Moriarty Tribunal Report "Highly Critical" of CJ

Villain

The report has been made public and the first reports on the Radio News say it is highly critical of Charlie Haughey, which is not a surprise considering how corrupt he was.

More to come....

greine

Delighted that the Moriarty Tribunal concluded that CJ Haughey was a crook and that it wasn't just hushed away just because he had died. I think the legacy that CJ has left behind is one of shame, shame on him, his cronies, and the voters that kept him in a position to rob us at every opportunity. CJ has been the most anti-democratic, anti-patriotic and corrupt leader this country has ever had to endure!

Villain

Full Report available: http://www.moriarty-tribunal.ie/images/sitecontent_26.pdf

RTE:

The first report of the Moriarty Tribunal has said payments received by the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, during his political career devalued the quality of a modern democracy.

It said the late Mr Haughey lived a life vastly beyond the scale of what he earned as a public representative.

The tribunal also said the present Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, did not have any knowledge that funds were being used inappropriately by Mr Haughey.

Advertisement


In relation to the co-signing of cheques of the Fianna Fáil party leader's allowance account, the tribunal has said it is satisfied that Mr Ahern, who co-signed cheques of the account, had no reason to believe that the account was operated otherwise than for a proper purpose.

But it concludes that the practice of pre-signing cheques by Mr Ahern undoubtedly fascinated the misuse of the account by Mr Haughey.

The tribunal says this was a practice which has to be viewed as both inappropriate and imprudent, having regard to the nature of the account, the skills and the experience then possessed by Mr Ahern, and the absence of any internal or external audit of the account.


Brian Lenihan fund

In relation to the fundraising for the late Brian Lenihan, the tribunal says that it gets 'no satisfaction' to find that Mr Haughey deliberately sought to raise funds in addition to what he knew or must have known was required to meet the cost of Mr Lenihan's treatment, and that he ultimately applied part of those funds for his own use. The report goes on to say that no other conclusion can be reached on this matter by the tribunal in light of the evidence heard.

The tribunal found that Mr Haughey personally misappropriated one particular donation of £20,000 for Mr Lenihan's benefit and took a series of steps to conceal his actions.

In relation to the Lenihan donations the tribunal established that up to £265,000 may have been collected for that purpose and of those funds no more than £70,000 was applied in meeting the costs and expenses of Mr Lenihan's medical treatment in the US.

The tribunal says it is satisfied that a sizeable portion of the excess funds collected was misappropriated by Mr Haughey for his own personal use.

The tribunal report found that throughout the period 1979-1996 Mr Haughey lived a life and incurred expenses vastly beyond a scale of public service entitlements.

During that period his sole apparent income was used for the purpose of bill paying. After 1979 his borrowings receded and sums were derived primarily from clandestine donations, including funds intended for the medical expenses of Mr Lenihan.

Testimony rejected

Several portions of Mr Haughey's testimony are viewed as unacceptable and are rejected.

No information whatsoever relating to funds received was at any stage volunteered by or on behalf of Mr Haughey.

The tribunal has said it cannot accept his testimony that he knew nothing of his financial arrangements. Evidence that he never heard of the Cayman Islands before the tribunal is unbelievable given his meetings with Mr Des Traynor who was a regular visitor to the islands.

Evidence given by Mr Haughey to justify the acceptance of personal donations is rejected.

Aggregate funds available to Mr Haughey in the period 1979 to 1996 totalled over £9.1m - that figure excluded income or pensions or income from Abbeyville.

The tribunal concludes payments were secretive, opaque, and frequently involved off-shore vehicles.

It also concludes that businessman Ben Dunne was a courteous witness. However, the tribunal cannot accept submissions and medical reports furnished on his behalf.

Villain

This report is seriously damning of Charlie, imo no matter how much good he may have done, this report seems to show just how corrupt he was.

Charlie was a crook and FF allowed him to be a crook imo!

Rebeller

greine wrote:

CJ has been the most anti-democratic, anti-patriotic and corrupt leader this country has ever had to endure!

Until Bertie that is:D

The big crook did describe our most beloved current leader as "the most cunning, the most devious of them all".......after all!

yomchi

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWIDSNSNQLQL

Incredible greed

Maxwell

I just hope people read some extracts from the report before coming on here and defending the man.

