canada. Either he kept it, kept part of it, or distributed it.

Szabo (chair, LPC): are you suggesting that any monies from Thyssen, KHS, or any of his comps got into the PC Canada Fund w/spec directive that they be earmarked for BM?

Norman Spector: no evidence

Szabo (chair, LPC): re BHP, you knew it was cancelled in 1990, subsequent discussions about relocating in Montreal (Benoit Bouchard involved at time). How do you explain to Canadians that after the PM killed multi-mill project, how do you explain that it was still alive? Did BM want to create impression that it was still alive?

Norman Spector: well, that's the smoke of this whole thing. Peter Lougheed, a conservative, had instructed cabinet never to meet w/KHS; Crosbie would never meet w/KHS. And yet KHS had all this access to the PMO, to the point where I met with him. And to the PCO, where Paul Tellier met with him. There weren't a lot of Canadians who paid a courtesy call to Harrington Lake...

4:45 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): I understand. B/C you're familiar w/BHP, can you give us a plausible explanation for why this should have been marketed to China, France, Russia, other countries...

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): (interrupting) it's almost a quarter to ....

Szabo (chair, LPC): Ya, I understand...

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): Not "Ya," you're going on & on..we're either gonna hear Mr. Rock (Allan Rock) or we're not gonna...we're 15 minutes behind schedule!

Szabo (chair, LPC): our expectation is that we won't have as many questions for Mr. Rock...

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): But how do you KNOW, sir? You've taken over the meeting, Mr. Rock was scheduled for 4:30 and it's now quarter-to-five! (Szabo interrupting) No! Let's end it!

Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Spector, do you have any final words for us?

Norman Spector: good luck. My sense is that DND was not gonna buy these things. They were dead set against them. The only poss way to go would be to find an offshore company somewhere.

Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you, Mr. Spector. Suspend for 5 min.

Return to Part IV ("Hey! You invited *me*!"), Part I ("Don't let this become Frank Magazine"), or Continue on to Part I of my Allan Rock coverage ("").
Grumpy ol' Kitty courtesy of Icanhascheezburger.com

Raising the Spector, Part IV: Hey! You invited me!

2008-02-14T03:34:00.000-08:00

Hey! You invited me!

4:21 PM
Hiebert (CPC): you told us about the system of cash being used at 24 Sussex. Can you explain what relevance that has to our study?

Norman Spector: ask yourselves that. You're the ones who've asked an EX-CHEF to testify. I've been invited to test about BHP, and as citizen Canada, I feel responsibility to help. I'm here to tell you not to get diverted by these wild goose chases. We're looking for 10 mill dollars. Not looking for reconciliation of Stevie Cameron's book, what the chef may or may not have seen at 24 Sussex...it's a vivid description, but you're chasing (from what I know), what I think you should do is subpoena bank transfers, etc. Find out what KHS has, if he has something, or whether he's just tearing the guts out of this country. He may have something (pounds fist). Let's find out! What are we waiting for? So, he'd stay in Canada. So what? We won't clean up our system of gov until we get to the bottom of this story.

Hiebert (CPC): best way is public inquiry. (huh?! The Cons are keen for an inquiry?) If you don't think the cash transfers aren't relevant, why are you bringing them up?

Norman Spector: I wrote about this in the afterward (to Kaplan's book). And you invited me!

Hiebert (CPC): we didn't invite you, it was members of the opposition (oh! You little shit!)

Norman Spector: you are ONE committee! (Old Man Tilson, the Conservative vice-chair interrupts: "We have no say over here!")

Norman Spector: ok, if we're talking about the conservative side of this cmte now...(*snerk*)

Hiebert (CPC): I'm asking you if you have any ethical or moral or legal concerns about these cash payments

Norman Spector: (lots of grumbling on CPC side; Szabo calms them down, so NS can respond) I find it interesting, your statement about the public inquiry, that it's the way to go, particularly when Harper, in Xmas interview said maybe we don't need one. And then we got the (Johnston) report suggesting very narrow area of inquiry. And I accept M. Ménard's disclaimer: that the 10 min rule is a problem. Kaplan suggested that...

Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Spector, can I take it from your avoidance of the question that you don't want to talk about the cash transactions?

Norman Spector: obviously I have no problems about them. Particularly since I'd been told they passed muster with CCRA. I wrote about that and it's been on the public record for over three years!

Hiebert (CPC): can I ask you one last question? (you're asking to ask?) Where did you get these docs?

Norman Spector: file from PMO, which I asked to have made before I left. Thought I was asking for records of only my involvement in this, but apparently there was more in the file. First time I looked was 2 wks ago, when I was preparing for this cmte. Big surprise.

4:25 PM
Lavallée (BQ): Would you say that the handling of cash was common practice at 24 Sussex?

Norman Spector: all I know is what I read in daily news

Lavallée (BQ): organized system?

Norman Spector: I've no info on that question.

Lavallée (BQ): with respect to GCI and Doucet, the lobbyist who had his own company w/brother. Did you see any others with such good access to BM or was Doucet chief?

Norman Spector: during my time there, it was just him.

Lavallée (BQ): no other guy had such access to the PMO? Did you recognize people who he brought in who didn't look like "scouts?" (Girl Guides)

Norman Spector: no

Lavallée (BQ): did you think that the 300K that BM got from KHS (or 225K) after 93, do you think there's a connection to AB?

Norman Spector: don't know

Lavallée (BQ): what acct did cheques come from? You said PC fund, but Stevie Cameron said that there was a special fund setup by former Sen. Charbonneau to meet needs of BM. She even has acct#, institution, Montreal Trust, #830.

Norman Spector: don't think there's a connection to Cameron's "version," but you'll see that for yourself.

Ménard (BQ): you told Le Devoir that you'd help cmte understand the motivation and behaviour of your former boss by referring to other files. You want to refer to other files?

Norman Spector: under impression that BM had one eye on life after politics and that he was courting people with power and money.

Ménard (BQ): what do you mean by courting?

Norman Spector: give two e.g.. (1) decision by National Post to kill story, BM named Conrad Black to Privy Council. Someone from outside named to Privy Council. Asper family was greatful for his intervention in Milgaard case, so it was extraordinary for PM to intervene in matter like Milgaard.

Ménard (BQ): not going to convince us...you said you'd arrange for him to be reimbursed for expenses to the (PC) party. But you didn't see anything wrong with that? Did you not think that something needed to be changed?

Norman Spector: in MY day in the PMO, there was a system where payment 5K/month to PM in place, to my knowledge. Not a huge amount of money (it's NOT?!)

4:31 PM
Hiebert (CPC): at this point we've concluded that you have no new evidence with respect to wrongdoing and that you didn't think there was anything wrong/unethical about payment system setup for the former prime minister, but you've been quite adamant that we can find ways to avoid this kind of thing in the future. Are you aware of the "Accountability Act?" (BLECCHHH!) What other suggestions would you have for the cmte?

Norman Spector: first, to the preamble to your question, I HAVE presented new evidence...

Hiebert (CPC): of what?

Norman Spector: evidence of system of reimbursements that I was NOT aware of when I wrote the afterward to the Kaplan book. What I've written in Le Devoir and Globe, that's new evidence. I've said that I have no info about it, not in a position to cast judgement on its appropriateness. Before you put words in my mouth...(Hiebert tries to interrupt)....SECONDLY, I am aware of the reforms, and they should go some distance, but I'm also aware that the PM said he'd make Deputy Ministers accountable to cmtes of parliament and he's not done so. Fight between Public Accounts and PCO over protocol. Aware that lobbyist reg rules aren't quite what PM promised. One thing that would help: keep lobbyists from participating in political...should be kept out completely, including in media. Anyone reg'd as lobbyist, should be no special access to party in power. No debt to them. I think there's a legit role for industry, but should be based on expertise, not on so & so was in the War Room or so & so ran buses for campaign.

Hiebert (CPC): well, Mr. Schreiber...

Norman Spector: Spector!! (laughter)

Hiebert (CPC): ok, Mr. Spector...I'm still at a loss b/c you've said there's nothing unethical or illegal about payment system and I've given you opportunity to provide new evidence and I've heard none. If you're talking about the ...

Norman Spector: well maybe you should read the transcripts (?) and study them before François Martin comes to testify (*snerk*)

Continue to Part V ("The return of Grumpy Old Tilson") or return to Part III ("Brother, those ain't Girl Guides!").
Bored party-kitties courtesy of Icanhascheezburger.com

Raising the Spector, Part III: Brother, those ain't Girl Guides!

2008-02-14T03:32:00.000-08:00

Brother, those ain't Girl Guides!

4:07 PM
Hiebert (CPC): it's well known that the RCMP spent years and likely millions of dollars investigating Airbus (AB) purchase by Air Canada and Bear Head Project (BHP). But the RCMP concluded that the remaining allegations could not be substantiated and no charges will be laid. First of all, do you have any evidence of wrongdoing, by any public official, relating to AB?

Norman Spector: I wasn't in Ottawa when the AB contract was...

Hiebert (CPC): so you have no evidence

Norman Spector: (annoyed) with respect, your cmte invited me here today. You knew I was not in Ottawa in 1995. Don't know why you're interrogating me today. You clearly thought that the things I've written--assuming you've read them--(*snerk*) this cmte clearly thought I had relevant things to say. (Man, is he annoyed!) As to your citation of RCMP's stmt, I don't believe them! And I think Canadians are very sceptical of the RCMP, for all kinds of reasons, including those which have taken place in BC recently. Or a certain announcement that took place in the last election campaign. I don't believe them! I think you should get them here, under oath, and I'll give you the name of the inspector...I think the RCMP is part of this problem.

Norman Spector: You're from BC, so you know: we've had two premiers investigated by special prosecutors, criminal charges laid, and both acquitted. Our justice system doesn't demand convictions. Third premier investigated and not charged and BColumbians said, "that's fine, too." In Ottawa, the score card is ZERO, at whatever level of executive council. I've worked in Victoria and in Ottawa and I can tell you, that politicians in Victoria are no more corrupt than in Ottawa. You need a transparent process. Stephen Owen, his recommendation, as ombudsman of BC, to ensure equal justice, sometimes you have to put in place special arrangements for political cases. In BC, when allegation made against politician, assistant AG, a career public servant hires an outside counsel, hired by Bar association and that person investigates. That is a clean system, one that's used by British cousins (or looking into it, anyway). It's the system that Harper talked about in last campaign, a special prosecutor's office ...that's what we need in Ottawa to stop the slide in Transparency International numbers.

Hiebert (CPC): I appreciate that, Mr. Spector, and I'm glad to see those (TI) numbers improve over the last few years (barf!). I wannu give you the opportunity to give evidence of wrongdoing, relating to consulting agreement btwn BM and KHS, or with respect to AB, these are all elements of mandate of cmte.

Norman Spector: no evidence one way or another

Hiebert (CPC): re Cape Breton BHP, when was it finally rejected by govf?

Norman Spector: I don't know that it ever was

Hiebert (CPC): but you mentioned that BM killed it...

Norman Spector: he did, but it seemed to come back, it was like the Phoenix (eye-roll). Give you two anecdotes, one from Harry Swain, dep min, at his first briefing of his minister, John Manley. He asked if Swain had any advice for a new minister, and he said he had two pieces of advice: first, you should read "Yes, Minister." Secondly, don't ever meet w/KHS. Second anecdote by Glenn Shortliffe (former clerk of Privy Council) talking about BHP, it was like whackamole. Want to know if more than smoke there. Wouldn't die.

Hiebert (CPC): can you tell us what you told RCMP when they asked you about the BHP?

Norman Spector: to save you time, it's all in the stmt that I gave them. Avail to your cmte. Sworn, signed stmt. All there and I wouldn't change a word.

Hiebert (CPC): any new info?

Norman Spector: I have new info, learned subsequently that BHP didn't die. When I left PMO, I thought it was dead. When I came back from Middle East, I was astonished to learn that Marc Lalonde was involved in some way...

Hiebert (CPC): do you have any evidence relating to BHP (new)?

Norman Spector: no

4:14 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): with respect to the identity of the RCMP officer you referred to, was that Insp. L. Matthews?

Norman Spector: yes

Szabo (chair, LPC): wrt expense report, the 101K from 96-97, annualized to 135K, can you confirm that reimbursement of personal expenses (Palm Beach trips, Rome, flowers, theatre...) all personal not having to do w/his work as Prime Minister?

Norman Spector: it says "personal" as you can see for yourself

Szabo (chair, LPC): you said that it was determined by Revenue Canada that these weren't taxable?

Norman Spector: (emphasizing) On the FIRST arrangement. I know nothing on this arrangement, including relating to taxation

Dhaliwal (LPC): as PC party treasurer in early 90s, was Jim Prentice aware of those payments to BM?

Norman Spector: never knew Prentice. Didn't know him then and don't know him now. My understanding is that current Sen. Angus was a key player in these arrangements.

Dhaliwal (LPC): you mentioned that while Doucet was lobbyist, that he would bring people to BM's office and wouldn't be on the schedule. Can you explain?

Norman Spector: most of you are aware of the office upstairs, the PM's corner office-one side you'll find the secretary, and other side, there's an office where CoS worked. I would work in the Longevin office most times, but sometimes I'd be in little CoS upstairs. I'd see Doucette bringing people to see BM, and "they didn't look like Girl-Guides going in to get their photos taken with the PM" They were wearing suits.

Dhaliwal (LPC): do you have a copy of your stmt to RCMP in 1995? Can you table it?

Norman Spector: sure. If you don't have it, pleased to give it to you.

Dhaliwal (LPC): was it Lowell Murray who informed you that it was Hugh Segal who took over BHP?

Norman Spector: I was out of the country, and saw article in Globe saying Lalonde and Mr. MacKay had posted bond for Mr. Schreiber-in 1997 or 98. I'd worked very closely w/Lowell Murray during Meech Lake and asked him "what gives? I thought project was dead" and he said, "Oh no, it kept coming back, and even Hughie had dealt with it." I'm not accusing Mr. Segal of any wrongdoing, I'm just saying that the BHP had come back during Segal's time and Mr. Segal gave it (BHP) the back of his hand, too. That was before KHS did courtesy call at Harrington Lake (1988 end of term).

Dhaliwal (LPC): you know KHS has filed a suit against gov for not following through on 88 understanding in princ. When did KHS first raise this with you?

Norman Spector: he never raised this with me, but what I found most offensive about dealing with (KHS) was that he was basically engaged in process of character assassination of public servants. Alleging that his difficulties were the result of certain officials being in the pockets of General Motors (?!), who were the supplier of LAVs to military. These people were my colleagues and I knew they weren't in anybody's pockets.

Continue to Part IV ("Hey! You invited *me*!") or return to Part II ("What's a nice hack like you doing in a place like this?").
Shopping kitties courtesy of Icanhascheezburger.com

Raising the Spector, Part II: What's a nice hack like you doing in a place like this?

2008-02-14T03:30:00.000-08:00

What's a nice hack like you doing in a place like this?

3:51 PM
Lavallée (BQ): Thanks for being here. You would agree w/François Martin who said at 24 Sussex, cash came as though it were from heaven. Culture of cash. Why were cheques made out to you? Why not to BM or Mrs. M?

Norman Spector: good question and I can't answer it. Perhaps I've raised some issues today that need answering. First meeting w/BM when offered job, he explained that all my predecessors had performed that duty and that that would be one of them. Second point, it seemed reasonable, first of all, I knew Mr. Davis (Premier Ontario) had arrangement of this type. Used to work for BC provincial politician.

Lavallée (BQ): was he paid directly by cheque? (former boss in BC)

Norman Spector: don't know, I wasn't involved directly in the process as it existed in BC. He had a principal secretary in his office.

Lavallée (BQ): when you got cheques, did you have to provide invoices or receipts?

Norman Spector: submitted by Mrs M and someone from our staff looked to see which ones qualified

Lavallée (BQ): were they mainly personal?

Norman Spector: I don't know. I trusted that individual on my team (public servant from foreign affairs) that he would do it properly

Lavallée (BQ): you didn't wonder, then, why not give money directly to BM? Even an intelligent person like yourself? (BTW, I *heart* Lavallée! Such a flirt!)

Norman Spector: even an intelligent person like myself didn't wonder about that...(*snerk*)

Lavallée (BQ): surprising

Norman Spector: yes, it is

Lavallée (BQ): but it was to add to the salary of BM who was making...

Norman Spector: I wasn't present at the meeting w/party and BM when reached the agreement on this arrangement. All I know is that it existed

Lavallée (BQ): on the 14th Nov last year, you said that the BM/KHS affair could be one of "the worst scandals in Canadian history." You really think that the behaviour of the Conservatives at the time, was worse than sponsorship?

Norman Spector: I don't know, which is why I'm asking you to pursue this matter. There's at least 10 mill dollars and don't know what happened to it.

Lavallée (BQ): where do you think it went?

Norman Spector: don't know, but not ruling out possibility that KHS kept it for himself. Don't know.

Lavallée (BQ): turn floor to M. Ménard

3:56 PM
Ménard (BQ): I accept your assessment but I disagree with you about this cmte-this cmte does not allow us to get to the bottom of things unless we take a huuuuuuge amount of time. We have just a few mins to ask question, so nothing like commission of inquiry.

Norman Spector: I'm impressed by your skills (Menard's X-exam of BM) in questioning BM. I was really struck...(Ha! Now look who's flirting!)

