Will Ahern become Taoiseach on June 14th?

gandalf

The Judges respond.

The Chairman of the Mahon Tribunal has said he categorically rejects claims that the inquiry is biased against the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern.

Judge Alan Mahon said Mr Ahern had been treated exactly the same as any other witness appearing before the tribunal.

He was replying to what he called 'unprecedented' criticism yesterday by the Taoiseach's laywer, Conor Maguire SC, who said the tribunal risked interfering with the democratic process by circulating evidence prior to the election.

Judge Mahon said the tribunal was required to send out evidence before a module starts and it is sent on the condition of confidentiality.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0529/mahon.html

Glenbhoy

Voipjunkie wrote:

That is an interesting aspect the tribunal is only examining his finances for the time that Gilmartin alleges O'Callaghan paid Bertie 50,000 to change the tax designation of Blanchardstown SC to see if Bertie has any unexplained money which might have come from O'Callaghan.
When people ask us to wait for the Mahon Tribunal to finish they should remember that if the tribunal comes to the opinion that the monies Ahern had where not from O'Callaghan they will stop looking this is kind of like the Gardai raiding someones house looking for the proceeds of a bank robbery and finding a large stash of cocaine and giving the guy a clean bill of health because he is not a bank robber.

If he's got large unexplained lodgements in his bank accounts, it's not the tribunal (who are largely impotent) who he has to worry about, there's this other crowd, they're called the revenue and they might be very interested in these lodgements. Why was Ray Burke jailed does anyone remember??

LostinBlanch

OK one question though, as I haven't had time to go through the tribunal link. What is the significance of the $45,000? Is this another of Berties misdirections. It wasn't $45,000 yer honour it was £30,000 sterling?

gandalf

Well it raises the question who gave him the $45,000. Why would this Wall character who lives in the UK give Bertie dollars? It would appear the cash came from someone else other than Mr. Wall.

If thats the case then its not for house refurbishments as originally claimed, whats it for then? What was expected in return?

Smarmore

LostinBlanch wrote:

OK one question though, as I haven't had time to go through the tribunal link. What is the significance of the $45,000? Is this another of Berties misdirections. It wasn't $45,000 yer honour it was £30,000 sterling?

Apparently the cash he received was a combination of sterling and Irish punt so may not have been an exact £30,000. Also Bertie reckons the $45,000 sum is inaccurate and has documented his own figure of roughly $44,500. He believes the tribunal have inaccurate foreign exchange rates for the day in question.

Smarmore

Smarmore wrote:

Apparently the cash he received was a combination of sterling and Irish punt so may not have been an exact £30,000. Also Bertie reckons the $45,000 sum is inaccurate and has documented his own figure of roughly $44,500. He believes the tribunal have inaccurate foreign exchange rates for the day in question.

I have it on good authority that banks at the time wouldn't accept FX amounts in coins less than £1.
One of the Sterling figures mentioned has significant figures so it makes it unlikely to be sterling that was lodged.

The most likely explanation is it was Dollars. Which means it probably wasn't his manchester friend. Which means there is a connection to the claim an American gave money to Bertie.

Villain

Smarmore wrote:

Apparently the cash he received was a combination of sterling and Irish punt so may not have been an exact £30,000. Also Bertie reckons the $45,000 sum is inaccurate and has documented his own figure of roughly $44,500. He believes the tribunal have inaccurate foreign exchange rates for the day in question.

Well the combination would have to have included less than 1,921.55 of sterling.

Have a read of what I posted earlier I think it shows how Berties excuse doesn't stand up:

Now if that is the case then for whatever reason known only to Bertie he lied to the public before the election in the written statement he released, his counter argument at the time was that if the correct exchange rate was applied to a sum of $45,000 it would not equate the sum lodged, a fair argument you would think hwoever he went on to say that the sum involved Sterling.

Now if we look at what the Tribunal says the bank records show it appears that the figure lodged matches exactly the sum of $45,000 using the rate applied to sums of money worth up to £2,500 punts, now obviously that is not the correct rate however anotehr transaction which was completed in sterling shows that the lower rate was used only for it to be crossed out and the higher rate used, so I think it is fair to say it is very possible that lower rate was used.

Leaving aside what rate was used the most damning part of the bank records show that on the day in question the 5th of December 1994 the amount of Sterling which was changed in the bank on that was 1,921.55 thus not allowing for what Bertie said to have taken place, the bank records for that day do however allow for a transaction of $45,000 to have taken place, while I haven't seen the bank records I think it would be fair to say a Tribunal setup by the state would not present such records without having proof.