Just a couple that are damning!!:


Aggregate funds available to Mr Haughey in the period 1979 to 1996 totalled over £9.1m - that figure excluded income or pensions or income from Abbeyville

In relation to the Lenihan donations the tribunal established that up to £265,000 may have been collected for that purpose and of those funds no more than £70,000 was applied in meeting the costs and expenses of Mr Lenihan's medical treatment in the US.
i.e. Haughey took/stole: £195,000!!

And from the report (of what I have read so far):
3.24

By 23rd of August 1979, and internal bank report set out a debt of £913,000.00.......No lodgements , but drawings between June 1977 and June 1979 amounted to £279,000.00



Let people be clear here ....think of what that sort of money would have bought in the late 70's - a whole village of houses!!

A disgrace beyond words......

Maxwell

And another one from the report:



"The tribunal says the sums paid to the former Taoiseach were worth €45m in today's money."

ballooba

Is this the tribunal revelation that FF have been promising us?

Jonny Arson

What a lowlife despicable man he was, I bet we only know a fraction of what he has done

the funny thing is many members of Fianna Fail will continue to somehow defend his actions even after these ''latest'' revelations.

mike65

Haughey is like a religion - either you belive or you don't. That he squirreled away the 'excess' from the Lennihan fund should see him rot in hell.

Mike.

It says the former Taoiseach personally misappropriated one particular donation to the fund worth £20,000 (€25,400) and took a series of steps to conceal his actions.

I wonder why those steps failed after all this time.... I always find it amazing that they'll find these things out, but wonder how they can prevent them happening again in the future.

Zane from MTV2

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

the funny thing is many members of Fianna Fail will continue to somehow defend his actions even after these ''latest'' revelations.

Like who?

So Charlie is a crook?

Margaret Thatcher sacked many miners.

Francois Mitterand's rode all round him and ordered the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior.

Anyone else got some hoary old tale about some leader from the 80s?

Sand

The report is a bit underwhelming through no fault of its own - its simply confirming what everyone knew already. If it came out closer to the election FF might be worried but itll be forgotten about in a few weeks. The Opposition might try to make some mileage out of it, but they have a knack of looking pathetic rather than righteous in their criticism so Bertie and Co can laugh them off like they did with Berties own corruption woes a few months back.

Glenbhoy

We should also remember that Bertie was treasurer for the last 3 yrs of CJ's time there. Does anyone believe that he did not know what was going on?
Reading the report where it mentions Bertie's role in signing the cheques, the inescapable conclusion is that the man is either a total idiot or he knew exactly what was going on.
This man is after all an accountant and he knows the tax rules (as he was so keen to remind us all recently), given that, and presuming he had a fair idea as to CJ's income, would he perhaps have been able to figure out that the guy lived slightly beyond his means??
Since he knew about (and recent events have shown that perhaps he took his lead from) these events, one would have thought that the tribunal would have admonished him a little more.

constitutionus

i'd advise anyone here to check out tonights (19/12/06) prime time on the issue on the RTE website . very good slagging match

Glenbhoy

i'd advise anyone here to check out tonights (19/12/06) prime time on the issue on the RTE website . very good slagging match

Can Conor Lenihan really be a TD?? Oh, that's right, he is, apparently he was heard to roar across the house after Biffo finished his budget speech "10 more yearr boys, 10 more years", I think he was referring to the fact that this was the tenth budget during which he has been a member of our premier legislative body. Such a heartening thought.....

MontgomeryClift

This kind of thing is going to have no negative influence on the current FF party. It will probably boost their support. It's just publicity.

Hagar

MontgomeryClift wrote:

This kind of thing is going to have no negative influence on the current FF party. It will probably boost their support.

Sadly true. The people who want "cute hoors" to prosper just got an inkling of how much cash could be in it for them if they do it properly and a reassurance that they will go to the grave without ever paying a penalty.

Unshelved

:mad: How utterly gutless was Conor Lenihan on Primetime last night? Obviously told by the Taoiseach to go in there and fight the Fianna Fail corner because Bertie knows full well that any criticism would be tempered by the fact that it was Lenihan's father's own medical fund that Haughey plundered.