Ménard (BQ): (laughing) we've no time for compliments! Later, please! (*snort*) Let's get to the heart of the matter...you've given us a few figures, 60K/yr in nine months and 100K...all this money that was coming in, it came from same source? PC Canada fund?

Norman Spector: yes

Ménard (BQ): you started your intro by talking about the culture of lobbyists that existed. If I understand correctly, someone who wanted to influence gov couldn't give money directly to PM, but coulda given it to PC fund?

Norman Spector: no, I'm speaking out against system that exists in Ottawa...KHS said it, in order to do business in government of Can, you have to hire a lobbyist

Ménard (BQ): in Québec, everyone thinks it would never happen to René Lévesque

Norman Spector: (chuckling) I remember some stories about "Oxygene" ...it is a bipartisan problem in Ottawa. There's also the NDP and Bloc, who've never been in gov. Not the case in Québec. There are some stories...

3:59 PM
Martin (NDP): thank you for taking part in this wretched process...as wretched as it may be, it's all we have currently. Mr. M has said over and over again that he had nothing to do with choice of Air Canada to purchase AB, and yet he fired 13/14 Board of Directors at AC in '85. You were CoS?

Norman Spector: no, I wasn't even in Ottawa then...I arrived in 1986. The RCMP came to ACOA looking for copy of the agreement in our files, b/c ACOA was the lead agency. It was only by accident that I was there. They didn't come looking for me for a stmt about BH. Talked to srgt and came out that I was in PMO. Asked if I knew anything about AB, and I said no, so we talked about BH.

Martin (NDP): fair enough, we'll move on to influence of corporate lobbyists. Frequency and regularity of visits to PMO--you said some of these were not scheduled, you had Frank Moores...

Norman Spector: no, I was speaking about Fred Doucet.

Martin (NDP): did you see KHS?

Norman Spector: I met w/KHS. After I was handed the BH file, I met w/him to get his side of story. It was that which lead that...

Martin (NDP): what year?

Norman Spector: 1990

Martin (NDP): BM swore that in 1986 he had only passing acquaintances w/KHS. True?

Norman Spector: during those years, I had no knowledge of him dealing w/KHS, but after being handed BH file, I learned subsequent to 1996 that it certainly looks like BM had more than passing dealings with KHS

Mulcair (NDP): want to go back to your stmt about RCMP "botched the investigation" into AB matter. Are there things contained in Johnston's report--two surprising things in there. He talks about "well tilled ground" and quotes two books by Stevie Cameron, which is odd way of saying we don't need to investigate. Another thing concerns me a little, since the beg there's been vagueness in RCMP, it says Mr. S was questioned many times by RCMP. All of that was *after* settlement of AB. To your knowledge, dating back to 1995, did you speak to KHS? (????)

Norman Spector: the stmt that this is "well tilled ground" is absolutely incorrect. Might not be common knowledge, but know from Kaplan (book, Secret Trial) you can buy in bookstore (someone interrupts: "very hard to find!") Yes, [the book] was almost nipped in the bud by McGill press...

Mulcair (NDP): (laughing) like to have answer to my question...

Norman Spector: Sorry. You were speaking about the cash. The RCMP did NOT know about the cash when they said the investigation was over. Mr. Kaplan, if you meet him, he has impeccable sources...they did NOT know, they just had a rumour about it, which makes it even more extraordinary. They don't shut down murder investigations--they allow them to go cold, sure, but they don't shut them down. On question of whether they did/didn't, you'll have to ask RCMP themselves. I suspect people are playing games w/word "Airbus"--it's a contract but also an affair, involving many different scandals. This is an example of evasiveness

Mulcair (NDP): I'm the one who asked Mr. S whether the RCMP had spoken with him before the settlement to BM, but that's not what comes out of Johnson's report

Norman Spector: when RCMP interviewed me in 95, they were at the very beginning of their investigation. Just a feeling though, not based on fact.

Continue to Part III ("Brother, those ain't Girl Guides!") or return to Part I ("Don't let this become Frank Magazine").
"Flirt" poster from La Belle Cuisine

Raising the Spector Part I: "Don't let this become Frank Magazine"

2008-02-14T03:28:00.000-08:00

"Don't let this become Frank Magazine"

3:31 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): (calls cmte to order) first witness is Norman Spector, former chief of staff to BM; in 1992 Ambassador to Israel and high-commissioner to Cyprus; later appointed to ACOA by Chrétien. On Dec 15, 2007, cmte gave me a list of witnesses to call, including yourself. Ask clerk to swear you in. (swearing in Spector) Thank you, sir. You know this matter is very serious. Hope you won't feel undue influence. Hope you can help us understand. Refusal to answer is not an option. As courtesy, don't speak too quickly (translators). Full stmt, then proceed to questions. Invite you to address cmte

Norman Spector: (there is music playing in the room. Cellphone ring-tone? Szabo annoyed...asks someone to "throw it on the ground") Thank you. I'm not delighted to be in Ottawa today. Not just the snow, etc, but about the climate as well: I left city in 96, following resignation from public service of Canada, in circumstances eerily parallel to my brief, but still shining moment w/Karlheinz Schreiber (KHS). With one difference: when presented w/facts, Brian Mulroney (BM) didn't hesitate to declare Bear Head Project (BHP) dead. In 96, had my deputy Min colleague at Public Works stood up to very same Minister that was applying pressure at ACOA, could have nipped in bud the sponsorship scandal. Efforts by your cmte are being frustrated by government (Harper), as Gomery reminded us on 2nd anniversary of his report.

Norman Spector: Canadians have seen how Canada really works: lobbyists, lobbying, power of PM and PMO. Also a story about media. Wonder if you'd have launched these hearings in 2001, when Moores still alive. Had the National Post not killed story of KHS cash payments--flew in face of everything we thought we knew about BM settlement. Maybe 3 yrs, had Kaplan been interviewed on CBC, which routinely feature far less sig books than "Secret Trial." Can you imagine paper in Canada killing sensational scoop on former PM. It boggles the mind. Don't get me started about journalism. I spend lots of time doing that on my website.

Norman Spector: first, on BHP. In 1995, I gave the RCMP a sworn stmt about what I knew of this project of KHS. Some lobbyists made a lot of money in 80s. Doucet had access to PMO. After he left PMO, still brought lobbyists to PMO. But they were not on the schedule and would have been unknown to me, unless I happened to chance upon them. This explains why BHP refused to die, even after BM killed it. As I wrote in Le Devoir, I can help you in ID'g large sources of cash taken to 24 Sussex Dr. Some are scratching their heads when they heard you'd asked ex-chef to testify. Understandable, in light of disclosures made over the years, by Francois Martin's vivid upstairs/downstairs gossip. The documents I brought today identify a more prosaic source of cash. As you can see, Mr M and his wife had an expensive lifestyle. I can understand why he'd be somewhat preoccupied about what life after PM would be like, and why he'd like to cater to the rich and powerful. I can provide anecdotes, like the ones in the Afterward of Kaplan's book, but one of which has never been reported. Keep your eye on the ball. Don't let this become Frank magazine.

3:40 PM
Norman Spector: around the end of BM's second term, Canada was rated the 5th least corrupt country in world. When Chrétien left, we were 12th. At end of Paul Martin, 14th. This town has a bipartisan problem, but could have bipartisan solution--of course there are 2 parties that have not been in power, and therefore not implicated in these scandals (BQ, NDP). Since 2006, Canada has climbed back to 9th place. As news out of Public Works last week suggested, we have a long way to go before best place in world is also the least corrupt place. In contrast to Martin, when sponsorship hit the fan, I have grave doubts that Harper wants Airbus (AB) answers. Have grave doubt that inquiry will discover where 10 mill in "Schreiber-gelde" ended up. Darker possibilities captured by a former Tory cabinet minister went to visit the home of Earnscliffe, then a Tory lobby firm, it may surprise you. "Why is it so much more lucrative to know Harvie André, then to be Harvie André?"

Norman Spector: We're here today b/c RCMP botched its AB investigation. Hope you'll examine special prosecutor system designed by Steven Owen in BC. Meanwhile, this wretched process is Canadians' best hope for getting bottom of this story, one that was ignored by MPs and suppressed to a large extent by members of the media. As semi-retired public servant, good to say no, when Kaplan asked for afterward. You've come to the table late, but late is better than never, unless it's simply to dine-out on partisan politics. You have all the power you need and M. Ménard, M. Coumartin have shown the way. You should not hesitate to subpoena tax and bank records and you'll start pressuring gov for KHS to spill beans, if he has any to spill.

3:44 PM
Thibault (LPC): Thank you. I know you've come a long way to inform Canadians. You said in Le Devoir article as in your column in Globe, that you can inform the cmte that you can tell us the source of the funds. Can we invite you to do that now, please?

Norman Spector: I said that I would be able to help you ID sources of the cash, taken to 24 Sussex. I've three documents, one package of docs, and one specific doc...I will give these to your clerks. Mr. M was being reimbursed 5K/month by PC Canada Fund for "expenses incurred as party leader." Sometimes we'd give this to Mrs. M in cash. Sometimes we'd send it to BM's accountant in Montreal. I wrote about this in Kaplan afterward, which explains why it wasn't front-page news in either paper, as the reporters from Devoir and Globe had read the afterward. First set of documents on reimbursement of personal expenses. Shortly before I left the PMO, I was told of a CCRA (old Revenue Canada) ruling defining reimbursements as non-taxable. Not income. In addition to that, it appears that BM was being reimbursed for "personal expenses" by PC Canada fund. No knowledge of any aspect of this relationship. But the document appears, on the face of it, it appears to indicate that he was reimbursed slightly more than 100K for the 9 mo period between Oct 86 and June 87.

Thibault (LPC): in cash?

Norman Spector: doesn't specify. On annual basis, amount to 135K/yr. Third doc is summary of inventory of PC Canada fund at 24 Sussex and at Harrington Lake and shows, around time of end of 1st term in office, fund had spent 136K on furnishings at Sussex and 53K on furnishings at Harrington Lake. Table those docs as well. The latter two docs are new. But as I wrote in afterward...

Thibault (LPC): at time you were Chief of Staff (CoS), were you aware of any other money...

Norman Spector: no, absolutely not

Thibault (LPC): you transfer any of these funds into bank accounts?

Norman Spector: cheques were written to CoS to PM, arrangement going back to BM's 1st CoS, as far as I know, it continued after I left, but arrangement was in place...cheque written to me in trust. Deposited or cashed, or transferred to accountant or Mrs. M

Thibault (LPC): You said in the afterward (to Kaplan's book) that you and your staff would pore over docs and receipts to see what was the expense re: office---was this for repayment by party or PMO budget?

Norman Spector: no, in reimbursement for expenses incurred as party leader. Had staff member (a public servant borrowed from Foreign Affairs) poring over this to look at these expenses, to figure out what was legit. Some submitted by Mrs M. He'd approve some but not others, and then we'd get reimbursed by party fund

Coming up next: Part II ("What's a nice hack like you doing in a place like this?")
Spector "Wall of Sound" postcard from efrank.ca

US AG Mukasey testifies before Sen. Judiciary Cmte: Part II

2008-01-30T18:06:00.000-08:00

US Attorney Gen. Michael B. Mukasey testified before the Sen. Judiciary Committee today. As with this morning's testimony, skdadl and I continued to follow the proceedings as closely as our c-span streaming abilities would allow. The following is a collection of our notes from this afternoon's testimony. Our notes from this morning are available here.

***Note: "WB" stands for waterboarding. How said is it that we use this term often enough to warrant abbreviation?! Also: this is NOT a transcript. Time-stamps are approximate. Some notes are skdadl's, and some are mine :)

UPDATE [Jan 31, 2008, 5:18 PM]: I have cleaned up our notes from yesterday and annotated with links, as appropriate. Hope you find these useful!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2:07 PM

(Leahy's reconvened the hearing. Lots are missing b/c of other Senate business like the stimulus pkg, etc)

Cornyn (R-Texas): Open Government Act 2007--Leahy and I have been working the FOIA (stream cut out)

Cornyn: as a former judge, anything that can avoid litigation and resolve things informally is a good thing. Let me address FISA reform. Our leaders have announced 15 day extension, which is kicking the can down the road; something we should do on a perm basis. Yesterday I talked to father of man killed in Iraq, following kidnapping by al Qaeda. I detailed troubling facts highlighted by NY Post Oct 15, 2007, "Wire Law failed lost GI" detailing delay of FISA application, which would not have been necessary if our amendment/revision had past. In talking to the late-soldier's father yesterday, he expressed concern that if, in fact this FISA wasn't passed on a perm basis, that wouldn't require a lengthy process, that his son might be here today.

***THIS IS BULLSHIT--that story was thoroughly debunked!***

skdadl: 1:59 PM
Cornyn: The ticking time-bomb meme. Feeds Mukasey an easy answer.

Be scared, everyone! Be scared! That is the entire logic of these criminals.

Hey!

Whitehouse is up!!! Yay!!!

kitty again: 2:12 PM

Mukasey: you put a human face on a problem we're trying to prevent from occur(ing). We wannu make sure that it's clear, to lower the burden on the gov to--in all its presentations to FISA--to make sure that all that has to get approved is procedures, and not get into a case-by-case basis. I hope that the DOJ acted in all the speed it could, in that case (Cornyn's).

Cornyn: I agree. I know there's been questions about interrogation, WBg and the 'ticking time bomb' scenario. I understand your hesitancy...in your response, it depends on the facts. Care to comment on the latitude that has to be provided--every means to get intelligence? (stream cut out)

Mukasey: there are circumstances where it's clearly lawful, and I'm not gonna give anybody the playbook or call into question what may/may not have been done.

Sen. Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island): Referring to your Jan 29 letter, it strikes me that, in its mode of analysis, you've assumed the role in essence of corporate counsel to executive branch. To ensure no law-breaking currently going on, but unwilling to look back and dredge up past unpleasantness and potentially creating liability of "corporation." You are not just "corporate counsel" to exec branch. You're also the prosecutor. Top law enforcement officer of US. They *do* look back, *do* dredge up past, in order to get justice. Mission statement of DOJ is to seek justice...case of US v. Berger, sovereignty of whose interests is that justice be done--use every legit means to bring about justice. The Pres has said we will investigate & pros *all* acts of torture. You just said if people violate laws of US, they'll get prosecuted. Sec 23-40 A, whoever commits torture, will sentenced to 20 yrs...or punished by death or any term of years. Jurisdiction over person if national of USA. So...we have a statute. You are the sole prosecuting authority of this statute, correct?

Mukasey: yes

Whitehouse: in your prosecutor's responsibility...not your advisory authority...could you tell me, in what way, looking back, there's an absence of concrete facts & circumstances about WBg that apply?

Mukasey: let's talk about my hats. Says "AG of US"...number of duties, but no divided responsibility or loyalty.

Whitehouse: look at your job of enforcing law

Mukasey: one of questions of past conduct--what authorizations were given? Current evaluation of statute has only tangentially to do with that. If directly to do with that, your authorization is good only...(stream cut out)

2:21 PM:

Whitehouse: but you're saying "I had authorization"...has there been a thorough, independent analysis of whether or not any national of US is in violation of this statute?

Mukasey: I don't start investigations out of curiosity. No such indication now.

Whitehouse: but destruction of tapes of interrogation was a criminal act--an issue--there, we have a counsel geared up to determine whether laws were violated, but whether the interrogation itself was criminal--isn't that worthy of investigation?

Mukasey: preliminary inquiry made about destruction of tapes--showed some reason to suggest violation, met the low-bar, we were required to and did begin a criminal investigation

Whitehouse: there's evidence an interrogation took place--why not look?

Mukasey: evidence of an interrogation and crime are two diff things

Whitehouse: could or could not be a crime. No distinction between standards?

Mukasey: but destruction of tapes could have been w/o authorization. All that started was preliminary inquiry--showed crime possible.

Whitehouse: how does that not meet Nuremberg? It appears interrogators following orders, but destroyers of tapes were not?

Mukasey: you're assuming interrogation unlawful

Whitehouse: not assuming any such thing. Should be at least *somebody* who takes a look at this. If you're telling me this hasn't even been investigated, but *tape destruction* is investigated, seems like discrepancy...

(WH time's up but he still has more)

skdadl: 2:09 PM

Nuremberg.

Sheldon Whitehouse is wonderful and brave beyond belief. He can make other people brave. God, this is wonderful. applause

Ok, Chuck ... 'Splain yrself.

kitty again: 2:26 PM

Schumer (D-New York) (blech!): you've been good and bad. You launched investigation of CIA tape destruction---good. You recalled a much criticized USAtty---good. Helped LGBT at DOJ and improved morale---good. On other issues, especially relating to exec power and torture, they differ dramatically from my view. Nonetheless, I thought there was a hope that you might just rise to the occasion. I remain disappointed.

Schumer: on WBg, you've had a chance to educate yourself about coercive methods of interrogation, (stream cut out)...Feinstein was a co-sponsor of this legislation--do you support a ban on WBg, by statute or exec order?

Mukasey: as a gen matter, matter of princ, I try to avoid using the blank canvass of existing laws to paint my own beliefs of something's repugnant or not. A question that other people 'own' a substantial part of answer. Intelligence officers, state dept, all of those people have to be heard. One of the things I'd wannu do before expressing my own view, as a junior mem of all these people, I'd like to hear them.