Lennoxschips

According to the tribunal, $45,000.00 converted at AIB that day would have given you exactly the same amount of money in punts, to the penny, as was deposited in Celia Larkin's account. I'm not a statistician, but the odds of that being a coincidence are extremely, extremely, extremely low.

Couple that with the fact that the AIB branch in question only converted a maximum of 1900 worth of sterling that day, and it is almost certain, according to the tribunal, that the amount in question didn't come from 30,000 sterling. Indeed, the vast majority of it couldn't have come from sterling at all, if indeed the tribunal are correct.

I think it's now pretty obvious why Enda Kenny hasn't conceded defeat.

jjbrien

Just fresh from rte.ie gets more interesting every hour

In fresh allegations at the tribunal, developer Tom Gilmartin has claimed that an associate of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern asked him for £500,000 for help with the Quarryvale project.

Hmm how much did he get his chances have slimmed again. i wonder will pappy power have to pay out on enda kenny now.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Well the combination would have to have included less than 1,921.55 of sterling.

Have a read of what I posted earlier I think it shows how Berties excuse doesn't stand up:

I could be tried for murder in the morning and untill my side was heard in the case I'd be a murderer but carry on...

jjbrien wrote:

In fresh allegations at the tribunal, developer Tom Gilmartin has claimed that an associate of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern asked him for £500,000 for help with the Quarryvale project.Hmm how much did he get his chances have slimmed again. i wonder will pappy power have to pay out on enda kenny now.

Firstly,the tribunal doesn't (so far anyway) have a record of confirming another (for example) un supported allegation from someone who is saying that Owen O' Callaghan paid Bertie even though O' Callaghan denies this.

Secondly I just heard Tony Gregory on the last word diss all this continued anti bertie speculation about the anti bertie bits in the tribunal.
So far only one side.
Gregory at least is being fair in that he wants to wait to hear a judgement based on everything and not just on one spin of events.I think thats the right way to conduct society.

LostinBlanch

gandalf wrote:

Well it raises the question who gave him the $45,000. Why would this Wall character who lives in the UK give Bertie dollars? It would appear the cash came from someone else other than Mr. Wall.

If thats the case then its not for house refurbishments as originally claimed, whats it for then? What was expected in return?

Cheers Gandalf. I'd been wondering about the $45,000 for a while now. It makes sense now. I suspect that this is only the tip of the iceberg though.

On an unrelated matter didn't FF push through a special tax exemption that benefitted one particular very rich person and no one else? The talk was that it was on Berties orders. I can't remember the exact details but I think it happened about 4 or 5 years ago.

I remember thinking it was very strange at the time and wondering exactly why this would have been pushed through. Now if I was the suspicious type. . . . . .

lostinblanch

lostinblanch wrote:

Now if I was the suspicious type. . . . . .

Don't worry,you wont have to do much convincing on that score.

That said theres a lot of hearsay and imagination being used in these conclusions but shur what else is new.

JerkyBoy

As far as I recall there was something to do with a tax designation at one stage...pushed through by Bertie just before the end of a Dail season once.
Not 100% on this though...will have to see if I can look it up.

Anyone remember the exact year\details of this?

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

I could be tried for murder in the morning and untill my side was heard in the case I'd be a murderer but carry on...

Your logic here is very very flawed, firstly we are NOT dealing with a court of law here we are dealing with a tribunal very very different, anyone familiar with the workings of the tribunal and that of a murder trial would easily know that.

Secondly I have not accused nor has the tribunal accused Bertie Ahern of any illegal activity thus far, they have simply pointed out facts which have been obtained from AIB and statments given by Bertie.

Now my accusation is pretty simple and easy to follow...

Bertie Ahern was asked by Michael McDowell to clarify issues relating to a sum of money Lodged by Celia Larkin on the 5th of December 1994, Bertie stated it was Sterling with perhaps some punts but he stated quite clearly it was not dollars actually here is a quote

The lodgment on 5th December 1994 was not a dollar lodgment

There has been some speculation about this sum. The lodgment of about £28,700 on 5th December 1994 was a cash lodgment which is not exactly £30,000 sterling but rather is a lesser sum and may have been a mixture of sterling and Irish pounds. Hence it is in an irregular amount. It is not a dollar sum. I never had $45,000 either then, before then or since. There are no dollar transactions in my accounts. I do not deal nor have I ever dealt in dollars

(For Refernce that was taken from http://www.fiannafail.ie/article.phpx?topic=151&id=7541&nav=News%20Item )

So Bertie says no Dollars no way, however as I have pointed out already the Tribunal states that the bank records show only £1,900 approx in Sterling was exchanged in the bank on that date there was however a very large sum of Dollars exchanged that day.