My low opinion of this lightweight would have soared if he had come out and said that yes, my father was shafted by Haughey, and yes, he stole cash intended for my ill father. Instead he defended him - defended the man who did that.

He must be an ambitious man, to stand up for a crook like Haughey instead of reminding the public how his dad was stabbed in the back by him. I don't know how his words didn't choke him.

I take it everyone who attacks the Lenihans for not being as bitter as they are over this allegation knows the full details of all contacts between the Haughey family and the Lenihans?

To me, there is nothing sadder than the sight of people attacking the Lenihans over this. It is like going to a funeral and complaining that the family of the deceased are not crying enough.

DadaKopf

Unshelved wrote:

:mad: How utterly gutless was Conor Lenihan on Primetime last night? Obviously told by the Taoiseach to go in there and fight the Fianna Fail corner because Bertie knows full well that any criticism would be tempered by the fact that it was Lenihan's father's own medical fund that Haughey plundered.

My low opinion of this lightweight would have soared if he had come out and said that yes, my father was shafted by Haughey, and yes, he stole cash intended for my ill father. Instead he defended him - defended the man who did that.

He must be an ambitious man, to stand up for a crook like Haughey instead of reminding the public how his dad was stabbed in the back by him. I don't know how his words didn't choke him.

Conor 'Babs' Lenihan is a weakling. As someone who works in the aid sector, I'm embarassed to have him as minister. He's a fool of the highest order, but a pure politician in that he's a real wheeler-dealer.

Ironic that while the department he heads, Irish Aid, is embarking on a strong anti-corruption policy - in developing countries - he would refuse to use the c-word in regards to Haughey.

This is 'joined-up government'?

Glenbhoy

Conor Lenihan is being attacked, not the family - do you think he is competent Conor?

Unshelved

Conor 'Babs' Lenihan is a weakling. As someone who works in the aid sector, I'm embarassed to have him as minister. He's a fool of the highest order, but a pure politician in that he's a real wheeler-dealer.

Wonder what Bertie promised him for appearing on the programme? Next junior ministry perhaps?

DadaKopf

Unshelved wrote:

Wonder what Bertie promised him for appearing on the programme? Next junior ministry perhaps?

Hmmmm, intruiging. Anyway, this thread isn't about Haughey, and we don't want Boards slapped with a libel suit.

yomchi

I don't know, if the opposition were any use at all they'd have finished Bertie at the last scandal a few months back. The Irish electorate are a strange bunch indeed.

Judt

"Newsflash: Charles took money he shouldn't have been. In other news, Britain has staked ownership of most of Ulster and, far across the sea, a new nation calling itself The United States of America would seem to be a far better place to live. At least their crony politics is entertaining."

crybaby

To me, there is nothing sadder than the sight of people attacking the Lenihans over this. It is like going to a funeral and complaining that the family of the deceased are not crying enough.

not really, its more that they refuse to have any particular view on the issue and instead are keeping their mouths should incase they cause any sort of ruckus before the next election, but thats their choice if they don't want to have any particular view on their father and brother being robbed it just seems a bit gutless thats all

crybaby

crybaby wrote:

if they don't want to have any particular view on their father and brother being robbed it just seems a bit gutless thats all

Gutless?

Like using the illness and subsequent bereavement of their father to score cheap points on the internet is somehow worthy?

Unshelved

Like using the illness and subsequent bereavement of their father to score cheap points on the internet is somehow worthy?

It's not scoring cheap points - Conor Lenihan put himself in the public eye by appearing on Primetime as did Mary O'Rourke by appearing on the RTE news. If they chose to do so, then the public are entitled to comment. Here's mine - I find it unbelievable - and pretty disgusting - that a politician would put party loyalty before family loyalty.

I admired the Lenihan family for the dignity with which they bore their Brian Lenihan's very public illness and death, the public shafting of their father by Haughey during the 1990 presidential election and the subsequent revelations about Haughey's looting of the funds raised to pay for Brian Lenihan's medical costs. Silence is golden. To say nothing is to imply that you are above such grubby dealings that Haughey dirtied his hands with.