Schumer: I know you'd like to hear them, but one of your roles as AG is not just the decider, but I find it hard to understand why you, personally, can't say that something repugnant should be illegal. There's a statute that's very likely to get to the pres's desk, what advice would you give pres? Your personal view: should WBg be outlawed? You said once it was repugnant. why do you all of a sudden need to ask other people?

Mukasey: don't want to trivialize it. Avoid telling you all the other things I find repugnant. whether it is or isn't, taken by itself, isn't the basis of my recommendation to (pres?) other people. Want to get advice, etc.

Schumer: you discussed with Biden and Durbin, you would have to consider circumstances. Before your confirmation, you didn't say that: you said it's repugnant. You have an opportunity to be something of a leader. (stream cut out)

Schumer: people on the battlefield say it should be outlawed. *You* can't say that? Doesn't put the people you supervise in jeopardy.

Mukasey: when I was a judge, I was not a settling judge. (stream cut out)

skdadl: 2:18 PM

What?!? Specter is endorsing Bradbury?!?

skdadl: 2:22 PM

GAH!!!! Specter is attacking Fitz!!!!

Where the hell did that come from?!?

kitty again: 2:34 PM

Specter: questions about Steven Bradbury's renomination. Wanted to give you my endorsement of Bradbury. Worked with him 2 yrs ago, on leg to bring TSP into FISA. Found him to be an excellent lawyer, involving top secret matters, important legal issues. Hope he'll be confirmed. BLECH!!!!

Specter: I wrote to you November 13, 2007 letter--one matter about reporters' shield and another on attorney/client privilege. Want to move promptly on leg about the latter, and eventually, the former as well.

Specter: reporters' shield passed easily, w/strong support. Well in excess of 2/3 in House, and Sen committee. There had been a citation that there'd only been 24 subpoenas issued to reporters. Sen Grassley said 88 subpoenas issued (??). Matter came into sharp focus on the jailing of NYT Judy Miller. Still at a loss as to why Fitz got a contempt citation. Disclosed that the source was Armitage, and many indications of chilling effect of what DOJ has done. If you had some modifications on a balancing test--congress should do what it can to protect vital national security interests. Accommodation could be reached (this is BULLSHIT).

Specter: about McNulty memo. Case of US vs. Skye (sp??) calling gov's conduct "shocking the conscience." Commonwealth has burden of proof. Leahy and I have experience in prosecution in Penn, Vermont...Sen Whitehouse in Rhode Island. Place is full of (prosecutors). (stream cut out)

Mukasey: put in place another memo to prosecutors/USAtty, detailing when it is that testimony can be sought. Categories of privilege.

Specter: I'd like this to be a followup matter for us to sit & talk. Fmr. AG Meese has criticized the issue and McNulty memo. Can come to an accord on that.

Mukasey: under McNulty memo, there have been zero requests for a waiver of attorney/client priv. Corporations have been allowed to ask for that as a consideration, for avoiding an indictment--to say that they can't do that is to sac their right to judge what's good for them.

Specter: other points. In Wall St J, report that the FBI investigating insider trading on subprime. Give that a very high priority--we're considering legislation by Durbin and myself on this.

Specter: last point, could take a fresh look at contempt citations against exec branch officials. Bad to have them outstanding, as they're just "messengers" (please!) Leahy and I have tried to work out a formula for getting Miers et al before us. If we could come to terms on the transcript, might be able to unlock the controversy. In your confirmation, you spoke favourably about transcript. Pres appeared on TV and said he would make avail Miers and others as long as no oath is administered. Oath is desirable, but would be willing to waive it. Could be accommodated. Joint inquiry with House and Sen. Pres didn't want it public, but I think that's bad. Transcript is indispensable, more for the witness than anybody else. Could you revisit this? Contempt citations will amount to wheel-spinning, take years to resolve. (stream cut out)

Mukasey: serious separation of powers issues will be raised. Historically, exec power and oversight have been accommodated.

Specter: isn't the matter of immunity a matter for the courts? Oughta be a judicial determination, not an ex parte executive decision...(didn't get M's answer)

Specter: where does that immunity come from? President?

Mukasey: constitution.

Specter: I don't think that's correct. Enforcement of contempt citation is matter for judicial branch. Would you be willing to revisit this?

Mukasey: willing to find an accommodation, but don't want to suggest I'd be willing to overturn longstanding tradition

Specter: there's no longstanding tradition against transcripts?

Mukasey: I ...I don't know

Specter: (strongly disagrees) You're suggesting you don't know? Well let's try to find out.

Leahy: at least one witness who testified claimed exec privilege partially, said she never discussed matters w/pres, and frankly we found the claim of exec priv to be a tad broad. Don't wannu use the word "cover up" but that's the first and second thing that occurred to me.

Leahy: let me followup on Sen Whitehouse's questions on CIA tapes...stream cut out

2:51 PM

Leahy: John Durham is doing this b/c normally it'd be the USAtty for E. Virginia, who's recused himself. Why'd he recuse himself? (stream cut out)

Mukasey: E. district of Virginia has a requirement that at least one mem (of team?) be a member of the bar of this district. Not necessarily a recusal b/c conflict of interest. Facts were teased out to present possibility that there *may* be a conflict.

Leahy: can you assure us that nobody else in Durham's office will have a conflict?

Mukasey: selected to reduce that possibility. Durham is the man to whom they report.

Leahy: asked first became aware of when CIA tapes destroyed?

Mukasey : no, I don't (remember)

Leahy: when did DOJ officials become aware of videos of interrogations?

Mukasey: don't know

Leahy: did they ever view tapes?

Mukasey: don't know. And what was done in dept wouldn't be something I'd disclose if I knew it

Leahy: (confused and annoyed) Perhaps you & I should discuss it in private, with Sen Specter. If they *had* viewed them, then there'd be a reason to ask, who gave the order to destroy them.

Mukasey: order to destroy is separate from whether anyone in DOJ viewed them

Leahy: depends on *when* they viewed them, e.g. was anyone in dept asked about legality of destroying tapes

Mukasey: seen no evidence of someone in DOJ being asked about legality of tape-destruction. In any case, John Durham will be investigating. (stream cut out)...I first knew about it when I opened the paper that day (it reported)

Leahy: (makes joke about marking NYTimes, WaPo "Top Secret")

Mukasey: if I knew before that (article), I forgot.

Leahy: do you have any problems with (Durham??) testifying before this committee?

Mukasey: USAtty have never testified in pending cases--see no case for an exception, here.

Leahy: we may come back to that. You doubtless heard about how the Whitehouse, despite being required by law to archive emails, now say that, over a period of two years, destroyed email.

Mukasey: saw story that said there were emails there, that shouldn't be there (?? backwards)

Leahy: also told they'd used RNC (Republican National Cmte) emails, then said "oops" and destroyed them. If not following archive laws, e.g. Congress had questions about that in the last administration. Isn't this something you could look into?

Mukasey: depends on retention...

Leahy: if certain records were retained, and some destroyed, wouldn't that raise questions in your mind? I would hope the AG would have questions, too.

3:01 PM

Grassley (copy of his statement, questions for Mukasey): former AG recruited outside forensic experts in last admin. One result was that the FBI put people with expertise in position of forensics. Now the FBI is saying that neither Arabic skills, nor expertise needed for counterterrorism---isn't this like not having a forensics scientist in their old crime lab?

(sorry, Grassley's speaking really quickly and the stream cut out again!)

Grassley: What action has your office taken to investigate concerns Oct 11, 2007 letter from Mr. Youssef (whistleblower?)

Mukasey: don't know

Grassley: he wants to know why FBI impeding his counterterrorism efforts. We have someone in FBI saying our efforts being weakened, and we have to wait for courts? While we're under threat of attack every day?

Mukasey: we are (under threat) but FBI reviewing its efforts. I'm actively involved.

Grassley: Youssef also discovered/identified NSLetters. Staff claimed didn't know about letters at time. According to IG, they *did* know about letters as early as 2004. shouldn't have to wait till IG report to know. DOJ promised info about these NSLetters, but only received small batch of heavily redacted letters. It's been about a full year since we asked.

Mukasey: I'll followup. IG report lead to changes in oversight, issuance of letters. These oversights should be given a chance to work. Problem is lack of oversight.

Grassley: in this week's SOTU, the pres spoke of increasing work-site enforcement in terms of immigration. Actively pursuing employers--is this a priority for DOJ?

Mukasey: I do.

Grassley: Sen Bond and I wrote you about a woman FBI agent who pleaded guilty about immigration status--Prouty, overstayed visa, arranged marriage, brother in law was a Hezbollah supporter. FBI ignored all this b/c they thought she was checked out. Will agents who were originally citizens of high-risk countries be subject to increased security checks? etc etc (stream cut out)

3:09 PM

Mukasey: FBI does internal security reviews on an ongoing basis.

Leahy: I know Grassley, you had a great deal of interest in these subjects. Regardless of whether it's a Dem or GOP president.

Sen Whitehouse!!!!!

Sen Whitehouse: want to sort out process question, about whether WBg torture. You said you're not going to engage your advisory capacity, b/c you disclosed that WBg isn't part of CIA's interrogation regime. Under 23 40A, uses torture in Statute, there *are* concrete facts that would justify an analysis--there are arguably, whatever it is, it *is.* Trying to determine if the analysis is taking place, if you are waiting for Durham's investigation to determine what happened, or if there's been a policy determination made, since there's a claim of authority made...or some fourth category?

Mukasey: process for coming to any determination, that facts come into the DOJ that start any investigation. Durham's investigation might spark an investigation of what was on the tapes...

Whitehouse: couldn't we engage in a concrete investigation that would at least give cause to an inquiry?

Mukasey: wouldn't be a concrete discussion

Whitehouse: in a classified setting, it may or may not be an "If"

Mukasey: ummm....(long pause)...not sure what that suggests

Whitehouse: trying to be careful not to step outside boundaries I'm obliged to honour here, not disclosing class'd info. Same time, want more info, b/c not fair to say that nobody has any basis from anywhere---read news, TV, former CIA official on airwaves---if that's not the first red flag to get an investigation going forward, I don't know what *would* be! Just a public view of the matter suggests ....(stream cut out)

skdadl: 3:00 PM
We are listening to the doctrine of the Federalist Society.

Shorter Federalist Society: We follow orders.

Fight, Sheldon. But you're not gonna break through this guy's shell.

kitty again: 3:15 PM

Whitehouse: there's no exemption, no Nuremberg defence built into this 23 40 A statute. Once investigation underway, could determine whether it was necessary or not....but you're telling me that the certification alone tells me that it's not necessary? Not gonna look at this no matter what? Just say so.

Mukasey: not my position. My position is that we're not going to speculate.

Whitehouse: but the investigation is just the destruction of tapes--unless you're telling me that this is the only way we might lead into an investigation of WB'g?

Mukasey: let's not hypothesize. It's a question of telling agents out there that we're investigating CIA based on speculation about whether or not they're breaking the law

Whitehouse: would like to applaud you for re-erection of firewall between DOJ and Whitehouse. WE're at lagerheads about this issue, but I want to applaud you for this particular work (firewall)

Mukasey: this is a good faith exchange

Whitehouse: I also want to be fair

Mukasey: me too

Leahy: Mr AG, the FOIA legislation that we worked on, that was passed, signed into law by Pres, that required the office of gov info services (OGIS, archives, records)...now we see DOJ 2009 budget for administration, there's an attempt to move OGIS into DOJ. The law says keep it in National Archives, as far away from gov.

3:20 PM

Cardin (D-Maryland): (stream cut out) we all acknowledge the horrible process it is...from an int'l perspective, we're tarnished when we try to justify any torture. It's going to be difficult for us to protect American interests when others try these techniques on *our* soldiers. I know you're new to the office, but I believe clarity is needed here. Not asking for further response (today). I'm involved in Helsinki commission on Human Rights. Difficult to explain why admin is hedging on this issue.

Cardin: on FISA, re: retroactive immunity, I'd urge you to consider Specter's comment on potential abuses and whether retroactive immunity could have permanent damage on role of judiciary on protecting civil rights and issues of Americans. Need to preserve role of courts--applaud Specter and Whitehouse for their proposal.

Cardin: re sunset of PAA, b/c predictability of statute. I have an amendment for a sunset, too. If there isn't a sunset, then the level of cooperation between agencies and level of engagement by Congress isn't as much.

Cardin: Need to get, in this hearing, to election issues and civil rights division. We have an election coming up in 2008. If like 2006, then there will be efforts made to suppress minority voting. We agree that should have no place in US politics. (stream cut out)

skdadl: 3:14 PM
Oh, yay. Sheldon is going after the OLC.

kitty again: 3:26 PM

Mukasey: sent memo to all prosecutors, that their sensitivities have to be heightened at time of elections--but also discouraged from temptation of bringing prosecutions too close to elections. Shouldn't be any perception of partisanship. Investigations should only be carried forward if it's ready to go--not based on timing of elections.

Cardin: if office learns of activities that are aimed at suppressing vote, e.g minorities will be arrested if unpaid parking tickets, I just hope it's clear DOJ will prosecute such things.

Mukasey: we've discussed examples that are clearly fraudulent. We'll make every effort and use every resource to make sure that doesn't happen.

Cardin: thank you. Regarding civil rights division: I ask you to give personal attn to this division and return it to historic role as protector of rights of minorities--empower all people to civil liberties.

Mukasey: we observed that division's 50th anniversary. Emblematic of role of DOJ. I met w/nominee to head that division, and met w/unit chiefs of division. It's my belief that they should be encouraged.

Cardin: I look forward to working with you in that regard. Look forward to the confirmation process for Asst. US Atty in that division.

Sen. Whitehouse: put my last question in form of letter, re Office of Legal Counsel, for Dept. Some declassified sections of highly classified opinions make me worry that it's become an ideological hothouse, b/c removed from scrutiny by classification shield. Appreciate Chairman's indulgence.

Leahy: I'm interested in that, too.

Mukasey: the book you refer to re: OLC, says regardless what you think about those opinions, nobody in that unit thought they were violating the law or ever intended....(stream cut out)

3:33 PM

Leahy: two different writers who often had two diff views--one said Durham would report to Dep. AG, who reports to AG, and therefore will not be ...(what???)

Leahy: and then Bruce Fein said if the AG was still entrusted to det whether state secrets still allowed would be like Nixon determining what evidence to give Archibald Cox (investigating Watergate)

Leahy: I read both quotes and thought, why not just give a special counsel like Patrick Fitzgerald in the CIA leak case?

Mukasey: there are rules about when to appt special counsel. Only in a situation of a conflict.

Leahy: there may have been a conflict, but not within your office? The DOJ?

Mukasey: right. Don't want to tell DOJ we don't have faith in you.

Leahy: but that's why I asked why E.District Virginia USAtty recused himself?

Mukasey: (didn't catch response)

skdadl: 3:20 PM
Awwww ... JamesComey

skdadl: 3:24 PM

Good going, Durbin: he is pushing Mukasey on the subject of Bradbury's memos. Comey warned that the department would be ashamed of those memos. Mukasey has lauded Bradbury.

Kitty: did you get the quote about Comey? That was shameless, really shameless. Also not fully literate -- he said Comey's opinions were not "inevitable"? WTF? does that mean?

kitty again: 3:36 PM

Durbin: do you remember former Acting AG James Comey? Opinion?

Mukasey: yes, he appeared before me as a lawyer. I was Chief Judge in his district. I've since had occasion to talk with him and get his counsel on the DOJ in general. He's a sound, able person...

Durbin: you respect him. So let me ask you about a man by the name of Steven Bradbury. *****stream cut out*******

Durbin: ...when Comey was asked about some of Bradbury's (torture) memos, he said the DOJ would be "ashamed" if these memos became public. But you were quoted as giving (glowing praise of Bradbury)

Mukasey: you asked me if I know Comey, but I've also come to know Bradbury, and worked more closely with him since I've been there. To say that Comey has good judgement isn't to say that he's inevitable or that his judgement of one document is a permanent scar on that doc.

Durbin: there's the area of interrogation & torture and warrantless wiretapping--have you reviewed the opinions he wrote on these?

Mukasey: I've reviewed it w/assistance of others and determined that that program is lawful.

Durbin: did you read the opinion of "combined effects" (multiple torture techniques at once)

Mukasey: yes

Durbin: Gonzo approved this opinion over objection of Comey, who said DOJ would be ashamed if it became public

Mukasey: the opinion was dated 2007, so that doesn't make sense

Durbin: I don't think the timing works out either. would you go back and review? And return to us?

Mukasey: ok

Durbin: I asked you to review all of Bradbury's opinions at your confirmation hearing, and I have serious reservations, as he's serving in violation of the vacancies reform act. Do you think he's the effective head as the OLC?

Mukasey: I've dealt with him as the princ person at OLC

Durbin: isn't his presence in that role in violation?

Mukasey: I believe he's been renominated

Durbin: I believe he has been too, but I think his presence in that role is in violation. I will ask you again to read Mr. Bradbury's opinions.

Mukasey: I would think that those opinions would be (irrelevant 'cause old)

Durbin: I don't think that's adequate: to ignore past opinions...

Mukasey: I would say that his opinion was not *his* opinion (???? WTF?????)

