So this is how a prime ministerial legacy restoration attempt/public relations siege ends …

by kadyomalley on Friday, May 22, 2009 12:56pm - 46 Comments

Not with a bang but a foot-shuffling apology:

Brian Mulroney’s spokesman apologized to Allan J. MacEachen on Thursday after the retired Liberal senator threatened to sue him for refusing to rule him out as the Cape Bretoner who Mr. Mulroney suggested received money in the 1990s from Karlheinz Schreiber. [...]

On Thursday, Mr. MacEachen’s lawyer, Ian Blue, wrote to Mr. Sears demanding that he exonerate Mr. MacEachen by 5 p.m. today or face legal action.

“By refusing to rule out Mr. MacEachen as the prominent Cape Breton politician that Mr. Mulroney was referring to, you implied by innuendo that Mr. MacEachen was the prominent politician in question,” Mr. Blue wrote. “Your innuendo is libellous.”

Mr. Sears wrote back, saying that he had in fact ruled out Mr. MacEachen.

“I can confirm that, in my public comments regarding the ‘Cape Breton politician’ in question in the inquiry, I did rule out Mr. MacEachen and in no way implied any reference to him,” he wrote.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sears apologized in the letter.

“I further offer my apologies to Mr. MacEachen for any difficulty caused him. I continue to have tremendous personal respect for Mr. MacEachen.”


As far as ITQ knows, no Searsian apologies have yet been forthcoming for the journalists he publicly accused of “giggling” during Mulroney’s testimony last week, despite the fact that, as the above story points out, both have categorically denied the allegations, and have been backed up by colleagues who were sitting near them at the time. Then again, they didn’t threaten to sue anyone, so they’re probably out of luck.

What gets me, though, is how perfectly this attempt at drive-by scattershot smearing encapsulates the strategy employed by the former prime minister throughout his appearance before the inquiry, which can best be summed up as follows: Never, ever miss an opening to launch into an attack on someone who, at some point in the last two or three decades may, in your mind at least, have done you wrong – or, at the very least, failed to do you right at a critical juncture — and bonus points if, at the same time, if you can work in a reference to one of your many political or personal achievements, your wide circle of world-renowned friends and admirers and/or evidence of your overall magnanimity.

From his almost Tourettesian tendency to tangent off on a tirade against the media, the RCMP, the previous Liberal government and the rest of the vast conspiracy against him — regardless of the questions he was being asked, and to the point that even the judge had to tell him to move on — to the passive aggressive snipes directed at his former chief of staff , Norm Spector —  who, Mulroney felt the need to remind us, he appointed as Canada’s ambassador to Israel at his request, because that’s just the kind of wonderful human being he is — it made for a dizzying, yet mesmerizing performance: sure, we had to sit through hour after hour of eyeglazingly tedious autohagiographical anecdotery, but it was occasionally livened up by a sudden outburst of pure venom.

What was really remarkable, however, was that even as Mulroney was on the witness stand, implying that “a leading political figure from Cape Breton” – was the mysterious Britan, he couldn’t resist trying to make it seem that he, himself, was far above stooping to such gutter tactics, telling the judge that, “inasmuch as there has been so much untruths about Britan and me,” he was “not about to trample on his reputation the way [his] has been trampled upon.”

Because really  –  it’s not like anyone hearing the above would immediately start mentally putting together a list of likely suspects, given the carefully construed parameters, right? That would never have occured to the former prime minister. Oh, and did he mention that he had his reputation “trampled upon” as well? Because he did. The only thing missing was a pious aside about his family, and the good name of his father — although considering the identity of the Cape Bretoner whose name first popped into most reporters’ heads, perhaps that was a deliberate omission.

It was a microcosm of his entire strategy, which makes it somehow fitting, I guess, that he — or his spokesman, at least — had to publicly back down from his final attempt to settle an old score, this time via guilt by geographic association. MacEachen, at least, was fired up enough to force Team Mulroney to respond; as for any other prominent political figures from Cape Breton, they can at least take comfort in the reaction of the Halifax Chronicle Herald‘s Steve Maher

When Brian Mulroney told the Oliphant inquiry on Tuesday that an unnamed Cape Breton politician was the real beneficiary of the Swiss bank account with the rubric Britan, I didn’t think: My goodness! Big news. Which Caper could be the real culprit?

I thought: Really? There are two reasons for this. First, it doesn’t make sense. Forensic accountants have shown that Karlheinz Schreiber withdrew $100,000 from the Britan account each time he went to see Mr. Mulroney in a hotel with a manila envelope full of $1,000 bills. He closed the account when his relationship with Mr. Mulroney ended.