So my accusation which imo is very well founded is Bertie Ahern lied to the Public before the election when he made that statement, thats all I'm accusing him of here, nothing more nothing less, if one wanted to they could possibly start asking where the dollars came from...

mike65

Tristrame wrote:

Secondly I just heard Tony Gregory on the last word diss all this continued anti bertie speculation about the anti bertie bits in the tribunal.

So far only one side.

Gregory at least is being fair in that he wants to wait to hear a judgement based on everything and not just on one spin of events.I think thats the right way to conduct society.

He just wants another fabulous deal for his back-yard!

Mike.

dh2007

jjbrien wrote:

he might be going back there soon if things keep up. I think the Mahon tribunal sshould have the power to remove any TD or senator from office if thier figures dont add up or they lie to the people or take bribes.

Y'know, that probably means that there is someone working in that job who's only receiving temporary contracts every year and probably hasn't been made permanent because of him???

chump

There's nothing funny or amusing about any of this, but I just can't help myself from laughing when I read any of Tristrame's posts.

Tristrame wrote:

I could be tried for murder in the morning and untill my side was heard in the case I'd be a murderer but carry on...Firstly,the tribunal doesn't (so far anyway) have a record of confirming another (for example) un supported allegation from someone who is saying that Owen O' Callaghan paid Bertie even though O' Callaghan denies this.

Secondly I just heard Tony Gregory on the last word diss all this continued anti bertie speculation about the anti bertie bits in the tribunal.
So far only one side.
Gregory at least is being fair in that he wants to wait to hear a judgement based on everything and not just on one spin of events.I think thats the right way to conduct society.

looloo27

i just dont understand why he doesnt just quit. how can he be bothered to face this constant struggle with the press. Mc Dowell quit at the first sign of defeat. Bertie knew that this stuff was gonna get dragged up he should just stand down and admit defeat. Other leaders have resigned over much less than this.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Your logic here is very very flawed, firstly we are NOT dealing with a court of law here we are dealing with a tribunal very very different, anyone familiar with the workings of the tribunal and that of a murder trial would easily know that.

It's not flawed unless of course you don't believe in due process and believe instead that your conviction is infallable and lets make no mistake about it you are convicting ahern here with scant access to all of the facts save for deliberately sensationalised newspaper selling leaks.

Secondly I have not accused nor has the tribunal accused Bertie Ahern of any illegal activity thus far, they have simply pointed out facts which have been obtained from AIB and statments given by Bertie.

Without access to whatever due process yet to be heard you are drawing your own conclusions.You are of course entitled to do this.

Now my accusation is pretty simple and easy to follow...

See what I mean,do you have a direct line to the opposing sides pc/data and file boxes then? Or are you just using the selective tit bits you can glean from media leaks and satisfying your already made up mind?

Bertie Ahern was asked by Michael McDowell to clarify issues relating to a sum of money Lodged by Celia Larkin on the 5th of December 1994, Bertie stated it was Sterling with perhaps some punts but he stated quite clearly it was not dollars actually here is a quote (For Refernce that was taken from http://www.fiannafail.ie/article.phpx?topic=151&id=7541&nav=News%20Item )

So Bertie says no Dollars no way, however as I have pointed out already the Tribunal states that the bank records show only £1,900 approx in Sterling was exchanged in the bank on that date there was however a very large sum of Dollars exchanged that day.

Oh so here I see that you are just just blatantly surmising your opinion based on two different collations of information.
1. Aherns answers to media questions and 2.Selected new questions as reported and yet unanswered in the tribunal.
The problem with that is your surmise is flawed because you are using legitimate answers to one set of questions as an assumption that legitimate answers to new questions in the tribunal don't exist..
The instant difficulty I find with that analysis is that Aherns team will have to put their case.
The nature of the tribunal is such that accusations can be outed sans rebuttal like this almost ad infinitum untill it is time for the other side of the case to be heard.

Basing a kangeroo court style commentary on Aherns activities on that is laughably unfair and prejudiced.
It's prejudiced of course because it treats the questions as rhetorical ,convicts the accused and devoids itself of a need to hear the other side, in that it implies the mind is already made up.

Where is the evidence of a dollar transaction by the way besides a question asked as to whether there was one ? And who introduced this dollar anomoly in the first place? It was a lawyer for the tribunal wasn't it-ergo it's Aherns lawers at the tribunal who have yet to explain this. Why didnt they check rubles and Rand as well as all the other available currencies? Have they any paperwork in relation to a dollar transaction and why are you running with that? Is your analysis so brilliant that its better than a tribunal outcome complete with two sides of a story?