3:45 PM

(missed about 40 secs due to stream)

Leahy: we've seen what's happened when decisions made in secret, in memos---erodes liberties and undermines us as a nation of laws. Not enough to say WBg not authorized. Should say, "it's wrong." "It's illegal." I put in a letter from (JAG officers) and I want to quote: "WBg is inhumane, it is torture and it is illegal." They quote sitting JAG, in which these sitting JAGs unanimously and unambiguously agreed it's illegal and in violation of law. I'm afraid when admin won't declare WBg off limits...we've seen it in other regimes, that they cite the US. Danger to Americans around world. Degrades humanrights everywhere. At the World Economic Summit last week, wonder why we can't just say unequivocally that this is wrong. No Senator would have to know the circs or "justification" used to do this to an American abroad. We'd just condemn it. It's unfortunate that our AG can't even say that WB'g an AMERICAN is illegal. Oversight makes America work better. See Senator Grassley--a Republican. One thing you should know: many of us feel there should have been different, better answers. Want the DOJ to be the best of any such dept in the world. We'll disagree but we'll work with you. Mr. AG you're free to say anything you'd like.

3:49 PM

Mukasey: (stream cut out) ...I'm grateful to you (Leahy) and mems of cmtee to work together. Can't ask any more than that.

Leahy: in my 34th yr in Senate, who looks at my earlier career as a prosecutor, a highlight in my life, I *will* work with you to make things better. When this president leaves, we want to leave it in the best possible shape for the *next* president, whoever that is.

*adjourned*

US AG Mukasey testifies before Sen. Judiciary Cmte: Part I

2008-01-30T13:53:00.000-08:00

US Attorney Gen. Michael B. Mukasey is testifying before the Sen. Judiciary Committee today. Both skdadl and I have been following his testimony as closely as our c-span streaming abilities will allow. The following is a collection of our notes from this morning's testimony. The hearing will resume at 2PM EST.

***Note: "WB" stands for waterboarding. How said is it that we use this term often enough to warrant abbreviation?! Also: this is NOT a transcript. Time-stamps are approximate. Some notes are skdadl's, and some are mine :)

UPDATE [Jan 31, 2008, 3:27 PM]: I have cleaned up our notes from yesterday and annotated with links, as appropriate. Hope you find these useful!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
10:10

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont, Chairman) is making his opening statement--Sens. Kennedy & Specter have co-sponsored legislation to reign in this president regarding torture, rendition etc.
"No one is more eager than I to see our new AG" repair damage inflicted "on our constitution, civil liberties"

(sorry...missed first few mins)

10:11 AM

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania, Ranking Member; opening statement): Sen Leahy talks about the expansion of executive power, and I think that's been the case. No one is above law, but when the president institutes a warrantless surveillance program (hiding behind state-secrets)...changes constitutional authority of president? The courts have not yet ruled on that subjects.

Specter: Waterboarding--your views (Mukasey) are important, but the Senate considered this issue Sep 26, and voted 53-46 to ban waterboarding. I was among them--I figure waterboarding oughta be banned, and that it's torture. But that's not the issue... (stream cut out)

Specter: could draw statute much more narrowly. The issue is tantamount to learned opinion of Israaeli Supreme Crt, where, in extenuating circumstances, could allow torture. State should not be helpless...could be authorized to use these interrogation methods...obligation of state to defend itself. Same view expressed by Schumer, 2004 (NOTE, Schumer said, "We are in a brave new world"), and by academics, and by former Deputy Attorney General Phil Heymann

Specter: time to get beyond just your view, Mr. AG, as Senate should consider this subject. Also, whether CIA should be limited by Army Field Manual. It's a violation of international law, but could be another area where President has Article II power? Constitutional law is balancing phase...eg. first amendment, and 4th...Congress is well advised that the President oughta do what's in his power.

Specter: Other issues I want to cover...reporters privilege, contempt citations and FISA. About FISA and retroactive immunity. By all indications, the telecoms have been good citizens, but in my view, ..., substituting mine & Sen. Whitehouse's amendment would remove their immunity from Intel. Committee's FISA bill.

Specter: about CIA tapes, we get resistance from WH. A federal court tried to get them too...no one can say they're political. The balance of power is delicate...the separation of powers will be badly undercut if Congress gives retro immunity to telecoms.

skdadl: 10:08 AM
skdadl tosses up. Total equivocation from Mukasey over waterboarding. Gah.

"Not appropriate" for him to pass judgement on its legality because it isn't currently being used. Absence of actual facts and circumstances ... Lord help us.

(Leahy is swearing in AG Mukasey)

US AG Michael B. Mukasey: (opening statement) Thanks. My tenure at DOJ began 3 months ago, and in short time, (stream cutout) ...there are political initiatives the dept supports, that the Congress opposes, and vice versa. And there are issues where the Congress and Executive branch are in tension...while these tensions will never disappear...doesn't mean we can't work together. There are only 'Acting' Number 2 & 3 (?) at DOJ and we need hearings for these nominees. I hope you will work to make sure they are confirmed. Clock is ticking on national security issues. The (Protect America Act, PAA) will soon sunset...I urge you to pass legislation to ensure that the intel community can surveil targets overseas...protection in light of potential terrorist attacks.

Mukasey: continue to obtain system from 3rd parties to modernize security, and laws. Protecting people from threat of terrorism continues to be our priority. Also protecting civil rights, immigration, etc. Let me return to an issue NB to this cmte. Mr. Chairman, I promised to return my legal analysis of interrogation methods currently authorized by CIA and concluded that they are lawful.

Mukasey: waterboarding: I sought and received information that it is NOT one of the techniques used by the CIA. Is not and may not be currently used. I can tell you what it would take to be added: CIA dir would have to ask for authorization...ask my successor for legal authority...(stream cut out)

Mukasey: I understand fully that you, and other members of cmte may disagree with this position, but as I explained, I don't believe it's advisable to address legal (...stream problem!)

skdadl:
Reasonable people can disagree about these matters ...

NO, YOU DORK. They can't and don't. Read the international treaties you have signed.

kitty again: 10:16 AM
Mukasey: there're some circumstances that would prohibit WB's use, but some which would make it a close consideration. Complex factual situations...precisely b/c situation is so NB, that I, as AG, cannot provide those precise circumstances.

Mukasey: I recognize that those limits may make those issues difficult (in terms of not answering specifics about WB and torture to cmtee). Shared belief of work of DOJ etc. Await questions.

(Mukasey talks too fast!)

Leahy: thank you, and as you suggested, you'll be asked questions. Recent interview in New Yorker w/McConnell...seemed to recognize that whether WB was torture depended on whether it was done to HIM, and said yes. Tom Ridge also said there's no doubt it's torture.

Leahy: do you agree with them that WB'g an AMERICAN citizen anywhere in world is illegal & torture?

Mukasey: w/o going into detail about what they said, I understood they were expressing personal POV. One thing separates them from me, that I'm the AG and they're not. My views taken as statement of law...

Leahy: you disagree with them? Ridge said this while he was dir. of Homeland Sec. You can't be as unequivocal as him?

Mukasey: I don't know that it was described in his statement. I know what my thoughts in office NOW...if I answer w/o concrete circumstances before me, then (1) people hostile to us (stream cut out)...

Leahy: if an American picked up abroad or our military...if not saying we WB, puts them in MORE danger

Mukasey: one point re: our military, they shouldn't be subjected to anything I say or we say here today.

10:21 AM
Leahy: the Inspector General (IG) found that the FBI repeatedly failed to pay phone bills. Payments not on time--resulting in telecom carriers actually disconnecting phone lines, including those used for FISA wiretaps. You said FISA, wiretap NB to national security--if so, how'd we screw up and not pay our bill? You can't have it both ways.

Mukasey: there's *literally* a disconnect there. Failure of oversights, but since been put in place.

Leahy: they were cutting things off b/c no payment, so what were they paying telecoms for surveillance efforts for 5 yrs wiretapping?

Mukasey: don't know

Leahy: can you get that answer for us?

Mukasey: if not classifiied, yes. Whether company participated or not, is itself classified info. I will look at it.

Leahy: I know you were looking at CIA tapes--looking at conduct on tapes or just destruction?

Mukasey: I'm not personally looking at it.

Leahy: I mean the DOJ...are you investigating as dept or through (specific) US Attorney's office?

Mukasey: will go by witness by witness like any other investigation. If it leads to showing motive, then it leads to showing motive, but the person who determines that is the USAtty

Leahy: we'll be talking with him. Read in paper this morning that you were involved in contracts (??) One 52 mill, US Atty Christie, to Ashcroft, no bidding (Zimmer International). (stream cut out)

skdadl:
10:23 AM
Leahy: Speaks of DNI McConnell -- who said waterboarding, if done to him, would indeed be torture. [Missed second Bush official who said the same -- Ridge?]

Do you agree that waterboarding an American citizen anywhere in the world is torture?

M: What they said is personal. I'm the AG. When I pronounce on reach of general principles, that is taken as ...

Leahy interrupts: So you disagree? M: They were speaking personally. Taking refuge in his office. People who are hostile to us ...

Leahy: Puts some of our people in more danger than not.

M: Our military not in danger by anything I've said; they play by the rules; entitled to protections of Geneva Conventions. WOW!

Leahy: FISA: Ha! On to the story of the telecos cutting off the FBI for not paying its bills! Laughing How did we screw up? Ha! Leahy said "screw up."

M: Failure of oversight, blah blah. Sheesh -- you should hear the equivocations.

Leahy: Question of destruction of tapes or question of conduct shown on tapes?

M: I'm not looking into it -- I've appointed prosecutor ...

Leahy: Reposes the question. M: Continues to duck.

Leahy: Contracts ... [?] ... Ashcroft's, eg -- no public notice, no bidding -- It sounds as though something similar was proposed to Mukasey ... This is all news to me, except I knew about Ashcroft. Monitorships. DoJ looking at this. [News to me.]

kitty again: 10:27 AM
Mukasey: I was under consideration (for contract)...DOJ has been looking at monitorships, and prosecutions have increased to ensure that whatever happened, people are held accountable. Looking at these standards: monitors appointed when corporations involved, and sometimes when civil rights in question. As for this case, money came from corporation, not from government. Looking to see if there should be a report to gov..

Leahy: you will let us know? (Update: Jan 31 News)

Mukasey: yes.

10:39
Specter: the President admitted to violating FISA, but justified it, saying he had Article II power. Said he didn't have to go to congress for surveillance program, due to Article II. Question: can president exert Art II power to do torture, in contravention of Geneva Conventions? Reading former Deputy Attorney General Phil Heymann: "for extremely rare case of threat to US lives...we would allow President to..." exempt rules/laws, so long as President documents reasons and submits to approp Congressional committees. Under this standard, is there a legit argument that president has Article II powers to undertake such things?

Mukasey: torture is now unlawful under US law. Can't contemplate any sit'n where this president would exert Art II power...

Specter: he did just *that* in (terrorist surveillance program) TSP, and failure to notify intel cmtees...didn't he?

Mukasey: both those things have been brought under statutes...

Specter: not the point. didn't he act in violation of FISA? No dispute about that, is there?

Mukasey: when that was a surrogate for domestic communications...when foreign comms became...

Specter: not talking about that. Ok, not getting very far there...(stream cut out)

10:33 AM
Specter: thought I had a commitment from you, but the letter Leahy and I wrote said your job was to prevent political influence. Judge Kennedy issued ruling to get info re: destruction of CIA tapes. Will you comply?

Mukasey: don't know details...not an absolute issue.

Specter: you say that, but let me move on about amendment Sen. Whitehouse & I have asked for, regarding gov getting info they need from telecoms, substituting gov as party as a defendant, but no immunity; state secrets, yes. I use the CIA tapes as an e.g., as our oversight has been so ineffective...the courts provide a balance, a separation of powers...the only way to deal w/executive excesses is through courts. Sen. Whitehouse & my amendment would allow gov to continue to get info, but wouldn't close down the courts. What's wrong with that?

Mukasey: would continue to make companies' conduct "front and centre."

Specter: why shouldn't it be? Why should the courts not get a say? When we tried to get records, Cheney went behind my back and kaiboshed...what's wrong with the courts getting involved, when Congress can't get what it needs?

Mukasey: puts telecoms front & centre and puts their methods in front of public...request they had every reason to believe was made in good faith...since 911 (blech)...they're required to push back whenever they can ...can't be constantly in litigation with those who're trying to help us. We can force them to help us, but better to have their willing cooperation. Tech developing faster, faster, and faster. We will sacrifice their coop'n if we...

Specter: will continue this debate on senate floor. Much greater danger to bail out admin for future liability.

10:50 AM

Kennedy (D-Mass): you've taken a number of positive steps. Investigation of CIA tapes. Appointing John Durham, making FBI lead investigative agency.

STREAM cut out AGAIN! Gah! So annoying!

Kennedy: even you claim to be opposed to torture, you refuse to say exactly when/what. The courts have consistently agreed that WB an act of torture. Then in a letter to cmtee last night, you say it *is* but CIA does not use it. You completely ignored fact that it DID use WB'g, but refused to say CIA had to take it off table. Refused to say anything about stress positions etc off table, but these are torture too. I won't even bother to ask you whether you believe it's torture. But would it be torture if it was done to you?

Mukasey: I would *feel* that it was. There are...one of the things Cicero would pass over without mentioning (???)...there are numerous things I would differ with. You say WB is obviously torture. You assume it the same way that bank robbbery is in fact stealing. This is something that people of equal intelligence differ. During debate about Military Commissions Act (MCA), some said WB necessary, some thought obviously barred....expressions on both sides (FUCK!)

skdadl: 10:39 AM
THEY CONFIRMED THIS GUY?!?

Chuck Schumer, you have a LOT to answer for.

kitty again: 10:55 AM

Kennedy: under what 'facts and circumstances' would it be lawful to WB a person?

Mukasey: I would be telling our enemies what they could expect...I would also be telling people in the field, what they would have to refrain from...

Kennedy: is there anything we can't do?

Mukasey: we can't maim, we can't...there's a whole list of specifically barred techniques.

Kennedy: WB not on that list?

Mukasey: it's not.

Kennedy: the INS backlog (immigration) has increased over the last months....thousands left in limbo. NB to process these in time for November elections. Fees have increased. Administration has told us that the line is growing longer, longer and longer. Thousands of qualified people won't be allowed to vote. What will DOJ do?

Mukasey: process of application in dept Homeland Sec. But DOJ will do everything it can to make sure that anyone who *can* will be allowed to vote. Will put out monitors, etc.

Kennedy: what is DOJ doing to give rest of dept to move ahead on this? It's all good to talk about suppression etc, but thousands will be denied...

Mukasey: don't know who the contacts are. Will find out.

Leahy: Sen Grassley will be next, then Biden...taking list of GOP side...Sen Sessions.

skdadl: 10:44 AM
They're all there today, yes? That always means something. When the R's show up, that means something.

kitty again: 10:59

Grassley (R-Iowa): Gen Mukasey, you assured me you'd assist me w/my oversight efforts. I'll hold you to your word. The DOJ responded on Friday to my requests, so I've only had 4 days to respond to 250 pages of answers. (stream cut out)

Grassley: when can I expect this request from FBI that I've been waiting for since March 2007? (didn't hear about what...stream cut out)

Mukasey: will talk to director about what they are, and why the delay.

skdadl: 10:48 AM
Grassley is pretty boring, although he's a lot tougher than I expected. He's working hard on the issue of whistleblowers.

ETA: Oh, now Mukasey is using "separation of powers" as an excuse. If only they actually believed in genuine separation. In fact Mukasey is an apologist for the "unitary executive."

Grassley is doing very well, actually, in defending Congress's right to oversight. Well done.

kitty again: 11:02 AM

Grassley: whistleblowers--individuals w/security clearance who witness wrongdoing, face Catch-22. As a solution, Sen unanimously passed S 274, Fed Employee Protection Act of 2007, strike balance: ind'ls who know wrongdoing to report to Congress, but only to specific persons cleared to hear class'd info. Ensures Nat'l security info remains secret, but while Congress still conducts oversight. You, along w/McConnell, Gates and Chertoff signed a letter OBJECTING to 274! In letter, you say mechanisms to protect whistleblowers somehow compromises security...find it difficult to reconcile this letter w/your stmts at confirmation hearing.

(whoah! this is news? I didn't know this)

Grassley: why doesn't Congress have a right to know this info? why isn't it enough for whistleblowers just to report to cleared-individuals?

Mukasey: cuts off supervisory chain and even the president from chain (oh, get out of town!!!!!) To simply go to Congress, who may have clearance, that cuts off proper supervision. Recognize that problems might exist. DNI, FBI, Sec HS believe that's not the way to do it.

Grassley: funny that a law that passed unanimously is "not the way to do it." We should wait another 5 yrs? (he's really mad!!)

11:06 AM

Mukasey: simply argued that was not the way to do it

Grassley: you have a prob reconciling what you say about chain of command that wants to stop wrongdoing in the firstplace. In between the president and the janitor, you got plenty of people who don't want congress to know stuff in the first place!

11:09

Biden (D-Delaware): you have a lot of fans who are friends of mine. General, I'm a little confused...want to understand methodology you use re: WB. When you boil it all down (unfortunate choice of words!!!), it appears whether or not WB is torture is a relevant question. It isn't if you hung somebody by their thumbs? You talk in relative terms. If WB, if by person in any gov agency, if engaged b/c they believed prisoner knew about a weapon about to be detonated--that might be ok? Is that what you're saying?

Mukasey: not simply a relative issue. There *IS* a statute where it is a relative issue. Detainee Treatment Act is a "shocks the conscience" standard...weighed against cost of doing it...