And it’s hard to imagine that the person Mr. Mulroney seemed to have in mind — Allan J. MacEachen — could or would have helped Mr. Schreiber, not least because he was in opposition while Mr. Schreiber was making millions on secret comissions in deals with the Mulroney government.

Secondly, by this point in the proceedings, there is reason to be skeptical when Mr. Mulroney casts aspersions on others. There is reason to wonder if Mr. Mulroney is always firmly rooted in reality, or in a more free-floating place, where inconvenient facts are discarded or bent to fit the Mulroney narrative — where he is the innocent victim of evil schemers out to destroy him and his family.

(Full disclosure: Maher is a  close friend and fellow Hot Room inhabitant who has, incidentally, been doing an absolutely amazing job of covering the ins and outs of the inquiry for his paper.)

That, I suspect, will be Mulroney’s true legacy, at least for those of us who watched his performance over the last few days – which is not exactly what the former prime minister, or his public relations firm, was hoping to achieve.

Bookmark and Share
  • Dot

    Wasn’t Ashley MacIsaac planning to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party at one time?

    Where’s his apology, Mr. Sears?

  • Harbles

    ” Tourettesian tendency to tangent off on a tirade ”

    Bravo!

    • Harbles

      Oops!

      Brava!

  • cwe

    I’m not quite done reading, but I had to scroll down really quickly, ITQ, and commend you on “autohagiographical anecdotery.”

  • knick

    Guess they didn’t realize that MacEachen was still alive.

    The At Issue panel last night seemed to think that Mulroney’s performance wouldn’t have a lasting effect on his record. I disagree – the man has brought shame to everyone in the country, from leading public figures to ordinary Canadians, yet he feels none himself.

  • anonlinereader

    Another winning article for The First Lady of Canada news coverage .

    Please take an interest in Canada isotope story ? ( from Mulroney sale of cash cow division of AECL , Korean vs Norticon Maple reactor contract to build , Softwood lumber type out of court settlement of AECL/Norticon case , 20 year guaranteed supply & price of isotopes in out of court settlement…etc.

    • Harbles

      Not much live blogging opportunity in that story, sadly.
      It is a fascinating story though especially with the imminent announcement of Ontario’s choice for nuclear power plants for the future.

      • anonlinereader

        Keep Oliphant / Wolson on the payroll for committee of Airbus / Norticon legacy .

  • Sisyphus

    Certainly have to agree with your words on Steve Maher. He wrote what he saw and I don’t recall seeing
    ” But Free Trade ” once.

  • herringchoker

    As I recall it was Schrieber himself who raised MacEachen’s name at the Commission. Doesn’t that mean Allan J will now be appearing as a witness?

  • http://www.imdb.com/keyword/prime-minister-of-canada/ Steph C

    You just know that this chapter will be repeated in Canadian film and literature. Every once in a while, I was thinking like a director and trying to decide between a glass ceiling and different lighting techniques. Anyhoo, the next chapter will take us to a German courtroom. I wonder if it will be an antique space, full of oak furniture and creepy artwork, or ultra-modern, full of Euro minimalist benches and creepy artwork. I do not have a life.

  • madeyoulook

    Hello! I’m MYL. You might remember me from such hits as “Maybe it was $75 thousand US, just in Canadian thousands.” Well, I’m back with another far-out imaginorrific suggestion. It’s conspiralicious!

    Kady, or any other bleary-eyed nerd out there, do we recall the specific Right Honourable Testimony on the Unidentified Prominent Cape Breton Politico? The Commission website won’t give me any transcript after the fifth of May.

    Did BM specifically use language stating that he knew with absolute unequivocal certainty that he himself was not the Breton guy? Or did he use words like: “I don’t see why you should assume that it would be me. Britan does not mean Brian. Britan really means Breton as in Cape Breton. The funds in this account were created, I am led to understand, for work to establish a factory on Cape Breton. And the funds were to be deployed and were deployed to a prominent Cape Breton politician. By the way, I happen to know who that prominent Cape Breton politician is, and I do not intend to name him out of respect for him and his family; he does not deserve the same type of smears that my family and I have suffered.” Because if that is the kind of language that was used, I might remind all and sundry to play a little memory game: anybody care to remember whether there was a “prominent” politician who was MP in the federal riding of Central Nova? If you need a hint, think, oh, say, 1983-84.

