QuoteHas Enda Kenny leaked this to you to poison the Taoiseach's reputation among the population of foot.ie?
Mahon tribunal have accessed the bank records.
They didn't take enough sterling on the day that Bertie claimed he exchanged Wall's money.
They did take over 45k dollars though.
http://rte.ie/news/2007/0528/mahon.html
Last edited by monutdfc; 28/05/2007 at 2:49 PM. Reason: mods required a link
Has Enda Kenny leaked this to you to poison the Taoiseach's reputation among the population of foot.ie?
Not quiet correct.... what was said during today's opening statement was that on the day in question the amount/s lodged to the accout equated to $45k dollars and no sterling lodgement was made to the account on the day in questionOriginally Posted by monutdfc
The opening statement also declared that another lodgement did not back up Bertie's claim that he received Stg£8k from Manchester businessmen and that there is little documentary evidence to support his evidence about the source of five lodgements totalling over Stg£116k
No doubt Bertie will now claim that he can't comment as the Tribunal is in session... still the people have decided that it's ok to elect him...we get what we deserve.
Moderator: Please post a link to this (See Current Affairs forum rules) or i need to closer this thread
From RTE
Did you ever notice that in every painting of Adam & Eve, they have belly buttons. Think about that...take as long as you want.
Link added now.
It was breaking news at the time, on the radio and not on any internet source.
Full transcript here if anyone's bored
http://www.planningtribunal.ie/image...ONTENT_578.pdf
What does everyone thing given his performances in the Tribunal recently? Any one actually changed their mind one way or the other?
IMO he seems more guilty by the day although I realise the Tribunal will never prove anything.
Got a big sense of deja vu seeing the clapping & cheering of Bertie as he left the Tribunal...
Anyone who's been watching and listening to RTE TV/Radio would've missed the important bits. Their coverage has been appauling when it comes to picking up the important elements of the story changes. I doubt many will have changed their minds - most that were blinkered reman so, those that are not are just having their opinion confirmed. Shame on FG/Labour for not going for the kill pre-election.What does everyone thing given his performances in the Tribunal recently? Any one actually changed their mind one way or the other?
IMO he seems more guilty by the day although I realise the Tribunal will never prove anything.
Got a big sense of deja vu seeing the clapping & cheering of Bertie as he left the Tribunal...
Is there some legal reason that none of the media are explaining why the $45,000 is so important? i.e. linking it back to evidence given by other witnesses?
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Anyone who supports Bertie is a fool, and when the recession finally hits Ireland I hope that we are able to pass a law that stops these people from ever voting or voicing an opinion ever again, its been my line for many a year now and nothing that has happened recently has changed it one bit
At a reasonably educated guess I would say no. Tribunals are not subject to the same procedural perimeters as a criminal case may be. It is unlikely the judges would have placed restrictions on the media coverage given hoards come to view the shenanigans unfurl, and at any rate the inquiry has no jurisdiction to dole out punishment nor form a basis for conviction. So the judges, while not undermining the seriousness of the tribunal, probably feel there would be no wanton compromising of the investigation even with full media glare.
The nub of my curiousity is the magnitude of the events AWOL from his memory. How could you forget unless you were so mired in depravity and deception that everything had a semblance of the surreal? Nothing standing out as being exceptional because the whole period was so tumultuous? Or maybe I'm inconsiderate of the rigours of political life, or perhaps I'm just inconsiderate of his plain stupidity. Whatever, there is definitely a stench of fish enveloping the Wood Quay environs the likes of which not suffered since Unhygienix and his mates had their stalls set up there. (A little Asterix reference for his legions of fans there.)
I didn't really mean from the Tribunal angle, more the libel/ slander angle. There is a reason why $45k could be very important, and why he's being so adamant he never dealt in dollars.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Two reasons:
(1) He has denied ever getting a dollar "donation" from anyone
(2) If it was proved that someone did give him $45k , it would lend credence to the theory that when on a trip to the USA circa 1994 , it is documented that he met with a number of American based associates of O'Callaghan, who were interested in re-developing into a Las Vegas stlye casino the land in and around the Phoenix Park racecourse. The speculation is that they might of donated some funds to BA as he was the then Minister of Finance and it would of been within his remit to change our then "gambling" legislation to allow for a casino.As I say sure it's all only speculation !!