Biden: what do you mean? Behaviour or ?

Mukasey: the cruelness of it... (?!)

Biden: what?

Mukasey: getting info used to save lives, wouldn't have to get to whether torture or not...

Biden: the "shocking of the conscience" is the relevance. If WB was to save humanity, that's one thing...I've never heard referenced that way. I didn't think "shocking the conscience" related to the *end* being sought. Thought it was about the behaviour, the cruelty, of what was being *done* to the ind'l. Would love to know anyone else who's used this phrase in the context you just reference. In fact, it shocks *MY* conscience... I went to Law school, took Catholic school, took 2 periods Latin, took Cicero too...just never heard issue, "shocks conscience" in terms of rel benefit of technique.

Biden: moving on...we're all very proud of what we try to accomplish. One of the things I take great pride in is....(stream prob)

skdadl: 11:01 AM
Biden is being brilliant. Gee: if only he would show up more.

He started off sounding as though he wasn't going to put Mukasey through the wringer on waterboarding, but then he really did. That discussion of what "shocks the conscience" was terrific and tough ... Biden was essentially arguing that it is immoral to abandon means for ends.

And there he ends -- "You guys broke it." Priceless.

kitty again: 11:14 AM

Biden: told "violent crime is down" and the admin's budget is sufficient to deal with the problem. Crime down 2005, 6, 7...but still *high*. Down from high of 1992 (didn't catch numbers), but still high. Hope you'll reconsider utility of Biden Crime proposal, b/c I'm not prepared to accept 1 400 000 violent crimes per 2006. Lies, damn lies and statistics---unacceptable to have this many violent crimes. Based on all data, more cops we have in street, more violent crime drops! ...blah blah blah...

Mukasey: I agree that the strategy is to not tolerate any violent crime. Strat to target where the need is, and get it out there.

Biden: with all due respect, if it's not broke, don't fix it. It wasn't broke. You guys broke it.

11:19
Sessions (R-Alabama): WB "has not been on reckless, not on a wide scale, as I understand it"

Mukasey: that's how I understand it too. (stream cut out)

11:20 AM

Sessions: no USAtty office has tried to prosecute (on a specific area of the US/Mexico border). No results. Arrests decreased 50% in Del Rio. Important to prosecute routine crimes--broken windows idea (Giuliani's NYC model).

(this Lou Dobbs stuff is snoozers, eh?)

11:23 AM

Mukasey: committed to Operation Streamline....different strats at difft parts of border. Releasing entrants at distant parts of border makes it hard for them to hook-up again w/people who brought them to border in first place.

Sessions: I believe this works. I believe you've proven that it works. You may need some more money, but we can afford this. Will you continue to monitor it and support expansion?

Mukasey: I will.

skdadl: 11:08 AM
Sessions: ok.

In a way, I think that Sessions is cute. He's 'way far out right-wing, but I keep remembering that funny exchange he had with Leahy about girlfriends, and how "no one would have me."

He's doing patriotic defence of the troops.

Now he's lobbing softballs at Mukasey over zero-tolerance for illegal entry over the Mexican border ... DoJ doing so much better ...

You don't want to hear this word for word. It's just Sessions setting Mukasey up to look good on lawnorder, especially when it comes to those wetbacks coming over the southwest border.

Oh, boy: you committed to pursuing even more of these entry prosecutions? Guess what the answer is?

kitty again: 11:15 AM
(Leahy entering letters from JAG officers--didn't catch all names--in which they say WB'g is torture)

(stream cut out)

11:26 AM

Kohl (D-Wisconsin): funding for the Burn program cut. (stream cut out)

Kohl: the programs that have been routinely cut by this admin were for kids (delinquency, Title V/juv crime prevention, and junior accountability block program)...these programs need to be re-authorized and well funded. This admin has not supported them. Will funding be a priority of YOURS?

Mukasey: certainly a priority. The president, as part of his budget, has a targetted program for Milwaukee...also have a safe-streets program, anti-gang initiative...looking to use funds intelligently...

Kohl: appreciated. Will follow up on these. On GTMO, last year we talked about long list of security experts who've argued it's in our interests to CLOSE it. Mullen has agreed, publicly. You would not add your name to that list. But said you'd recommend responsible course--you'd get the best advice you could get. Has this advice been given? Prepared to add your name?

Mukasey: President has said he wants to close GTMO, as long as done in responsible way. Case before SC, Boumediene v Bush, and there are a few matters before this court...whether there's a habeas right or whether there's some alternative to HC that would be sufficient...there's another case in DC circuit, involving adequacy of CSRTs and what we can do to improve those. We're conscious of these things...(stream cut out)

11:32 AM

Mukasey: courts should always look at protective order...(WTF is this about?)

Kohl: many court secrecy awards occurred...(I have no f'g Idea what Kohl is talking about...guess he's done w/GTMO?)

11:34 AM

Brownback (R-Kansas): about GTMO, I want to invite you to Leavenworth, to disciplinary barracks, which is the place most often cited to replace GTMO. Don't think we're set for these detainees to move yet. Excellent facility, but not ready for kind of detainees at GTMO. Pragmatically, the current projection to move them to Leavenworth disciplinary---hope you can come and visit, look at these barracks. Command & Gen staff of military office is 3 miles from this disciplinary barracks. Is this wise? Not sure this is a good idea to have GTMO detainees at Leavenworth. Don't think we're ready to handle this.

Mukasey: agree, there are practical limitations. Don't know of any official who believe his state is ready to accept ex-prisoners from GTMO. Effect, legally, is that they'll bring flurry of 1000s of lawsuits, so to just wind up releasing the detainees. Bringing them here would be a whole lot easier.

Brownback: hope you'd come look at facility first.

Mukasey: will do.

Brownback: come to my attn that gov is interested in intervening in Knox v. PLO; some are seeking to vacate judgement of 4 mill dollars? Would hope you'd let citizens (stream cut out)

11:38 AM

(missed about 30 seconds here due to stream)

Brownback: there's a DC gun ban case before SCOTUS. Do you agree w/administration that 2nd amendment protects right to bear arms?

Mukasey: I do. This is a right that is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Regulate guns in hands of felons, but have to make sure they're not swept up in other laws.

Brownback: your view on FISA legislation. Some say we should just substitute fed gove for telecom companies. Your thoughts on this particular issue? Oh, before I go, I wanna thank you for stepping into this job at a tough time...uncomfortable topics...etc. I appreciate you at the end of an admin...God bless you and God speed.

Mukasey: on specific issue of substitution...could open up conduct into methods of scrutiny (Huh?). Can't operate in future w/o a court order means they can't operate in good faith.

skdadl: 11:32 AM
This is a question imagined by perris at emptywheel's, an elaboration of Kennedy's question to Mukasey: “if we waterboarded you until you said waterboarding was torture, how long do you think it would take you to say it and would that testimony from you be of any value at all?”
Exactly.

kitty again: 11:43 AM

(missed her first question--Feinstein)

Feinstein (D-California): it is widely alleged that in the past, at least 3 people were in fact waterboarded.

stream cut out.

Feinstein: both MCA and DTA, combined law for military that WB is prohibited. The loophole is CIA. I proposed amendment to put CIA under army field manual with respect to interrogation. Accepted by House, Senate...if comes to floor of Sen and signed by Pres, once and for all, WBg will be prohibited by gov. I believe how interrogation is done, the timing of it is all important...would like to ask you to describe scenario in top para on page 2, how it would look, legally, if interrogation carried out on a foreign territory. Not a trick question...

Mukasey: not saying that, but...

Feinstein: I assume most of this would take place on foreign territory. Are you saying interrogator would cable CIA director? How would it work, legally?

Mukasey: would require CIA director to become aware--however he becomes aware of a technique, describes how it's done, including safeguards, limits, etc. To me, I consult w/whoever I have to consult w/and then it goes to President.

Feinstein: I'm trying to define process. Don't know if it's legal or not...

Mukasey: does not account for a problem w/communication...

Feinstein: is it legal for an interrogation which involves "EITs" (extraordinary interrogation techniques) to be carried out by non-governmental employee?

Mukasey: (long pause!) As you know, there's what's called an EIT which authorizes CIA to do those programs. Don't know whether it allows subcontractors of CIA--short answer is I don't know...we prosecuted a contractor against offense against prisoner. He got 100 months.

Feinstein: would like to know whether it's legal to contract-out EIT to contractor.

Feinstein: Moving on. You received a letter from Scott Bloch, special counsel, investigations of USAtty firings and alleged politicization at DOJ--it's being impeded by DOJ, letter dated Jan 25th. (stream cut out)

11:50

Feinstein: letter from Bradbury reiterates request that we step down. Assume conflict w/special counsel on this.

Mukasey: Bloch is in an office not w/in DOJ, I believe.

Feinstein: letter outlines whole litany of refusals to cooperate.

Mukasey: will see to it that Bloch gets a response.

Leahy: short break (Sen. Kyl laughs "I'll be real brief!") ...the witness needs a short break.

12:02 PM

Kyl (R-Arizona): (missed first part of his question, stream probs) We have oversight of your dept. Also have other responsibilities, including filling in slots that are now vacant. Can you send us a list of vacant spots, so we can act quickly?

Kyl: re Operation Streamline (what Sessions was talkin aboot); there's a great deterrent effect, knowing if apprehended, going to jail for 60 days. For those coming to work, can't afford 60 days in jail. Apprehensions down significantly in Yuma sector, also prolly due to double fencing, and other factors. You noted some relationship to resources available. For last couple of years, since strong support for law-enforcement etc, Congress willing to spend anything necessary to get this under control. Spent 1.3 bill dollars. We need to know what would be necessary, in terms of add'l detention spaces, additional prosecutors, whatever, to extend this program where it could be efficacious?

Mukasey: will try to send info. Did see the dearth of detention space that causes them to decide which criminals they'll confine and which they'll allow to "roam free." Prisons taking a big hit. Hard for marshalls.

Kyl: detention space a homeland sec issue. Chertoff asked for 43 or 46000 detention spaces. This has been provided now. Aware there's a limit on number of prosecutors. I was accosted this winter (in Arizona) complaining about minimal levels of prosecution. (stream cut out)

12:07 pm

Mukasey: question of judges, how fast cases can move through courts

Kyl: enhanced our ability to apprehend but...(stream cut out)
...

Kyl: (new subject) crime victims are the ones who suffer if this money is taken away.

Mukasey: not singling out victim fund for attacks on management, but victim funds had to pay certain proportion of that for administration. Up until now, there's been enough, but regrettably, this hasn't been the case.

Kyl: we have ability to affect funding. Rather than allowing victims to suffer, would prefer to approp money.

Kyl: new sub. Views on the media shield proposal--could you share those views?

Leahy: could you submit that for me, please?

Mukasey: note only that I'm one of many signatories on a letter from CIA, DOD, etc all of whom have indicated views.

Leahy: could also reiterate Kyl's request of list of vacancies, including list of positions for which there's no nomination at all yet. FBI indicated list of 20 USAtty for which there's no nomination.

Feingold!

12:11 PM

Feingold (D-Wisconsin): thanks for your call on Friday to end disparate treatment of lgbt mems of DOJ. Heartening news. You followed through on your commitment to me at your confirmation hearing.

Feingold: you said you'd not be a yes man. Reading your testimony so far, re McNulty memo, you've embraced president's or DOJ's previous positions w/o reservation. (stream cut out!)

12:09 PM
Feingold: would you be willing to prosecute such crimes (torture)?

Mukasey: I don't see any inconsistency, b/c um...STREAM cut out! (...)

Mukasey: a subcontractor for CIA, abusing a prisoner, no hesitation there (to prosecute). Simply follow the law. My positions may differ from admin, but I do my job, go home, go to sleep.

Feingold: how do you prosecute in this scenario without "tipping off enemy"

Mukasey: if someone is guilty of violating US law, they get prosecuted. Difft from talking about circs in which specific interrogation technique might violate law.

Feingold: as member of intelligence cmtee, I disagree with you--letter I sent to you on Dec 10, when will you come to ccongress in class'd setting, describe interrogation tech by interrogation tech...

Mukasey: letters classified. Remain classified. Agreed to review letters, which do, in fact review techniques. You've asked me to do something difft from what's in letters. Will not do that.

Feingold: you won't come to congress and explain?

Mukasey: details embodied in class'd letters. They explain it far beyond my ability in an 'off the cuff'--no, not off the cuff---with the authorities at hand, who have authority.

Feingold: this is unacceptable. To me, this means explaining your view. We're talking about a class'd setting. NB to have more than a one-way conversation about this. Urge you to reconsider.

Feingold: in your written testimony, you said granting immunity to telecoms essential. Assuming you don't want to encourage telecoms to break the law?

Mukasey: correct

Feingold: let's take situation where telecoms clearly violate law.

Mukasey: don't want to encourage anyone to violate law. Covers helping...

Feingold: FISA been on the books for 30 yrs, not modified or repealed--would telecoms be required to comply?

Mukasey: yes, but now in a regime in which...(stream problems)

12:20 PM

Orrin Hatch up (blech)

Hatch (R-Utah): not only are you sincere, but you're doing your best. Letter you said about interrogation techniques: you've made an effort to be as forthcoming as you can. You wrote that this area involves carefully worded...this is not an area in which hypothetical scenarios are advisable. You're the nation's top lawyer. Your prepared statement addressed FISA reform, and probably most NB piece of legislation we will consider in the 110th congress. Last night we passed only a brief extension. Requires us to intercept communications. Your letter said this takes a sunset-provision--a shorterm approach, in your view. I don't think this is the way to proceed, so that's why I strongly oppose sunset provisions. We didn't have them in 1978. Nearly every one of these amendments have a sunset. Regarding proposal of colleagues, substituting gov in place of telecoms--would this allow 3rd party discovery, class doc requests?

Mukasey: yes & yes. That's what I meant by still litigating, plus costs imposed in terms of meeting these requests.

Hatch: wouldn't this reveal whether the gov had a relationship w/specific telecom?

Mukasey: yes

Hatch: wouldn't it involve revealing info to terrorists and others? I have a letter from McConnell to Kit Bond. E.g. terrorists attempts to obtain guns, and terrorist money transfers, and efforts of an ind'l to become suicide operative. Eg.s of "success" stories of TSP. Are you aware of any instances in which intel analyst used PAA to intercept an American communication?

Mukasey: I am not

Hatch: from intel perspective, reverse targetting makes no sense. But could apply for a warrant. (stream cut out)

skdadl: 12:14 PM
The war. 9/11. Terrism. Mukasey and Hatch are both true believers, and they're having a party on this topic. Lord help us.

Thank God -- here comes Durbin.

Aha. Durbin is bringing up the pictures on Mukasey's wall -- Orwell and Justice Jackson (Durbin didn't mention Jackson, one of the Nuremberg justices -- I just knew that).

Go, Durbin.

kitty again: 12:26 PM

Hatch: essential to use telecoms. Can you elaborate on importance of coop'n w/telecom providers? Have you seen a change in voluntariness of cooperation w/private sector companies? (long whine about poor, wee telecoms...)

Mukasey: have we gotten pushback? Yes. This is a war unlike any other we've ever been involved in. Not involve particular countries, places. These folks live in and among civilian pop'ns. Use all techniques of 20th century (20th?)

Hatch: thank you.

12:27 PM

Durbin (D-Illinois): I asked you who your heroes were. You said you kept pic of Orwell b/c of his essay, Politics and the English language. I respect you for that. In that essay, Orwell was critical of misleading political speech ("concrete melts into the abstract") Mr. AG, I'd say, wrt waterboarding, that the concrete melts into the abstract.

Durbin: still troubled as I listen to your answers. First, you say in your letter to cmtee that reasonable people can disagree wrt WB. Can you cite any court cases, scholars, people of good faith who disagree that WB is not torture? Secondly, when you replied to Biden, you said WB in certain circs would no shock conscience, e.g discovery of nukes. Why has gov discontinued this form of interrogation if there *are* circumstances that justify it? Third, your unwillingness to take an unequivocal position against WB--our troops protected against WB. There are special forces, personnel...(stream cut out)

12:31 PM

Mukasey: some in this chamber have disputed that it wouldn't be legal to engage in certain techniques...and then pull back, if necessary to save American lives

Durbin: the Senate? We've voted on a bipartisan, overwhelming vote to prohibit certain practices, McCain amendment

Mukasey: and the chamber on another occasion declined, viz WBg, and others who said the language was so general that it would open things up to other things that would be so objectionable and cruel...

Durbin: if DTA is so clear, and went so far as to grant amnesty to employees who engaged in it, you still think the jury's out on whether WBg is torture?

Mukasey: question is not whether Sen is "out" on this or that technique, the question is whether Sen has spoken clearly enough in legislation it has passed, and that Pres has signed, which is all anybody has to work with

Durbin: where is lack of clarity in McCain legislation?

Mukasey: the words, people on both sides of debate, to point to "this" or "that" seems to me is to pick nits at this point

Durbin: as chairman has noted, Sens McCain, Warner and Graham (sponsors of legislation) that under MCA, WBg is a "warcrime." At this moment, you have employees of yours in Iraq, counselling employees not to use torture. Your testimony so far is that "it depends on circumstances"--we're trying to teach to the world, a standard we want our own people to live by?

Mukasey: the reasons I outlined are already matters of record. As to your second question, you suggest ....