    • Sisyphus

      If they were entitlements, he was entitled to them.

      But you also have to consider the source.

      • Sisyphus

        Oh, and i don’t believe ” Central Nova ” existed at the time.

        I think it was created in honour of the passing of L’il Peter.

      • madeyoulook

        No, Sisyphus. Not David Dingwall. Think again. Central Nova. 1983-84. Prominent politician…

        • Dot
          • madeyoulook

            Well, yeah, but just look how far the eastern tip of that riding goes: all the way to I-can-see-Cape-Breton-from-my-house!

            C’mon, Dot. Play with the conspiracy a little.

          • Sisyphus

            Well, I can see Cape Breton from my house. If you’re thinking Elmer, BM has already denied that.

            Of course, he denied a lot of things.

            Anyway, I can see a lot of red herring from my house too.

          • Sisyphus

            Ok, Dot. The riding has changed names and configurations a number of times in the last 20 years.

            Usually in the interest of getting , and keeping , Allan J.’s acolytes out of the Commons.

          • madeyoulook

            Y’know, I don’t think Sisyphus has yet caught my drift. So let’s add another clue, but the point value of the question drops from a hundred to, well, one.

            WHO WAS THE MP FOR CENTRAL NOVA RIDING IN 1983 AND 1984, BEFORE MOVING ELSEWHERE TO RUN IN THE SUBSEQUENT ELECTION?

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

          • Mulletaur

            Sisyphus, I have always wondered what red herring tastes like. I dream about red herring matjes.

          • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

            @ MYL — Really! I had no idea.

          • madeyoulook

            B R _ A N
            M _ L R _ N E Y
            ===============
            Thank you for those two Ns, Vanna. Sisyphus, that sound means there are only vowels remaining. Do you want to buy a vowel or solve the puzzle?

          • Sisyphus

            Yup. Got me. But , if I were you I’d keep my voice down .. I mean real low .. in case a Cape Bretoner might be in the neighbourhood. (And they are everywhere). They don’t take kindly to frivolous associations with us folks across the water. And Central Nova was clearly across the water.

            http://members.tripod.com/~cbla/cbla.htm

          • http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

            That’s an interesting interpretation- I didn’t know that Mulroney has ever been an MP for Central Nova.

            ….
            I’d like to buy a vowel.

          • Dot
          • cam

            Dot, riding names and boundaries change.

    • http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blogs/national/inside-the-queensway/ Kady O'Malley

      Here is the relevant section of Mulroney’s testimony from that day, which took place while he was being cross-examined on William Kaplan’s notes from an interview conducted in 2003. (I’ve edited out some of the exchange that wasn’t directly relevant to the question of Britan’s identity for space reasons.)

      MR. WOLSON: All right.
      “The Mathias report indicates that Karl Heinz Schreiber gave you money, that is not defamatory there is nothing for him to worry about in a courtroom.”

      Your answer – you are flipping the page back. Are you with me?
      THE RIGHT HON. BRIAN MULRONEY: The answer is -
      MR. WOLSON: Your answer is:

      “What Mathias seems to know is mostly false. It is a much larger story. The money came to Britan. This money was not for me. I know who Britan was. Now there is a big story for you. For the moment it is not relevant to my role but I know that I wasn’t Britan and I know who Britan was.”

      Is that a true statement?
      THE RIGHT HON. BRIAN MULRONEY: Absolutely.
      MR. WOLSON: Who was Britan?
      THE RIGHT HON. BRIAN MULRONEY: Britan – well, let’s dissect this. [...]
      THE RIGHT HON. BRIAN MULRONEY: I was told that Britan was simply Breton, B-R-E-T-O-N, and that the matter was set aside for a leading figure in Breton, in Cape Breton.
      MR. WOLSON: Well, let’s –
      THE RIGHT HON. BRIAN MULRONEY: And inasmuch –
      MR. WOLSON: Yes…?
      THE RIGHT HON. BRIAN MULRONEY: Inasmuch as — and it was indicated to me who that leading political figure might be. But inasmuch as there has been so much untruths about Britan and about me, I am not about to trample on his reputation the way mine has been trampled upon.

      (I really hope I’m not giving away any deep dark Oliphantian secrets by telling y’all that, although the transcripts take some time to go up on the website due to translation requirements, the commission has been sending out the dailies to reporters the next morning.)