So my accusation which imo is very well founded is Bertie Ahern lied to the Public before the election when he made that statement, thats all I'm accusing him of here, nothing more nothing less, if one wanted to they could possibly start asking where the dollars came from...

It's not coming across that you are making an accusation, you are giving us your conviction that that is the case arising out of your own one sided conclusion of a yet unanswered tribunal allegation.

chump

chump wrote:

There's nothing funny or amusing about any of this, but I just can't help myself from laughing when I read any of Tristrame's posts.

Well I'm glad I'm supplying a little humour even though my motivation here is fairness and equality.
A justice based on a society of equals if you like...
I'm just exposing the whole "mind made up-lets hear no more" foundation to a lot of the posts here.

Judt

I think, Tristrame, that your argument is fair about making final judgment, but you can make judgment on the facts - if you couldn't then lawyers making a prosecution wouldn't be able to develop their arguments as new evidence comes to light.

What do you honestly think, knowing what you know now but with it not being a final judgment on which to make any calls for resignations or so forth? If you can't commit to telling us what you think then it would be my opinion, and just my opinion flawed or otherwise, that you aren't looking for any result yourself other than "he's innocent of any wrongdoing."

As for my opinion of it... All this smoke, coming from a building sat close to a bunch of others in FF that burned down so spectacularly... Well, either Bertie Ahern is the unluckiest person in the world to get into such circumstances, or we would appear to have a game on.

I also can't help but laugh at his lawyers attacking the people putting this information forth. We've seen similar tactics before, and it usually ends with Shakespeare being invoked.

JerkyBoy

LostinBlanch wrote:

didn't FF push through a special tax exemption that benefitted one particular very rich person and no one else? The talk was that it was on Berties orders. I can't remember the exact details but I think it happened about 4 or 5 years ago.

I remember thinking it was very strange at the time and wondering exactly why this would have been pushed through. Now if I was the suspicious type. . . . . .

I think you may be wondering about the Golden Island controversy where Bertie gave tax designations for a site that Owen O'Callaghan wanted to develop?

On Dec 14th 1994 Bertie Ahern, in his last act as finance minister, on the eve of the Rainbow Coalition entering Government, signed a statutory instrument giving tax designation status to the Golden Island site in Athlone, which Owen O'Callaghan benefitted from, saving him millions.

More details:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/flood-investigates-ahern-tax-decision-512471.html

http://www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2000/sw119/socialistworker-119.htm

Interesting that this tax designation signing took place right around the time that tens of thousands of unnaccounted for punts and sterling were going in and out of Ahern's safe and bank accounts, according to the Tribunal.

There's certainly a lot of smoke surrounding all of this stuff...I'm sure the Tribunal will figure it out in time...but it doesn't look good from here.

Judt

Judt wrote:

I think, Tristrame, that your argument is fair about making final judgment, but you can make judgment on the facts - if you couldn't then lawyers making a prosecution wouldn't be able to develop their arguments as new evidence comes to light.

Thank you.This tribunal commentary is not fair comment it's mind made up comment in my view.

What do you honestly think, knowing what you know now but with it not being a final judgment on which to make any calls for resignations or so forth? If you can't commit to telling us what you think then it would be my opinion, and just my opinion flawed or otherwise, that you aren't looking for any result yourself other than "he's innocent of any wrongdoing."

It's my opinion (of course) that Ahern has questions to answer.
But I want that done in due process and not in the kangeroo fashion of working from reverse ie guilty untill proven innocent.
I'm only convinced so far of the need to answer the questions because I believe in probriety when it comes to elected officials.

Lennoxschips

Thing is, Ahern answered these questions in the Dail in 2006 and in a statement a couple of weeks ago, and according to the Tribunal, his explanations don't stack up.

Will he have new answers this time round? We shall see.

keynesian

Speeking of Murder, Weren't the first members of the dail murders?

Personal I don't think politition get paid enough & no job secuity.

Let's wait and see what the tribunals say when it's finished. I was going to say and let the tribunal deal with it but they can't do anything.

The last thing this country needs is unstable government or the cost of move election.

The real question is will someone in the Mahon Tribunal be prosicuted or there teenage draught??

JerkyBoy

didn't FF push through a special tax exemption that benefitted one particular very rich person and no one else? The talk was that it was on Berties orders.