Durbin: Sen Biden's question? About "shocking conscience"?

Mukasey: what I described was a situation in which it *would* shock conscience. It was put in place by the peson who wrote the decision. Not by me

Durbin: I assume you were arguing that the use of such techs to discover nukes would not shock conscience?

Mukasey: No...that's not what I said

Durbin: what about circumstances where tech would save lives?

Mukasey: not part of program. Don't know how that would work

Durbin: under military standards, they're not interested in danger. They say unequivocally. You say, for non-military it's still unresolved?

Mukasey: still unresolved. I've not been presented with a concrete situation. (stream cut out)

skdadl: 12:21 PM
Kitty: I can't stand Mukasey.

"Pick nits"??? Who is picking nits? This man is so dreadful. Others "pick nits": he exercises "due caution."

I can't bear this. We're listening to the Federalist Society. "I have not been presented with a concrete situation." A human one, neither, it appears.

Recess till 2.

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part XII: "Clean as a hound's tooth"

2007-12-16T12:57:00.000-08:00

Accusations of bribery against Brian Mulroney are as much of a hoax as the Hitler diaries, German deal maker Karlheinz Schreiber says, in an exclusive interview with the Saturday Sun, Schreiber yesterday said that the former Tory PM was "totally innocent" of RCMP allegations he accepted $5 million in kickbacks as the result of Airbus commissions, nor was a Swiss bank account ever opened for him." [...](BM interjects: "Listen to this!") "as much as I'm involved, as much as I know, as much as I've seen, Mr. Mulroney is totally innocent. He is involved in this as much as the Pope-not at all."

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Then, Nov 15, 2007, Toronto Star, they refer to an article in The Star 2000 (interview w/KHS):

In an interview with two Toronto Star reporters, two months after he'd been arrested and released on bail, Schreiber was adamant that Mulroney had never done anything wrong. "Mulroney is as innocent as the Pope," he said.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: So let me conclude, for all of us, and certainly for me as well, it's probably part of human nature, from Sir John A. MacDonald on...all made mistakes...as I said in my Memoirs, I sure have. Part of the greatness of Sir John was that he was flawed. All of us are, in some way. But the most difficult thing in life is to admit one's mistakes, but it's also the most important. But it's even harder to do so, in public. I hope others will do the same, about their mistakes, if not for me, but for my family. Because it's the right thing to do. I'd like to thank you all, and I wish you all a very happy Holiday Season w/your family.

Szabo (chair, LPC): clearly there are discrepancies between the witnesses. Likely asking you to come back sometime in Feb, or that you'll be able to come back and clarify any outstanding matters. To all, a very Merry Christmas.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: and I particularly thank you, Mr. Chair, for your courtesy.

*Adjournment*

Return to Part XI ("I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"), or return to the beginning of the series, Part I ("It was like a near-death experience," except it wasn't")
Photo Credit: Icanhascheezburger

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part XI: "I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"

2007-12-16T12:40:00.000-08:00

"I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"

12:30 PM
Wallace (CPC): I haven't followed your career, sir, since you left office. Are you still at the same law firm that you joined when you 1st left office?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, I am sir.
Wallace (CPC): so the agreement that you had w/your law office, that allowed you to still have your own independent, international consulting business, would that agreement still be in effect?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, it is.
Wallace (CPC): could we get a copy of that, to see the agreement?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: sure
Wallace (CPC): were you expecting to make money as an individual on your international consulting business?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I didn't have a clue
Wallace (CPC): wouldn't you have registered for a GST number then?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I didn't have a clue when I started out.
Wallace (CPC): we need some sense of proof that you were creating a legitimate 2nd business for yourself. I happen to be familiar w/records management issues, and that you can get rid of them after 7 yrs etc, but do you have any proof that you had a legitimate 2nd business on the side of your legal business? Can you provide this cmte anything?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: with respect to this transaction?
Wallace (CPC): have you done any other business under this umbrella?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I do have a legitimate international business (ok, ok...jeeesh!)
Wallace (CPC): that you pay tax on every year?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, of course. I indicated to other members that this is the only transaction--I'm here to explain and to acknowledge my error. Everything else, both w/my law firm (prestigious law firm, around for 135 yrs *eyeroll*) and my consulting business have been done perfectly legally.
Wallace (CPC): does your consulting business have a name?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Wallace (CPC): and it's legally registered to pay PST, GST, etc. And you can provide that info to us?
***Gah! Why not ask him for the *name* of his "legitimate" 2nd business?! You were *so* close, Wallace!***
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, sir.
Wallace (CPC): other than dealings w/Schreiber, everything else has a record?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: absolutely!
Wallace (CPC): I've seen you on TV, Mr. Prime Minister (Ewww---we don't have "Mr" Prime Ministers here in Canaduh, eh?), asking for a public inquiry, which this government has committed to. What do you expect--Mr. Schreiber wants one, you want one, I'm not sure I want one--but what are your expectations?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: on 7 Nov 2007, Mr. Schreiber files an affidavit, which provoked a feeding frenzy (that he wanted), it results in a 'Get out of Jail card,' and the creation of this cmte. He appeared 4 or 5 times. The affidavit was chosen to provoke public concern and alarm, b/c he evoked the names of a former and current PM and suggested impropriety. He made other stmts that would provoke alarm. Then, all hell broke loose, w/everybody asking for a public inquiry, statements were made that were so outrageous, that I was forced to sue my new friend, Mr. Thibault!

***laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: at that time, it's "Here we go again," with a series of false allegations, designed to drag me through the mud. And so, I called to indicate my innocence--asked for a Royal Commission of inquiry. (asking for help from counsel to find docs) Repeating this, b/c so important, as it would be to you, if you were falsely accused. Think of this: after he has implicated me, w/his allegations, and Mr. Harper, he is asked directly "Mr. Schreiber will save his new revelations for the inquiry" (from the National Post article, Nov 15, 2007).
Wallace (CPC): Mr. Schreiber sent us two binders, plus a third binder w/a bunch of Googled stuff. But one has about 7 letters to you, from him, starting in 2006. There's a wide variety--one he admits that he hasn't corresponded w/you since 2000 when you met at an event for Mr. Munk (Peter Munk, chairman of Barrick Gold). Is that accurate?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's right.
Wallace (CPC): and before this event in 2000, would you say that you were in touch w/Mr. Schreiber on a regular basis?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: well, intermittent. If at all. But I know, since 2000 I've not had a word with him or responded to any of his letters.
Wallace (CPC): so when he gave you that money, the 300 or 225--225, sorry sir--he hasn't given us any record of that. Do you have any correspondence w/him where he's asking for a record of work you would have done on behalf of the 225K?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir. (Oopsie!)
Wallace (CPC): so you've provided him w/no receipt and he's asked for absolutely none.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's correct. He was satisfied w/the full report I gave him--over an hour!--at the Pierre Hotel in NYC. And he said, "this is tremendous initiatives, hard work, visiting these heads of state..." (Oh, *puke* enough with the Yeltsin meetings, already!)
Wallace (CPC): this was a verbal report though. There was one witness to this verbal report in NYC?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's right.
Wallace (CPC): you said you weren't sure if it was 300K or 225K...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you shouldn't be surprised (Mr. Wallace). Mr. Schreiber came here and said that he gave 30K to Jean Charest's brother for his campaign. Then he told (Stevie) Cameron and (Harvey) Cashore for his book that Schreiber had expressed his admiration for Charest in the time honoured fashion of a donation to his campaign of 13K. And then Charest himself said it was 10K.
Wallace (CPC): that segues nicely into my next question (cutting off BM). You've quoted Mr. Schreiber from court cases, from affidavits--things you have to swear to--how do we know if he's lying in court or in the affidavit? How are we supposed to know the difference?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you figure that one out, you're going to heaven.
***laughter***

12:40 PM
Murphy (LPC): I come from an Irish Canadian family...when you were elected, we were very proud...you've done a lot for the Irish Canadian community. (*puke*) I just have a few 'clean-up' questions--things that have been left on the table. If you could get the letter of May 8, 2007 from Mr. Schreiber to you: the letter, amongst other things, uses language like, "this is my last warning," and "I am prepared to disclose" (***possible translation difficulty*** Lavallée can't hear, but Murphy responds: 'that's because I'm not speaking')

***laughter***

Murphy (LPC): ...then there's a threat, 'it's in your hands what's going to happen.' You referred to this as a blackmail letter-why did you not go to the RCMP or police w/the letter?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: this is what he did. How he operates. Look what he did w/the affidavit. He's moved only to avoid extradition. He will do and say anything. One day he blames Mr. Chretien and the Liberals for the entire Airbus affair. Ooops! Mr. Harper wins, and he expects to get some help from PM Schreiber and the Conservatives. He doesn't get it. One day he is, through Greenspan, he is threatening to sue the 5th estate--the next day, he's the sweetheart of Sigma Chi to them. And they become his champions, when it suits his needs. I got this (May 8) letter? Pure, unadulterated Shreiber. I sent it to my lawyer and that was the end of it.
***N.B. Again, BM fails to mention that his lawyer also sent a letter to the 5th Estate, threatening to sue them if they connected him to the 'BRITAIN' acct***

Murphy (LPC): I understand. You declared on your 1999 tax return, the sum of $225K, and I understand that you would have had to send a letter of request to the Gov Can to report income later than you incurred it. In that letter, you would have had to set out the reason you were late in filing, what work you did, and therefore, I would like you to table that letter to this cmte. If you can't find it, then we ask your indulgence to get it from Rev Canada...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: first of all, I didn't write any letter. (Ooopsie!) None was asked and none was required. The only thing left that is sacred in Canada is the privacy of our tax returns. (Huhh?!) I told you, I declared it, and I had no dealings w/anybody beyond that.
Murphy (LPC): you didn't declare it in the year you incurred it? My understanding is that a letter would be required, Mr. Mulroney.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: we can debate if you'd like, sir, but I was involved in no such procedure.
Murphy (LPC): fine. Allegations that somehow you & family needed money in 1993--you did say to Mr. Newman, in one of those tapes (I have all your books ***laughter***) that you 'were going to do fine,' and you've done well, but was there an interregnum where you were worried? Didn't have money? Or was this completely false? I'd think it was, b/c you didn't use that money for personal expenses.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I can't be brief in this response, b/c I can only go on at length when I'm being taped...

***laughter***

Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Mulroney, we're at "time" right now, and I want to share it between the both of you...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I understand. Any member here, leaving office, somewhat uncertain about the future....did I have a ton of money? No. Was I broke? No. I had a wife and 4 children and a mother to support--as I had since my father's death (oh, boo-hoo!), but I felt confident that I could do it again. I know some have said they thought I had financial concerns, but that's not accurate, it's probably solicitude on their part.
***Note: the Toronto Star's Bob Hepburn suggests that Mulroney was NOT poor***

Murphy (LPC): good to hear. We're all gonna leave politics someday, we're all hopeful. You said the lawsuit was a hoax, and that it all collapsed on the courthouse steps. Most of your fees and expenses were paid by the 2.1 million settlement. There was another $38K for KPMG, which was not allowed (to be paid out of the 2.1 mill), so I suppose those came out of your own pocket. You are very firm today that the case was a hoax, so why did you settle and not seek out the full amount in damages to you & your family?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I said I would not accept any money for myself. You have to sue for funds to get your case before the courts. I have been damaged very severely by this around the world. When the government collapsed on the courthouse steps, they met w/my lawyers, and said, "inasmuch as your not going to accept any money for yourself--this collapse, at least what the government is ready to acknowledge--this is at least as good as you're going to get in any court judgement" and I didn't need any pushing in this respect (to settle out of court). I've told you about my family, but if it were your family, at a given time after this calamity, and the abuse and the headlines, you just want to get on w/your life. (make it stop! *blech*)

Murphy (LPC): you've said that you weren't asked about future dealings at the discovery (Palais de Justice); the claim you made in libel suit mentions Schreiber's name several times, and yet you've said in Para 12, Sub 2, the plaintiff (BM) has never received any payments from any form, from any person, whether person named or not, in the request for assistance for any consideration whatsoever; at the time you filed this claim, and you are a lawyer, that's not exactly true: you received money from KHS. That stmt, though not a sworn stmt, isn't exactly true.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it's exactly true! It relates to the letter of request, the accusation that money had been received by me from MBB, from Airbus, from Thyssen. That letter is exactly true! (pissed)

Coming up next, the final installment in the series, Part XII ("Clean as a hound's tooth"), or return to Part X ("Never ask a man 'how big' it was")
Pictures: cry-baby from Health-in-Action, and Emo Cat from Icanhascheezburger

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part X: Never ask a man 'how big' it was

2007-12-16T12:38:00.000-08:00

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part IX: Comartin brings it!

2007-12-16T12:36:00.000-08:00

Before I wrote this letter this morning, I read Philip Mathias' article in the National Post wherein he states the show, the fifth estate is expected to report that the word BRITAIN appears in banking docs belonging to Mr. Schreiber. He stated to Mr. Schreiber that BRITAIN is close to 'Brian,' in order to imply a connection between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. If Mr. Mathias is correct in what he expects, and he expects you to report and run on your show tonight, without the benefit of my on-air questions and answers, you will have committed grave wrongs against Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. That would be a false, inaccurate, malicious, groundless inference. There is no resemblance to the truth in that reckless suggestion. Your conduct will attempt to ruin the reputation of people by innuendo and falsehoods, when I can give you an accurate, truthful, meaningful and balanced response to your irresponsible innuendo.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Well, so much for the BRITAIN acct! This letter was signed by Edward Greenspan, QC, an excellent lawyer in T.O. who represents Mr. Schreiber's interests. If, you have ever seen a repudiation more total & complete, I'd like to examine it.
(***N.B. Mulroney's lawyer also sent a letter to the CBC, very similar to that which was sent by Greenspan!)
Del Mastro (CPC): I agree w/you, but I just think that, if that statement had been made in 1999, that would have been a powerful stmt. Mr. Schreiber...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Excuse me! This stmt that Mr. Greenspan sent to the 5th Estate? They never referred to it! They just continued their implication that "Britain" equals "Brian," just to continue their enabling role, to be a Get out of Jail card for Mr. Schreiber.
Del Mastro (CPC): Mr. Schreiber's lawsuit against you...there's been speculation, including today, that money was for services already provided by you (bribes)...I told Mr. Schreiber, obviously you wouldn't sue BM if they were bribes or kickbacks. And he agreed, that that's not why he was suing you. So I'm asking you: why do you think Mr. Schreiber is suing you? It seems to me that he has no receipts, no contracts, his allegations are all of meetings, one-on-one, it seems to me he'll have an uphill battle trying to prove any of this. Why is he doing this?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think it was part & parcel of a strategy to dupe members of this cmte and two important media institutions in his ultimate objective to avoid extradition to Germany. Your question is NB: what did he do for the money? Why did he sue me 14 years later? 14 years! Let me tell you, just briefly, what he was saying just 3 yrs ago. He sued me as part of a strategy to excite interest in Canada, to include Mr. Harper in allegations--who had nothing to do with anything--I mean, what better way than to accuse a PM and former PM of impropriety to get a feeding frenzy going? Listen to this--it's an unsolicited letter from Mr. Schreiber July 22, 2004:

Dear Brian, friends from around the world call and told me they never understood better than now why I like the man BM even more than PM BM. It's the quality of the human being that counts most in life. Your performance at Pres Ronald Reagan's funeral--I say au revoir today to a gifted leader, an historic President, a gracious human being--has put you at the top of admiration and respect around the world.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: ...and then, low and behold, another letter from Mr. Schreiber, July 2004 (link and emphasis added):

Dear Brian, Now he's got power. Is Brian Mulroney Canada's greatest deal broker ever? I say: Yes. And I saw it already coming when I met you at Harrington Lake. Since the Reagan funeral, in my opinion, your personal power increased even more, and so do your personal obligations to the world. Fate plays an important role in the life of human beings. We know this. Nobody can escape fate. Fate has put you, in my opinion, in a position where you are able to help the human beings, especially the children of North America and around the world in a dramatic way and your skill may put you in a special historical place and you will win the Nobel Peace Prize. Dear Brian, with your help, and the support of Mr. Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we should be able to fight the obesity epidemic in the USA (relating to the pasta machine, Spaghetissimo); I am convinced the project will impress you and find your interest to help the children.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: This is 2004! And he thinks I'm the greatest guy in the world! He knows I know Bill Gates, and he wants me to help in this regard. I admit, this is not a universally held opinion, but it's interesting that it's his!
Del Mastro (CPC): Mr. Mulroney, of the evidence that Mr. Schreiber presented, the most troubling document is a letter dated May 8, 2007, a letter that makes very significant accusations. Did you receive that letter? If so, did you respond?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (initially confused, but clues in) OH! The "Blackmail Letter," no, no I did not (respond to it).
Szabo (chair, LPC): to clarify, you made reference to Mr. Schreiber's deportation?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I'm sorry.