      • madeyoulook

        OK, Kady, thank you for the advance snippet from the Execu-Class transcript we regular joes don’t get to see for a couple weeks (I sure hope “THE RIGHT HON. BRIAN MULRONEY” is on a macro…). If this is the extent of the Right Honourable Who-Is-Britan Testimony, then:

        “This money was not for me.” MAY MEAN
        “… at the time, at first, initially, until KHS and I entered into a legal and legitimate private commercial arrangement for international-only work.” But nobody asked him that question, which he would have answered truthfully. OR IT MAY NOT.

        “Now there is a big story for you. ” MAY MEAN
        “Now there is a big story for you. ”

        “For the moment it is not relevant to my role” MAY MEAN
        “… as husband and father, and son of an honest hard-working Irishman on the lower North Shore of Québec.” But nobody asked him that question, which he would have answered truthfully. OR IT MAY NOT.

        “I wasn’t Britan” MAY MEAN
        “… because, really, how can a person be a bank account? I mean come on. Besides, my name is Brian, not Britan. I have not ever, I do not at present, nor shall I ever place a ‘T’ within my given name Brian. Now, my given name Martin, well, that’s a different story, of course…” But nobody asked him that question, which he would have answered truthfully. OR IT MAY NOT.

        “I know who Britan was.” MAY MEAN
        “I know who Britan as an account name was representing.” But nobody asked him that question, which he would have answered truthfully. OR IT MAY NOT.

        “Britan – well, let’s dissect this.” MAY MEAN
        “… to render it thoroughly unrecognizable except to some anonymous commenter twerp with a vivid imagination and who may be Stevie Cameron for all I know — have I mentioned Cameron the RCMP stooge lately, whose obvious falsehoods and personal vendetta led to that patently false LOR?” But nobody asked him that question, which he would have answered truthfully. OR IT MAY NOT.

        “I was told that Britan was simply Breton, B-R-E-T-O-N,” MAY MEAN
        “… when I asked Mila just last week to read aloud to me that very text as prepared by my PR coach. She told me that line perfectly, too, and on the first take. Wait, let me withdraw the ‘on the take’ phrase (have I mentioned Stevie Cameron lately?) and say instead ‘on the first try.’ ” But nobody asked him that question, which he would have answered truthfully. OR IT MAY NOT.

        “the matter was set aside for a leading figure in Breton, in Cape Breton.” MAY MEAN
        “… matter, as in substance, as in, say, coal. That’s it. We had a lump of coal set aside for someone. What are we talking about again?” OR IT MAY MEAN
        “… have I mentioned I am a leading figure? And have I mentioned I have been to Cape Breton? Lovely country, and Baddeck is just… beautiful. Make sure you drive counter-clockwise around the Cape on the Cabot Trail so your lane is closest to the cliffs and the sea below, for a little white-knuckle fun. Just make sure you know what you’re doing driving a four-speed manual Chevy Nova pulling the collapsible tent trailer on those winding roads. Ah, fun times, yes, fun times indeed.” But nobody asked him that question, which he would have answered truthfully. OR IT MAY NOT.

        “and it was indicated to me who that leading political figure might be.” MAY MEAN
        “and it was indicated to me who that leading political figure might be.”

        “But inasmuch as there has been so much untruths (sic) about Britan and about me, I am not about to trample on his reputation the way mine has been trampled upon.” MAY MEAN
        “… if you catch my drift, which I honestly hope you don’t.” But nobody asked him that question, which he would have answered truthfully. OR IT MAY NOT.

        • http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blogs/national/inside-the-queensway/ Kady O'Malley

          Okay, does anyone else kind of love MYL right now?

        • Scott M.

          Priceless. :)

        • Scott M.

          I’m confused… was it:

          “We had a lump of coal set aside for someone”

          OR

          “We had had a lump of coal set aside for someone”?

          I’m not sure…

  • madeyoulook

    Rapid clarification on re-read: “other bleary eyed nerd” besides ME “out there.” MYL did in no way intend to cast aspersions on the oculo-bleary index of Ms. O’Malley. MYL wishes to expressly and unequivocally apologize to Ms. O’Malley for any misunderstanding in that regard.

    • http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blogs/national/inside-the-queensway/ Kady O'Malley

      During my Oliphantastic sabbatical, I’ll readily admit that my eyes have bleared, although always in pursuit of the always slippery truth, and I take no offence at the observation!

  • Bonnie N

    This really is a diminishing return for Mulroney – I mean since we are paying for Sears and Pratte) they looked like a couple of boobs the last two days of testimony.