It's a different thing though to publicly defend Haughey's corruption. Bertie Ahern knows that the only Fianna Fail politicians who would get an easy ride about this from the media are Mary O'Rourke, Brian Lenihan and Conor Lenihan - and lo and behold two of the three are trotted out before the cameras to talk about the Moriarty findings.

It just shows the calibre of the politicians we have - prepared to do anything, anything, just so long as it's worth their while politically. Why else would O'Rourke and Conor Lenihan have done it? She is looking to regain her Athlone seat and he's obviously looking for a ministerial car. If it means turning a blind eye to what's gone before, then they obviously think that that's a price worth paying.

Unshelved

Unshelved wrote:

Here's mine - I find it unbelievable - and pretty disgusting - that a politician would put party loyalty before family loyalty.

But you know nothing whatsoever about the ins and outs of his family and his loyalty to them. You are commenting about something as personal as his respect for his late father yet you cannot measure that in any way. It's like slamming Maureen Haughey for tolerating her husband's infidelity.

stakey

perhaps a post humous execution is called for? then finally this country can put this thief out of it's conscience...

oscarBravo

Threads merged.

Marksie

I think that in any other instance if someone was found to be taking funds from a charity then it would be castigation of the highest order.

There is no way that FF who were serving at the time did not either know, condone or take part in the corruption.

The FF supporters are as culpable by default for actively supporting the government.... aiding and abetting if you like.

But will it affect FF. No, they know how to play the people and look after their own.

Lets face it, and to keep it festive,

If FF and those who support them scented a profit,
they would steal the candy from baby jesus, sell him into slavery and rezone the crib.
The PD's would then deport mary and joseph for being illegal immigrants

marksuttonie

marksuttonie wrote:

The FF supporters are as culpable by default for actively supporting the government.... aiding and abetting if you like.

You mean the FF voters of today are culpable for the sins of Charles Haughey?

Why stop there? Presumably those who vote FG are ready to take up arms and go off to war to advance the cause of fascism while those who vote Labour have the blood of IRA victims on their hands...

Marksie

Deleted User wrote:

You mean the FF voters of today are culpable for the sins of Charles Haughey?

Charely Haughey did not exist in the dim and distant past. His party is still there as are ministers from his government. So yes absolutely the supporters are as culpable.

marksuttonie

marksuttonie wrote:

Charely Haughey did not exist in the dim and distant past.

And if the 1980s were not that distant, neither were the 1970s and the association of Workers Party members (now in Labour) with Sinn Fein. I agree that the whole FG/fascist thing is going back a bit far alright, but guess we should be disgusted at both FF and Labour supporters under your criteria...

Marksie

Deleted User wrote:

And if the 1980s were not that distant, neither were the 1970s and the association of Workers Party members (now in Labour) with Sinn Fein. I agree that the whole FG/fascist thing is going back a bit far alright, but guess we should be disgusted at both FF and Labour supporters under your criteria...

My political activism starts in the 1980s. It is typical FF deflection tactics to move from what is happening now to the past.
You will never get a FF supporter to admit to anything unless it was to their own benefit.. there is no straight truth or straight talking in them. Just the self, the party and the state

marksuttonie

marksuttonie wrote:

My political activism starts in the 1980s.

Well obviously the blame game should only start then so. Could you be more specific as to the date, so the rest of us know from when party political culpability starts?

Noone that I know in FF defends Haughey. But saying we are all culpable is simply hysteria.

Fratton Fred

DadaKopf wrote:

Hmmmm, intruiging. Anyway, this thread isn't about Haughey, and we don't want Boards slapped with a libel suit.

Maybe not about Bertie, but I think the reports shows Bertie, with regars to writing blank cheques, to be at best negligent, at worst imcompetant.

The Irish government is an embarrassment to Ireland.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote:

Maybe not about Bertie, but I think the reports shows Bertie, with regars to writing blank cheques, to be at best negligent, at worst imcompetant.

I would go a step further and say 'at best negligent, at worst fully aware of what was happening'.

mike65

Should FF sue the Hockey estate? After all he squireled away many thousands from the party election fund.