12:05 PM
Comartin (NDP): the 1000 dollar bills, were these US or CAD?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: CAD
Comartin (NDP): even the 1000 dollar bills in NY?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Comartin (NDP): the 1000 dollar bills in NY--that money never came to Canada? It stayed in the states?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (stayed in the states)
Comartin (NDP): did you declare that money as income? Did you pay taxes in the US?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I declared it in Canada and paid all taxes in Canada b/c I'm a Canadian citizen, pursuant to our...
Comartin (NDP): when did you declare that income?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: after Mr. Schreiber was arrested. In 1999. (Ooops!)
Comartin (NDP): in a single year? Or over a two year period?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: my advisers figured out what cheques to sign and I did that sir.
Comartin (NDP): from 1993 to 1999, or 2000, I assume you had your own accounting firm that did your tax returns? Who were they?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Yes. (inaudible name)
Comartin (NDP): you said that when this money was received, it wasn't taxable yet b/c you hadn't prepared an invoice for Mr. Schreiber yet?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no. Because at the time, what I'd used at the time was expenses and expenses are not taxable until the matter is resolved and the bill was sent.
Comartin (NDP): Mr. Mulroney, you practised law for a long time before you became PM, but you were treating this as not revenue coming into you as a practising lawyer?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it was completely separate from my law firm
Comartin (NDP): how would you categorize...were you a consultant?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes.
Comartin (NDP): you didn't see yourself as an employee of Thyssen?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I was an international consultant.
Comartin (NDP): just in terms of employment, when you received the 1st 100K, or 75K, you were still a MP, is that correct?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think that's probably right, sir.
Comartin (NDP): the record shows that you received that 1st payment in August, but again, you didn't view yourself as an employee. You saw yourself as a consultant. Were you registered as a lobbyist, either under Fed legislation or any other legislation in this country at that time?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir, I've never lobbied any government.
Comartin (NDP): and you took the position that the work you did with respect to the military vehicles was all done internationally?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Comartin (NDP): you had an exchange w/Pat Martin earlier--did you feel that you were also being retained to work on obtaining contracts or business w/Mr. Schreiber about pasta?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: He (KHS) says that. I didn't say that.
Comartin (NDP): I know he says that, but I want to know, was the retainer only for the military vehicles or...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: he was in error. I believe that the pasta matters to which he refers (writing to me about Bill Gates etc.) came later. In his testimony, he says he hired me for two reasons: the Thyssen work and the anti-obesity pasta business that he proposed to develop.
Comartin (NDP): the meeting at Harrington Lake on June 23, while you were still PM. Did the business of pasta machines arise at any time during that meeting? It was only about the military vehicles?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (annoyed) No, Sir! It was about nothing! There was no conversation or undertaking of any kind regarding my employment. Bear Head was mentioned, and my only comment was my regret that it didn't come about. I was in favour of it, Mr. Comartin. It would have been a great job creator in Nova Scotia.
Comartin (NDP): when did you feel you were first retained with respect to military vehicles?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I believe the end of August (1993)
Comartin (NDP): at the time you received your 1st payment?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, although Mr. Schreiber testifies that it was late 93 or early 94 (Note: I think he means that Schreiber testified it was late 92 or early 93, actually)
Comartin (NDP): he also testified that he gave you the money in Aug 1993...Ok, but at the time that you received the money in the hotel room, and he gave you the envelope, was there any discussion at that time about what the 75K was for?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: of course!
Comartin (NDP): so just the military vehicles or the pasta bus as well?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, just the military vehicles.
Comartin (NDP): and you were still a MP at this time?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, I was, sir.
Comartin (NDP): with regard to how these funds were handled...not clear on the money in NY. You declared it here and paid full taxes here, w/no expenses for flying around the world. What happened to that money? Literally we have 75K sitting in a safe deposit box in NY. What happened to it?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it stayed there until I settled everything w/Revenue Canada and Quebec.
Comartin (NDP): you told us that already. What happened to it?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: a-a-a-after that period, I integrated those funds over a period of time into my own requirements in the USA.
Comartin (NDP): so you never ran afoul of the rule about transferring amounts >$10 000 over international boundaries?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no
Comartin (NDP): you say you integrated it into your businesses in...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: cash flow.
Comartin (NDP): but you never declared it in the US...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: but I didn't have to, under the tax agreement we have w/the US, I declared my world wide income as we all must and I paid full taxes on it.
Comartin (NDP): you said you didn't have to declare it when received but only when you sent a bill. Did you ever send Mr. Schreiber a bill?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I never sent Mr. Schreiber a bill in that sense.
Comartin (NDP): why not?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Because he told you, in his testimony, he said, "I viewed Mr. Mulroney's initiative..."
Comartin (NDP): so we're supposed to believe him now?

***laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, no...not at all. You were asking me, it was his money, and ...
Comartin (NDP): no, I'm asking you what you did with it. Mr. Mulroney, I've been practising law for a long time, and it's really difficult---I mean, for every business, professional, consultant etc that I've ever acted for, they take money in, take the deductions off, and they do it all in the year that they're in...you didn't do that sir.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I didn't sir, but you're right, that's what's normally done.
Comartin (NDP): And I would suggest that you didn't declare those expenses b/c you didn't keep records and you couldn't show the income tax people...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (snarky, angry) Well, you can suggest whatever you want, Mr. Comartin, it doesn't matter, b/c I didn't claim any expenses--I paid it all as income, to the tax authorities of Canada. I'm sorry sir, but if you wish to impugn my character or integrity, that's ok (sarcastically)
Comartin (NDP): (interrupting) are you able to produce records to show that specifically that 40K/yr expenses?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, no, not 40K/yr, 40K in total
Comartin (NDP): you have expense sheets? E.g. "I flew to Russia to see Mr. Yeltsin, I flew to France to see Mr. Mitterand, I apportioned $1000 for this flight, these hotels, these restaurants?"
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I had all of them, until such time as I paid taxes on that. (and then he got rid of them--Ooopsie!)

Coming up next: Part X ("Never ask a man 'how big' it was"), or return to Part VIII ("You've been very generous with your taxes")

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VIII: "You've been very generous with your taxes"

2007-12-16T12:34:00.000-08:00

"You've been very generous with your taxes"

11:13 AM
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): We talked a little bit about Section 41 of the Parliament of Canada Act. You've indicated that you've not violated that legislation. We talked about the 1985 Code and you indicated that you did not violate that document. My question: specifically w/section 60, the limitation period (long pause while counsel provides doc); Section 60 talks about--the area, sir, where you travelled to different countries etc.--this section says "former public office holders except for Ministers of the Crown for whom the prescribed period is 2 years--should not, w/in the period of 1 yr after leaving office accept an appointment w/a Board of Directors or employment w/an entity w/which they had significant official dealings during the period of 1 yr prior to the termination of their service..." do you feel you violated this section?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: No, I don't believe I did, b/c my association was entirely international--outside Canada, w/view to ascertaining the nature of the opportunities that might be available.
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): so you feel this section just has to do w/dealings inside Canada?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes. That's my interpretation. As was Section 59. I read them together.
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): That's right, and you should read them together. But clearly what you were doing was w/in those times, this prescribed period?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, that's right sir.
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): now you mentioned in your opening stmt--and I'm curious as to what you meant--you talked about how the gov of Canada showed up w/9 lawyers and didn't deal w/certain things. Can you elaborate on that?

***grumbling***

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): can we have some order?!
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I can tell you, sir, two things: before the Airbus matter exploded, and we wanted to do everything, you understand, we had a couple of days warning it was going to hit. I could see the end of my life, w/this thing becoming public. (what a bluidy drama queen!) And so, one of my lawyers, Roger Tassé, the former Dep. Min Justice under Trudeau, and Chretien, I asked him to go to Ottawa and visit w/RCMP and Dept Justice and say, "Look, these allegations are false...and he (BM) is ready to come up here and see you, to bring his tax returns, his stmt of net worth, anything you want, you can interrogate him on any association he's ever had..." they turned Roger Tassé down cold. They went out and hired a bunch of lawyers (getting red in the face again) to prove the unproveable. When it became clear that the (1995 allegations) were false, they collapsed on the court house steps. They didn't negotiate the settlement b/c they didn't know about a commercial relationship w/Mr. Schreiber (that I was hiding)--they settled b/c it was false. It was a hoax! A complete fabrication! And so when I show up for the discovery, I walk to the Palais de Justice in Montreal, I see 9 lawyers representing the Government of Canada--they interrogate me for a day and a half and not one of them asked me directly if I had a business association w/Mr. Schreiber after (I) left government, and by the way, that question would have been totally out of order. Because it violated the provisions of the Quebec civil code, but I would have answered it. I was never asked it! That's what happened. The hostility that we saw when Roger went up to Ottawa was astounding. Rather than deal with it then, they kept hiring more lawyers, and that's what we saw.
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): and you believe that this incident is one of the things that lead to what we're doing today?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (man, he is really worked up!) Absolutely! The false stmts in the affidavit triggered this feeding frenzy! Where Mr. Schreiber, aided by two different broadcasting or publishing groups--his enablers--filed a false affidavit, here we are today--did you find out anything new here? (mockingly) This big, secret thing that he was supposed to do? I'll tell you that on Nov 15, the National Post interviewed Mr. Schreiber, big headlines: 'boy oh boy, when I get down there, I'm going to make some headlines! Biggest scandal in Can'n history! Let me out of jail and boy, oh boy, are you going to love me, it'll be like Christmas!' The NP asks the following question, the final comment in the Nov 15 article--I ask you all to pay particular attention to this, b/c it's 8 days after (KHS) files his false affidavit--"while Mr. Schreiber will save his new revelations for the inquiry, when asked outright if he knows of any wrongdoing by Mr. Mulroney, he answers, "I don't know."" The inquiry has to find out?! The devil made me do it? And he goes on (reading sarcastically): "this is something I would like to find out. I'm very suspicious, in the meantime, that things happened, that I might not even know about." This is the man who, 8 days earlier, signs an affidavit loaded down w/allegations like a Xmas tree (ok, ok, enough w/the Christmas...), and that was his get out of Jail card. And he created this feeding frenzy w/his two media allies and here we are today!
Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Tilson, I'll give you another 2 min

11:22 AM
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): you mentioned in your opening stmt, comments by an RCMP informant that caused you a lot of problems? I'd like you to tell us the name of that person and what that person did.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: as you know, I didn't place any name. Everybody knows, in Canada, look, in politics, we know that we all have people who dislike us--I know there's so few in my case...

***laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: not hard to remember them. But very few of these people make a life's work of pursuing us--of engineering a vendetta, so personal, either of you, sir, Mr. Dryden, or you sir, or me. This person did. And when we found out--and how we found out, there was a trial in T.O. and the RCMP had to produce a very lengthy affidavit. In the affidavit, they ID'd Ms. Stevie Cameron, as an informant, so deeply embedded in the force that they gave her a code name, A2648. She was a journalist! She was passing herself off as an investigative journalist while she was a police informant! If you read the testimony of Gallant and Fiegenwald, here's what you find: they go to T.O. on instructions on direction of Murray (RCMP), and they say, "well, we've got nothing on Airbus, but I hear on the CBC that Stevie Cameron's got a lot of stuff. So you go down and see her." So they go to her home and, eventually, she hands over her files, and it's on the basis of this, together w/comment from Mr. Pelossi, that the whole matter was initiated. So failed and flawed was the letter to Switzerland, that the Government of Canada had to re-do it 7 times! Upping the ante every time, so that the Swiss would take cognisance of it and do something w/the information.
Szabo (chair, LPC): suggest we take another health break at this time (read: pee break) till 11:35 or 11:40.

11:44 AM
Ménard (BQ): (mid-sentence)...the interest account, the bar...in what account did you deposit it? A personal account or a business account?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you're saying whether some people wondering if this money was for services rendered or to be rendered. Mr. Schreiber answered your question...
Ménard (BQ): I know your answer, that it was for services to be rendered, but I'm asking how we should believe you. It would help if you could explain that you acted w/Mr. Schreiber as you did w/other clients. In the case w/other clients, all expenses and all fees passed through bank accts to you or you invoiced them, correct?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (nods)
Ménard (BQ): this is the only client that you dealt w/in this manner?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, M. Ménard, Schreiber was the only client that offered cash and insisted on paying cash.
Ménard (BQ): but that pertains to how you were paid, not how you were invoiced...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I understood that I was obtaining what he would call a "watching brief," in his interests worldwide. In potential sales of vehicles used for keeping the peace (*puke* They're tanks!). It was international. (He said 'international' again! Take a drink!)
Ménard (BQ): but you said you did incur expenses. So you took money from those safety deposit boxes. So how much money was ultimately left in that safety deposit box?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: about 180K.
Ménard (BQ): so you incurred expenses of ~45K?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: about 15K per year
Ménard (BQ): were those expenses you incurred legitimate expenses for the client, and did the money you took out--if it was money owing to you, and therefore perfectly legal, then why did you declare the whole amount as income?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: the whole amount was 225K, working out (after expenses to) ~40K per year. That was the invoice I could have presented to meet leaders in Russia etc. Did I serve my client well? Absolutely! For 40K/yr? I don't think there's a lawyer in Canada or Quebec that would say that's the least bit excessive. But you asked why I declared the whole amount as income? Because when Mr. Schreiber was charged and arrested, I didn't know what was going on. Mr. Ménard, he's arrested, he's charged w/bribery, corruption, fraud...I say to myself, "that's not the Schreiber I knew..."
Ménard (BQ): but you'd only used 45K incurred as expenses. You could have claimed those as expenses and instead you paid taxes on the full amount.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, I declared everything.
Ménard (BQ): you've been very generous w/your taxes (*snerk*)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, b/c I didn't want there to be any questions anywhere, but wanted to make sure I'd be basically settled w/Revenue Canada and Revenue Quebec..
Ménard (BQ): the perception is that this money is intended to be sealed from Revenue Canada etc. (b/c you kept it in a safe deposit box)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (angry, red-faced) Hold on a second! Given that I was dealing w/a retainer, under the tax laws, disbursements from a retainer are not taxable in any way, until such time as you feel...
Ménard (BQ): never mind that. Why did you not take the money that were your legitimate expenses? Why did you not do the same as you did w/other retainers you were paid? And invoice as you went along?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: as I said, it was an error on my part
Ménard (BQ): (untranslated) "Un de mes amis qui disait: "Errare ou mal munes bis errare is diabolicum," je dirais: "Perseverare errare is diabolicum." (translated)...but an error you continued to repeat for two years...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: the error is indivisible. It's an error in its entirety and I have apologized. Persevering is an error? If we were in Baie Comeau, I'm sure I would have a reply to your Latin tag (WTF?!)
Ménard (BQ): what was your initial reaction to the cash payment? You were party leader and knew about discipline, and wanted it for your caucus. If you learned that a member of your cabinet had received cash payments and was keeping it in a safe deposit box in his home, wouldn't you want an explanation?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: oh yes. And if the explanation was that it was a legal contract, and the member had rendered visible and tangible services, I would agree, except that I would have said, "I wish you had handled it differently than you did."
Ménard (BQ): but that wasn't your reaction to your own actions.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I'm explaining: it was a mistake
Ménard (BQ): did you keep an accounting of the expenses incurred on Mr. Schreiber's behalf?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, up to the moment that the tax issue was settled and until I had absorbed all the expenses.
Ménard (BQ): were you in financial difficulty when Mr. Schreiber offered you cash?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no sir.

Coming up next: Part IX ("Comartin brings it!"), or return to Part VII ("The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately")
Scrooge McDuck courtesy of silverbearcafe.com

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VII: The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately

2007-12-16T12:30:00.000-08:00

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (or "BM," as I've come to know him) presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee for an exhausting 3 1/2 hours on Thursday. As with the Schreiber testimony (Nov 29, Dec 4, Dec 6, and Dec 11) the following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. You can return to the beginning of this 'series,' by clicking here: Part I.

The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately

10:55 AM
Szabo (chair, LPC): give the floor to the Hon. Ken Dryden
Dryden (LPC): Mr. Mulroney, I'll only take a short period of time. I'll not interrupt you. You held the most privileged position in the country. Once a PM of Canada, you're always PM of Canada, w/all the assumptions and hopes that come w/this honoured position. I've followed this matter more closely as a citizen, than I have as a MP. What I want to know is---Mr. Schreiber is at least a shadowy character, and has been for a long time. I understand how first contacts happen and how mistakes can be made. But why did your association w/Schreiber go on for year after year? Why in cash? Why in various different cities? Why in hotel rooms? Why, Mr. Mulroney?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you say that Mr. Schreiber is, at best (or least) a shadowy character. Few people would disagree w/that assessment today. But I ask you, Mr. Dryden, to reflect on the fact that it wasn't always so. 15 yrs ago, he was known as I said, as the chairman of Thyssen Canada, w/3 000 employees...he was known in Canada, in Alberta, Ottawa, Montreal, as a successful businessman. Hard-driving, but successful. So that's the KHS that I knew, and met. His associates involved people like Lalonde and MacEachen--very reassuring. People from both sides of the aisle. Like Elmer MacKay--you won't find a more honourable man in Canada than Elmer MacKay. So this was the kind of person that the association was with. So this was all I knew about the person in question. You and I might remember a little differently than 15 yrs ago and view people differently.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: You asked, 'why in cash.' I tried to answer that in my opening stmt and in a number of questions. Mr. Dryden, as he has said to me, he was an international businessman, and he only dealt in cash. I hesitated. He said to one of the papers, "do you think BM would have accepted a cheque from me?" Well, of course I would have, b/c back then he was known to me only as a respectable businessman. But he said he only dealt in cash. I've acknowledged, sir, that this was a mistake in judgement, and I've apologized for it.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Your question was, 'why in different cities? ' Mirabel? He had hired a suite, in the hotel, going to Europe. In Montreal, he had a room in the Queen Elizabeth hotel, and he had come from elsewhere in Canada and that night he was going back to Germany--no, to Switzerland. And through an intermediary, he asked if I could come by and have coffee w/him. And in the Pierre Hotel, in NY, he was, as I understand it, he was there to attend (the night before) a dinner w/Hon Allan MacEachen celebrating the German/North American experience, some association, and that's where he was the night before. And he planned to attend, as did I, to attend a lunch or dinner to celebrate Elmer MacKay's wedding. And there was a small reception to celebrate. The coincidence worked, we met at the Pierre Hotel, and that's where the transaction took place. Look at it in retrospect, you look at the details, and it looks circumspect, but in reality, it's as innocent as I just told you. He was there w/Allan MacEachen and we were going to participate in a wedding tribute to MacKay.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think your question is also significant, sir, b/c questions were asked about reporting. I sat in his hotel room, at his invitation, and gave him a report in excess of an hour on the various initiatives that I had undertaken around the world, to try to bring to fruition some success w/this product. My ultimate objective, Mr. Dryden, was...where can I be helpful? I thought if I could see the members of the P5--the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, France, etc.), that I could then see the Sec. General, if any interest had been evinced. And put to them the proposal that, this Thyssen product was superb--that we could then take advantage of this and generalize this opportunity for members who were on peacekeeping missions. That's why I went to China, to Russia, to the USA...