    Sears a former NDP spokesperson looked a bit silly with the I have pictures of journalists laughing which did not materialize. Maybe he thought he could resurrect his fee (which we are paying for) when he did his drive by smear of Alan McEachen.

    While the press had moved off of the story (except for our Kady) Mr. Pratte made a big mistake with Mr. Blld. He asked a question he did not know the answer to…

    Can you guess the question?

    • commentator

      Jeez–the public till is paying for Sears? Pratte, yes, but surely not for a hired flack? A pity about Sears who is an able guy but now obviously one who will do anything for the $$. It might be better if he hadn’t looked so smarmy about it all when he came into the room tagging along behind BM.

  • madeyoulook

    “I can confirm that, in my public comments regarding the ‘Cape Breton politician’ in question in the inquiry, I did rule out Mr. MacEachen and in no way implied any reference to him,” he wrote.

    “I mean really, I thought it was just so obvious,” Sears went on to say. “Didn’t you all hear Mr. Mulroney say it was a ‘leading’ figure in Cape Breton? MacEachern? Leading? Please. Whoah, that was all off the record, right guys? Guys? [Expletive], some of them are giggling again.”

    • madeyoulook

      Sears was later overheard speaking the following words into his cellphone: “Hello, L. Ian? Another SOS for your next column, pal. Oh [expletive] they can still hear me…”

    • motor

      Accurately ‘hilarious’

  • Justin Wordsworth

    Jestimony

    Can we please make Karlheinz Shreiber our Prime Minister?

    For a few hundred thousand dollars Karlheinz had a former PM lobbying on his behalf. His payments were on time and in cash. This is a man who knows how to get things done, and cheaply!

    At present, ours is a country that spends in excess of fourteen million dollars in an attempt to discover where three hundred thousand went. Karlheinz would have just told us for merely half that.

    And what have we got for our money? An inquiry designed to establish the facts that were known prior to the inquiry. An inquiry resulting in neither consequences, nor cures. The whole process has been more anti-climactic than my high school abstinence teacher.

    Furthermore, we are paying two million dollars for Mulroney’s legal expenses, perhaps even to be delivered in brown paper bags. Thank goodness we are not in a recession.

    And if you are feeling a bit uneasy about having a foreigner as a Prime Minister, just remember, in the last thirty years, Karlheinz Shreiber has spent a lot more time in Canada than Michael Ignatieff.

    • Just Visiting

      Bravo X2!!!

  • Nathan Loiselle

    Is it just me or does anyone else really hope that the final decision on this is that…

    A) Mulroney is guilty of what he was accused of.
    B) Owes any and all legal costs of this farce as a result
    C) Found to be highly delusional and as such is court mandated to live in an institution for fear of getting himself killed by way of insulting the wrong person?

    Then and only then can we read a report that says that Mulroney declares himself the ‘real’ Napolean.

  • knick

    Two articles today in the Ottawa sun help to put the Mulroney cohorts into perspective. One is by Pat MacAdam, a university pal of Mulroney, who describes him in glowing terms. The other article is by Greg Weston who, in his article about Mulroney’s sweetheart tax deal, describes MacAdam as a former lobbyist with Moores at GCI, who was convicted of tax evasion when he failed to declare $250,000 from an Ottawa developer. The coincidences in the Mulroney saga are quite…remarkable.

    Also in Weston’s article is a reference (which I completely overlooked what with all the walkabouting and such) to Mulroney’s tax lawyer, Wilfrid Lefebvre, who was chief counsel in charge of prosecutions at Revenue Canada in the ’70s. Not to suggest that CRA might have been influenced in their treatment of Mulroney by Lefebvre’s impressive background, but still, one has to be impressed by the remarkable confluence.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Ahem.

    I suppose the Terms of Service (I must read them at some point) appropriate all ownership rights of us commenters to Rogers, to do with as Rogers sees fit. And I note that there was likely an inadvertent loss of some comments when the new software came on line. But (sniff), I was darn proud of my interpretive efforts of Mulronian testimony, placed some time ago on this thread, and it has disappeared.

    Likely without any right to insist, I would humbly ask that, if my creation is at all retrievable, some effort be deployed towards its restoration. Thank you in advance.

    And if you wanted to restore Kady's little love note, too, that would be just fine with me… :)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Shamelessly repeating my plea of 6 hours ago in case an early AM shout out catches an admin's attention:

    Any hope of recovering these comments that done disappeared? Thanks.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Rats. My beautiful prose. Gone forever…

From Macleans