Mike.

mike65

mike65 wrote:

Should FF sue the Hockey estate? After all he squireled away many thousands from the party election fund.

Interesting point. But believe the Statute of Limitations would bar such a move anyway.

joolsveer

Deleted User wrote:

I would go a step further and say 'at best negligent, at worst fully aware of what was happening'.

People are very critical of An Taoiseach. It is not fair. Maybe if he was an accountant or had been treasurer of the party at the time you could get mud to stick to the Teflon.

Glenbhoy

Deleted User wrote:

Interesting point. But believe the Statute of Limitations would bar such a move anyway.

Do you think there's any possibility of the family making a donation back to the party of the stolen amounts? Would this maybe be the honourable thing to do, you know like Bert repaying the 'loans' to his mates!!
Did anyone else hear rumours that perhaps CJH did not actually pay his revenue settlement bill, and that with his passing, and in the absence of a judgement against him prior to death, they'll never get the money??

Marksie

Deleted User wrote:

Well obviously the blame game should only start then so. Could you be more specific as to the date, so the rest of us know from when party political culpability starts?

Noone that I know in FF defends Haughey. But saying we are all culpable is simply hysteria.

The blame game? Looking at all the incompetent decisions and sly double dealings then the blame game starts now.

I will point out that i moved here from abroad 10 years ago... and from that perspective was totally astounded at the incompetence and corruption displayed. So any "family" alliances i may have to one particular party are non-existent.

I wont take truck from the "you don't know the history then so"... corruption is corruption and no one does it better than FF

I am not usually given to fits of hysteria (sort of expected that type of reply..thanks for not disappointing me), but in dealing with FF and their supporters it is always best to check your wallet and fillings afterwards.

As i stated and have seen nothing to alter my opinion, all FF would not know the truth but resort to pointing fingers, accusations of hysteria and anything that would avoid them actually answering something. If someone condoned a thief dipping fingers into the till, they would be culpable. It is therefore the same with FF supporters, they are condoning corruption, if not actively part of it.

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote:

Noone that I know in FF defends Haughey. But saying we are all culpable is simply hysteria.

Whether through stupidity or immorality, your party's leader aided and abbetted Haughey's crimes. He's also been exposed for having inappropriately accepted monies himself.

While Ahern remains leader of the Fianna Fail Party, it is clear that the majority of the party are in favour of this corruption or so power mad that they condone it in order to hold government.

Neither are admirable, nor even acceptable, in my mind.

marksuttonie

marksuttonie wrote:

I am not usually given to fits of hysteria (sort of expected that type of reply..thanks for not disappointing me), but in dealing with FF and their supporters it is always best to check your wallet and fillings afterwards.

So you 'check your wallet' after dealings with 35-40% of the country? You actually think that percentage of this country are involved in or responsible for corruption?

I'll think I'll stick with the 'hysteria' line, thanks. As for your shot about 'family alliances', I look at the economy and the North and its a no-brainer; I don't vote FG like most of my family. I accept they may have less to hang their heads about, but unlike you I was here during the 80s and frankly ethics wasn't all that much in the news when we were the sick man of Europe and had slightly more pressing concerns...

constitutionus

correct me if im wrong but isnt bertie guilty of fraud? i mean the whole point of co signitures is to ensure propriety. there maybe no proof he recieved monies, but theres no proof to the contrary either and both signatures were needed.

ah well, maybe someday the law will actually apply to everyone in this country

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

correct me if im wrong but isnt bertie guilty of fraud?

While I believe he has serious questions to answer, fraud is a very serious accusation and from what I know almost never successfully prosecuted here. Suspect that unlike other areas of law, you cannot reklessly or negligently commit fraud, and proof of intention would be required.

jawlie

Perhaps the most wonderful thing our tea-shop has achieved is to manage to save the nice round sum of £50 000 at a time when he had, according to himself, no bank account. He gives no explanation as to why he closed his previous bank accounts, or why he didn't have a bank account, or where his salary cheque was cashed or paid into...

The response by Fianna Fail to the corruption of Haughey's premiership is a scandal, and the greater scandal is thay the irish people will not boot them out of office. To say there is no real opposition is not an answer and democracy is almost daily being eroded here.