11:03 AM
Rodriguez (LPC): Thank you for being here today. On Nov 9, 2007, PM Harper stated that he, his ministers and caucus should cease any further relationship w/you. I'd like to look a little more closely at your relationship w/Mr. Harper. Is it true that you were asked to make telephone calls on behalf of the PM to ministers or members, for e.g. when Mr. Michael Chong wanted to leave cabinet?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: No, no one asked me to do anything. Chong was a young man whom I knew for some time. He was one of my supporters when I was in government. I had learned through the grapevine that Michael was getting ready to resign from cabinet, and I felt that it was not a decision that was well grounded. I said, "Michael...there are times when cabinet ministers have to resign, but to resign on a motion from the House, moved by almost all members, the recognition of the Quebecois as a nation, that makes no sense." I called and asked him to think again. Talk to his wife. Then make a decision, but it was in vain.
Rodriguez (LPC): in preparing for today's meeting, did you or a member of your team get in touch w/any member of gov? Or member on the gov side?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no
Rodriguez (LPC): did Mr. Harper consult w/you on a gov strategy in Quebec?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no. Well, sometimes I would receive a friendly call, but that was it.
Rodriguez (LPC): it was reported that you had a discussion w/Maxime Bernier about the wireless spectrum issue, and that during the discussion, you reportedly asked the Minister to meet w/Pierre Karl Peladeau (CEO) from Quebecor...

***grumbling from CPC***

Szabo (chair, LPC): Order! Order! I'm just asking for quiet. On a point of order, Mr. Tilson?
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): the Point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that this is the biggest fishing expedition I've ever seen, and it has absolutely nothing to do w/the mandate of these proceedings....And Mr. Rodriguez, who comes in here, you know, as a "Johnny come Lately," w/questions that have nothing to do w/these proceedings!

***cross-talk...Szabo tries to quiet everybody down***

Szabo (chair, LPC): the Point of Order is that the matter is not relevant to-I would like you to address the member's Point of Order (Rodriguez)?
Rodriguez (LPC): I would like to mention to Mr. Tilson that he can make the same Point of Order w/respect (b/c of the assholish way Tilson asked the question). Two points: in the mandate...allegations by the current and former government, including relevant correspondence w/ the Privy Council's Office and the PMO. In line w/codes of ethics, and other relevant docs. Secondly, Mr. Schreiber said several times that he asked BM to intervene w/PM Harper's government. So is it even necessary for the cmte to know whether BM had contacts w/government?
Murphy (LPC): Mr. Harper forbade members of his government from contacting Mr. Mulroney. And it also goes to the core of any parliamentary hearing, and that is credibility. Mr. Mulroney did meet or speak, and that's crucial to his credibility.
Del Mastro (CPC): we were afraid that these hearings could descend into a partisan witchhunt. Clearly not germane to the mandate, i.e. KHS's extradition, the Airbus settlement, everybody knows this. I would extend to Mr. Rodriguez that he has not been here for very much of it...***interruption*** Ok, so his attendance isn't relevant, but let me make the point that, in this case, everybody knows that the only reference to the current PMO is whether they intervened in this case, and the current testimony indicates that they have not. And that is the only way it could be relevant. His question is simply not relevant to the witness' testimony today.
Szabo (chair, LPC): we've had this discussion before. Members will know that we have, in addition to the Airbus settlement issue, allegations were made by the party coming before us, i.e. new testimony, new evidence, contradictions for instance, that Mr. Schreiber has testified that the money is for BHP, not Airbus, which changes the dynamic of our hearings. The other evidence that has come out has broadened our focus. I believe it was Mr. Wallace who asked to include "present or past" governments. In view of that, I understand that it might not turn out to be relevant, in terms of our recommendations, but Mr. Rodriguez has raised an item which is on the border, but it is in general relevant. Could you repeat the question and allow the witness to respond?
Rodriguez (LPC): (repeats question about Pierre Karl Peladeau of Quebecor meeting w/Maxime Bernier)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think I can tell you that Mr. Pierre Karl Peladeau, who's one of the most influential and successful people in the province of Quebec and in Montreal, who's company controls the largest media empire in Canada, knows Bernier a lot better than me. He doesn't need me for an introduction to Bernier or anybody else.
Rodriguez (LPC): so you didn't speak to Bernier on this issue?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I made no presentation on this or anything else.
Szabo (chair, LPC): your time has expired. I'm going to Mr. Tilson.

Coming up next: Part VIII ("You've been very generous with your taxes"), or return to Part VI ("A perfectly legitimate businessman")

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VI: A perfectly legitimate businessman

2007-12-16T12:28:00.000-08:00

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (or "BM," as I've come to know him) presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee for an exhausting 3 1/2 hours on Thursday. As with the Schreiber testimony (Nov 29, Dec 4, Dec 6, and Dec 11) the following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. You can return to the beginning of this 'series,' by clicking here: Part I.

A perfectly legitimate businessman

10:35 AM
Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Mulroney, thank you for being here. Today you've spoken to the nation and answered some questions that have been lingering on the minds of Canadians for years. However, that does not change the fact that the public trust has been broken. What we've been told has cast a shadow over the institution of gov. This cmte has sought to shed light on your actions. Now, Canadians understand that the PM is just a person, but Canadians also expect that person to reflect the dignity of high-office. Even if, at the end of the day, no code or law was broken, even the appearance of wrongdoing is a problem. Canadians want to know what happened so that we can put this saga behind us. First: about the cash, Mr. Mulroney, when you received the first payment, were you still a MP?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, I was. And that is, as you know, not a violation of the HOC act.
Hiebert (CPC): you've told this cmte that you declared money as income, but you also indicated that some was used for expenses.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: partially, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): so did you declare all the money as income, or some, b/c some was expenses
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: all of it sir, and I absorbed the money I used for expenses. Filed for the full amount and paid full tax on it.
Hiebert (CPC): when Mr. Schreiber provided that money, did you give him a kind of receipt?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I didn't, in fact, he didn't even indicate to me---he told a newspaper that, when he gave it to me, that I had no idea what the amount was or the denominations were--and he told someone else on TV that he's a European businessman and that's how transactions were done...and that's essentially what he told me, so I had no idea. (Whoops!)
Hiebert (CPC): did Mr. Schreiber tell you what the source of the cash was?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no
Hiebert (CPC): you had no idea where the money was from?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, now Mr. Hiebert (in schoolteacher voice to the young whippersnapper), as I tried to indicate, it's easy to look back 15 yrs later at a KHS or anybody else and--you have to look back 15 yrs and see the gentleman I was meeting. I was meeting the chairman of Thyssen Canada (KHS) who had 3000 employees in Canada, as a part of Thyssen Industries, which had 180 000 employees world-wide. And Mr. Schreiber was promoting an entirely legitimate project in eastern Nova Scotia, and that's the way I knew him, as a perfectly legitimate businessman. And so when I met w/him, I met the KHS of 1993, not the KHS of today.
Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Mulroney, the following questions relate to the 1985 Code of Conduct for Employees that you personally put in place as PM. My first question: did you ever violate the 1985 code?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir
Hiebert (CPC): did Mr. Schreiber ever offer you employment?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: while I was in office? No sir.
Hiebert (CPC): after stepping down as PM, did you ever have an agreement w/Mr. Schreiber? That you would work for him in connection w/any "specific ongoing proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case, to which the Government of the day was a party" (quoting directly from the 1985 Code)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Mr. Hiebert, that's a very important question, and if you'll allow me, I'd like to respond through the words of Mr. Schreiber himself. Mr. Schreiber testified in the MBB helicopter (Eurocopter) case, under oath, here' s the question from Mr. Bernstein, "those thoughts, that idea that you had, this plan (to retain the services of Mr. M), what time are we talking about?" Mr. S: "after Mr. M has left gov" Bernstein: "after he had ceased? After he had stepped down as PM?" Mr. S: "yes. Yeah." Under oath (pointing at Hiebert), Mr. Schreiber repeats the same provision under oath, within a stone's throw of this room (pointing around the room now, dramatically), in 2004, in the affidavit that he filed on the 7th of Nov (2007) that gave rise to this activity. He's saying, under oath, that he hired me only after I was no longer PM. In the affidavit he filed, he said the exact opposite, that it took place 23 June at Harrington Lake. I told you, sir, that every single allegation Mr. Schreiber made about me in that affidavit (7 Nov 2007) is false. And, w/your permission, I'd like to go through every single allegation w/you and indicate the extent to which these falsehoods are now on your record, unchallenged.
Hiebert (CPC): after you stepped down as PM, did Mr. Schreiber ask you to contact any member of fed gov on his behalf?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): after you stepped down as PM, did Mr. Schreiber ever ask you to advise him on how his business could benefit from the programs of the fed gov at the time?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Mulroney, there's been some questions about your activity after you stepped down as PM, but while you were still a MP. I'm now referring to the provisions of the Parliament of Canada--you indicated that you accepted some amount of money while you were still sitting as an MP. Did you render any services to Mr. Schreiber in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other matter before parliament?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): did you influence, or attempt to influence, on behalf of Mr. Schreiber or any other of his interests, any other MP as you were sitting as a MP?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Chairman, I think it's clear that Mr. Schreiber is desperate to avoid facing extradition to Germany. He's testified to the (number of cases he has before the courts). And PM Harper has stated that he never met KHS and Schreiber confirmed that in his own testimony. Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Schreiber hoped, undoubtedly, that you could advocate on his behalf, to PMS, to help him w/his extradition problems. Mr. Schreiber indicated that he believed that you were going to raise this issue w/PM Harper last summer. PM Harper has stated that he has never discussed this matter w/you. Mr. Mulroney, could you tell the cmte if you ever raised this subject w/the current PM, and if you did not, why not?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: PM Harper is completely accurate. Moreover, he has had nothing to do directly or indirectly w/any aspect of this, in any way. I did not raise, directly or indirectly, w/PM Harper or any member of the HOC on any side. Mr. Hiebert, let me just read this, I've told you the falsity of Mr. Schreiber's stmts in his affidavit. He repudiated his own testimony, under oath. Here's another article from his affidavit, section 39: "I wrote the July 20, 2006 at the request of Mr. Mulroney, b/c he told me that he was going to meet PM Harper and that Mr. Mulroney was going to show PM Harper a copy of Exhibit 15." I have not spoken to Mr. Schreiber in 7 years. That's a complete fabrication, and it's an example from this affidavit that has generated this feeding frenzy ...Look, he succeeded! He got what he wanted! (*smiling and gesturing expansively*) He's sitting in his mansion over in Rockcliffe, chuckling. He organized this 7 Nov affidavit and it's all false! But he got his "Get out of Jail" card, and he's sitting over there, and he got what he wanted. But one thing that he did do, is that he seriously mislead every member of this House. And it is false. And how do we know it's false? Because he repudiated it, every single provision of it, in different testimonies given under oath! (very red faced)

Del Mastro (CPC): Point of order, Mr. Chair! You extended the invitation to the witness that, if he would like to make a stmt (or clarify) at any time, that he could. The witness has indicated that he'd like to go through the affidavit of 7 Nov and I'd like to request to the chair, if he would like to do that, it's very relevant. I'd like you to extend that offer.
Szabo (chair, LPC): if it's germane and relevant and, you feel it would be helpful, Mr. Mulroney...

***grumbling***

Szabo (chair, LPC): just a moment, just a moment...I want to make sure, b/c I'm also contemplating our next session of break. How long would it be? 5 min 10 min?

10:49 AM
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: max. I can be very brief. I won't go through the entire affidavit, but let me draw to your attention, something that should be persuasive to all of you, regardless of political party, the quest for the truth, then those that appear before you must respect you by telling you the truth with respect to everything, even, sir, if it's embarrassing, as it's been for me, to acknowledge accepting money from Mr. Schreiber.
Szabo (chair, LPC): just with respect to one of the responses to Mr. Hiebert, you said: "accepting money while you were a MP was not in violation of "the HOC act?" Were you, in fact, referring to the "Parliament of Canada Act?"
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I'm sorry, sir, yes.
Szabo (chair, LPC): Ok, and that was with respect to Section 41 under "Influence Peddling." Thank you. If you wish, is this an appropriate time for you to make your comments? Please proceed.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: in the 7 Nov affidavit, at Section 15, Mr. Schreiber swears under oath, that it was at this meeting that Mr. Mulroney and I entered the agreement on 23 June 1993, Mr. Mulroney was still in office as PM of Canada and consequently resided at 24 Sussex. So the thrust of it is, June 93, I'm still PM, and, according to him, we make a deal at Harrington Lake. Mr. Schreiber also filed another affidavit. In another trial. Dealing w/his extradition, before another court, same year, 8 months before he filed the false 7 Nov affidavit. Filed before the Fed Court of Canada, discussing his testimony in Eurocopter trial, he takes great pride that, Mr. Justice Paul Boulanger (sp??) examined his testimony very carefully and declared he was not a hostile witness. And that's b/c Mr. Bernstein had sought to have him declared a hostile witness, saying he wasn't telling the truth. But Justice Boulanger disagreed and said Schreiber was telling the truth. In the Eurocopter case, Mr. Schreiber was telling the truth. And Mr. Schreiber was so proud of that, that in his other affidavit from March this Year, 8 months before he gave you the phony affidavit (the 'Get out of Jail' affidavit), he says Judge Boulanger agreed every word he said in Eurocopter case was true. And what did he say in the Eurocopter case? Question: "these thoughts, these ideas you had to hire Mr. Mulroney? What time are we talking about?" Schreiber's Answer: "after Mr. Mulroney had left government" (Mulroney very animated and red-faced again). Question: "after he had ceased, after he had stepped down as PM?" Schreiber's Answer: "Yes, Yeah."
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: In Eurocopter, he says this under oath (holding it up), so proud of it, he repeats it in his March 2007 affidavit. Eight months later, in his November affidavit--his Get out of Jail affidavit--he says exactly the opposite! That he made a deal w/me on 23 June 1993 in Harrington Lake. Which one is perjury? Is it the one under oath, March 3, 2007? Or is it the one under oath in a court room in Toronto, November 7. At no time, directly or indirectly was the matter of anything that dealt w/employment raised by Schreiber to me while I was PM. And this (Eurocopter testimony) was made just a stone's throw away from here. And he didn't file this one, did he? You don't have this one. I think you should take a look at it. It's interesting.

Coming up next: Part VII ("The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately"), or return to Part V ("Winnipeg in January? Now, that's downright nutty!")
Picture of Fat Tony (The Simpsons): Answers.com

Foul deeds will rise

Part II: The cook, the thief, his wife & her lamp shades

Part I: The cook, the thief, his wife & her envelopes

Lavoie testimony, Part VI: A high-maintenance relationship

Lavoie testimony, Part V: Szabo lets fly with an awesome (near) curse-word

Lavoie testimony, Part IV: "Let's not get metaphysical here..."

Lavoie testimony, Part III: "I know you're no stranger to profanity..."

Lavoie testimony, Part II: Why would an advisor give bad advice?

Lavoie testimony, Part I: Luc & Brian, BFF

Allan Rock testifies, Part II: But I *trusted* you, lyin' Brian!

Allan Rock testifies, Part I: And the LANGUAGE that they used...

Raising the Spector, Part V: The return of Grumpy Old Tilson

Raising the Spector, Part IV: Hey! You invited *me*!

Raising the Spector, Part III: Brother, those ain't Girl Guides!

Raising the Spector, Part II: What's a nice hack like you doing in a place like this?

Raising the Spector Part I: "Don't let this become Frank Magazine"

US AG Mukasey testifies before Sen. Judiciary Cmte: Part II

US AG Mukasey testifies before Sen. Judiciary Cmte: Part I

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part XII: "Clean as a hound's tooth"

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part XI: "I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part X: Never ask a man 'how big' it was

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part IX: Comartin brings it!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VIII: "You've been very generous with your taxes"

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VII: The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VI: A perfectly legitimate businessman

Allan Rock testifies, Part II: But I trusted you, lyin' Brian!

Raising the Spector, Part IV: Hey! You invited me!