Or maybe it was the tax legislation introduced by Bertie Ahern when he was Finance Minister in 1994.
A property developer named Ken Rohan lobbied for, and benetted from, this legislation which prevented the Revenue Commissioners from pursuing him through the courts for £1.5 million benefit-in-kind tax on his use of company money to buy works of art for his Wicklow mansion.

Rohan was giving 1000s of pounds in payments at the time to Des Richardson, the man who organised the "loans" from "friends" for Bertie in 93/94.

More details see:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/murder-on-the-ff-party--dancefloor-504098.html

That's at least two cases involving Bertie Ahern as Finance Minister in the early 90's where he took specific actions, which benefitted very few individuals, who just happened to be property developers, which saved them millions of pounds.
I'm not saying these actions are corrupt...but I do think they stink to high heavens!

Voipjunkie

Glenbhoy wrote:

If he's got large unexplained lodgements in his bank accounts, it's not the tribunal (who are largely impotent) who he has to worry about, there's this other crowd, they're called the revenue and they might be very interested in these lodgements. Why was Ray Burke jailed does anyone remember??

That would be the same revenue that came after Micheal Lowry and CJH. Burke lied on a tax amnesty not just evaded tax for just evasion you get to pay up with penalties big deal.

keynesian

keynesian wrote:

Speeking of Murder, Weren't the first members of the dail murders?

Personal I don't think politition get paid enough & no job secuity.

Let's wait and see what the tribunals say when it's finished. I was going to say and let the tribunal deal with it but they can't do anything.

The last thing this country needs is unstable government or the cost of move election.

The real question is will someone in the Mahon Tribunal be prosicuted or there teenage draught??

I would prefer by a country mile a clean government. Corrupt governments are inherently unstable.
Being in power for 23 of the last 25 years can let ministers believe they can get away with anything.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Thank you.This tribunal commentary is not fair comment it's mind made up comment in my view.
It's my opinion (of course) that Ahern has questions to answer.
But I want that done in due process and not in the kangeroo fashion of working from reverse ie guilty untill proven innocent.
I'm only convinced so far of the need to answer the questions because I believe in probriety when it comes to elected officials.

What due process their is no garda investigation there is not court case outstanding.
This tribunal has discovered various things in Berties finances which they have asked him to explain and he has failed to do so.
He told them a cock and bull story and they have shown it to be a cock and bull story if there is a reasonable explanation for these things why has bertie not provided the explanation he has ahd plenty of time.
Berties complaint is that these things are in the public domain but there is nothing that the tribunal can do to prevent it they have lost a case at the supreme court were they previously tried to stop tribunal investigations being printed.

How many times do you think Bertie can be given the benefit of the doubt or allowed to change his story.
As I have said before the tribunal is not investigating where Bertie got his money just whether it came from O'Callaghan if the tribunal decide it did not come from O'Callaghan then they will stop looking as that is all they are allowed to investigate.

Now on the issue of due process what due process did Ray Burke get information of dodgy dealings came out and he had to go we did not have to stand back and what for him to be convicted before he had to leave.
And that is the same for virtually any resignation you can think of here or abroad when Ivor the engine went we did not have to wait till it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he did not pay the painter it was claimed and Ivor could not offer a reasonable explanation.
When Haughey Blaney and Boland were sacked by Jack Lynch he did not wait for due process evidence was presented and they were out of office.
Now it should be the same here these allegations are in the public domain Bertie should provide a clear and honest explanation and if he cannot then he should go we can not wait.

Liam Byrne

Personal I don't think politition get paid enough & no job secuity.

This came up in conversation over the weekend.......if I was hired somewhere and then couldn't do my job, I'd easily be fired with 5 years, and I would have no cushy minister's pension. If I'd left a job in order to take up that position, it'd be my own tough. The same should go for politicians; if they're good, they'll be kept on by the public.

As Lennoxchips said, Bertie HAD an opportunity to answer things fully last year, and didn't take it. He got ANOTHER opportunity to answer in the run-up to the election, and apparently STILL hasn't answered properly or completely truthfully. Even Tristrame admits that Ahern still has questions to answer.

A cynic would guess that Bertie held on long enough to get FF back into power and only after the Dail is decided will he answer fully.....but why not answer fully last November if he had nothing to hide ?

Of course, given the way that tribunals go, Bertie could end up like Haughey and keep stringing them along until he's dead, after which he'll escape punishment and maybe even have the public pay for his State Funeral and get Brian Cowen to wax lyrical about how great he was with absolutely no references to how he pulled strokes along the way*.

Disclaimer: This is one possible outcome; he may be 100% innocent, but of course anyone 100% innocent explains things in full at the first opportunity - i.e. last November.