Oh right yeah, sorry, I should have copped that. I guess Calcio Jack offers decent explanation, stories circulating are very much unsubstantiated and claims of willfully accepting cash for casino would definitely be libelous. So the papers have probably rightly held their tongue, or finger if you will.
For the conspiracy-minded, one could interpret the following of plotting the thick somewhat; "Mr Ahern said the suggestion he might have been involved in a dollar transaction was first made to him in private by the tribunal a few weeks before the general election campaign." Why was he asked in private? And the fact that a tribunal calculation showing that the amount lodged converted into exactly $45,000 sounds pretty suspicious to say the least. Though this was tempered by Ahern's admission that; "I received no dollars".
Do the Tribunal look for clarification of suspicious financial dealings before bringing them into the public sessions?For the conspiracy-minded, one could interpret the following of plotting the thick somewhat; "Mr Ahern said the suggestion he might have been involved in a dollar transaction was first made to him in private by the tribunal a few weeks before the general election campaign." Why was he asked in private? And the fact that a tribunal calculation showing that the amount lodged converted into exactly $45,000 sounds pretty suspicious to say the least. Though this was tempered by Ahern's admission that; "I received no dollars".
Good point, that could well be it but wouldn't you have thought the purpose of a tribunal was just that, to uncover disparaties and then that they'd have free reign to interrogate on behalf of the public. Or of course it could, oblivious to me, just be part of procedure. Though it does seem a bit pointless asking him off the record unless it was procedurally necessary, or that they thought there was something sinister in the exact correlation of a lodgement of a strange amount of Punts with the tidy sum of $45k, and then the tribunal discovered it could'nt've been Sterling and wanted to go off and investigate the possible source of the dollars before the tribunal sat...That's obviously very much conjectural though, and I don't know how far-reaching the remit of the tribunal is - ie is it their concern where the dollars could have originated, would they need the time to check the CCTV from that fateful day in Giant's Stadium to see if there were any surreptitious exchanges of briefcases, for example.
Well yeah, Calcio Jack is making the link that everyone is shying away from.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Yes it does. The Tribunal in fairness always takes the approach of (a) deciding if a accusation needs to be pursued, eg they have declined to make any serious follow up to something like 18 matters that BA was accused of by Tom Gil. (b) Once the Trib has decided to investigate, to allow for fairness it sets out in writing a number of questions. BA received such correspondence and was also interviewed in private by the Trib. (C) Ultimately if the Trib deems it necessary it will also pose questions at the Public hearings, that can be done on either the basis that (1) an individual has not fully co-operated in private and/or (2) the Trib deems the matter to be of such importance that due process and transparancy dictates the nedd for the matters to be aired in public....Do the Tribunal look for clarification of suspicious financial dealings before bringing them into the public sessions?
So in BAs case he's had plenty of time to respond in private and provide clear answers that could of enabled the Trib to deem Tom G's claims as been untrue thereby in effect exonerating BA. Instead BA has chosen a route that has lead to him spending already 18 hours in the witness box with more to come...and it will in the end be up to the 3 Tribunal judges to decide if his evidence proves or disproves that he took money for corrupt purposes .
IMO the judges will at least condemn him for taking huge tranches of money (€300k in todays terms) whilist he was the Minister of Finance
Last edited by Calcio Jack; 26/09/2007 at 7:23 AM.
I had to laugh when such a big deal was made of spending 17 hours being questioned over 4 days. That is less than 4 hours a day but I suppose that can be taxing when spent the last 2 months on holidays have flight to Paris for rugby junket to catch.
I see two more FF politicians in the news yesterday for tax fraud. FG had their ex-TD too but Lowry situation not new.
He's part of the Government block now. Surely done enough to earn a call up to FF and the front bench a la Bev?
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks