The Mahon Tribunal

jimd2

Listening to the latest polls in recent days and the fact that they are all indicating that Bertie will win out again, I cannot help but think of what Bertie has to do to actually lose popularity.
Now I'm not anti Fianna Fail - I actually voted for them on a personal vote. But after an awful lot of things going badly in recent years - poor use of the celtic tiger revenue, public sector pay out of line, job losses on top of the very poor start to the campaign in which Bertie seemed to rush into calling it at the last minute.
Something good happens - Bertie gets the bounce, something bad happens Bertie is not effected (well longer term anyway)
It could be that the opposition is unconvincing. Personally I found Enda Kennys "contract" a bit of a silly stunt and demeaned things a bit. None of the previous governments needed a contract like that.

I reckon that Bertie would have to be caught clearly on CCTV mugging someone for him to drop in popularity and even at that he would not drop too much.

mike65

"Be found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." to borrow a from another politican (who was talking about his own popularity).

Mike.

Archeron

For me personally, I agree with your comment on the stunt from FG. I found Enda Kenny to be nothing but patronising and sneery throughout the campaign, and my dislike for the FG party actually grew over the course of this election. This was not helped by the fact that the campaigners for FG who knocked at my door were arrogant and dismissive.
On the other hand, I still find Bertie and my own local FF people to have a certain level of humility (Maybe not the right word). There is no denying that some great things have happened in Ireland over the past number of years, and I dont get the feel from FF that they just expected to be voted back in, I do think they fought for whatever votes they get in this campaign.

damnyanks

Archeron wrote:

For me personally, I agree with your comment on the stunt from FG. I found Enda Kenny to be nothing but patronising and sneery throughout the campaign, and my dislike for the FG party actually grew over the course of this election. This was not helped by the fact that the campaigners for FG who knocked at my door were arrogant and dismissive.
On the other hand, I still find Bertie and my own local FF people to have a certain level of humility (Maybe not the right word). There is no denying that some great things have happened in Ireland over the past number of years, and I dont get the feel from FF that they just expected to be voted back in, I do think they fought for whatever votes they get in this campaign.

Not living in Ireland so havent seen all the hype and so on. But whenever I did see Enda Kenny I thought pretty much along the same lines as yourself. The guy just came across as an idiot.

I think Bertie is just the end product of Irish thinking, as long as you're a "Nice lad" you dont have to worry too much. All in all times have been good in Ireland so most people havent had to fret too much. If things turn bad then I'm sure opinion of him would change drastically.

crybaby

I don't know if there really is anything he could do to bring his popularity down he is pretty much Charlie Haughey Mark 2 at this stage, he will always be loved even if something that proves him to be dodgy comes out at some stage he'll always be considered a great leader and a man of the people


I never used to like Enda Kenny but I have grown to respect him over the last year or so and i do think he would make a good leader

Mr.Orange

For me Enda Kenny just doesn't come across as someone who could run a country. Maybe i'm totally wrong and he would be better suited than Bertie but for most Irish people it's about personality, as that draws a lot of confidence.
In the debate last week with Bertie and Enda, i thought Enda came across as too "desperate" to get the job, maybe that has something to do with it. Bertie just seemed comfortable and confident.

Maccattack

'Bertie' s popularity has more to do with the Irish psyche than the man himself.

Apathy and ignorance gets him through.

Jimoslimos

Maccattack wrote:

'Bertie' s popularity has more to do with the Irish psyche than the man himself.

Apathy and ignorance gets him through.

Yep, for all our whining and moaning about americans voting Bush in what do we do - vote another affable simple chap to run the country. Perhaps there's sense of well-being in knowing that the guy running things is less intelligent than you.

ainemolloy1

Very disappointed to hear the early results on RTE. I don't have a problem with Fianna Fail per se. But i do have a problem with a party that is in bed with vested interest that keep our country from progressing. I always just vote for the smaller parties for the sake of democracy. 15 years with the same old faces is no good for democracy.

Every time I turn on the radio I hear people complaining (and rightly so ) about the allowance for carers, the apartheid health care system, the crammed prefabs that pass for classrooms, the rip off prices, the bad planning etc etc...

But I wonder where all that anger goes on polling day. For me Bertie is the master politician as he has made a career out of sitting on the fence. He is now it seems untouchable, and it reminds me of in previous years when politicians with very dubious characters regarding their tax affairs ,crooks basically topped the poll in their areas, I always found that very bizarre. Not that I think Bertie is a crook, it's the power and not the money Bertie likes.

So finally here are the 3 ways Bertie could fall out of favour with the Paddy's over the next 5 years:

1. Take off of German Economy = interests rate going through the roof = property crash (note there has been around 40 property booms in Europe since WWII, all crashed and burned, no soft landings) = horrendous recession as the vast amount of new jobs in the last 5 years, for men have been directly in the construction industry, and for women in the public services ( paid for by property related taxes) = Bye Bye Bertie

2. Value of the dollar slides to 1.5 against the Euro = much higher costs for US multinationals for no added productivity (nurses?). (2,000,000 people working in Ireland, 100,000 in multinationals producing over 85% of exports, what the heck is everybody else doing?) = Bye Bye US multinationals = Bye Bye Bertie

3. Equalization of EU corporate taxes, new french premier is making noises about this. (Irish politicians saying they will veto this, but if France starts making enough noise and Germany does the same , methinks Irish politicians will be shouting at the wind.) = Bye Bye US multinationals = Bye Bye Bertie

But nobody wants to hear this of course, and the majority of economists put on the telly / radio work for banks (mortgages?).

Of course if none of this happens in 5 years time, you will see a 20 foot statue of a happy go lucky Bertie with an empty suitcase, except for his lunch money on O'Connell street. Of course you'll have to pay a toll to get on to O'Connell street then.

Seriously though I voted against the government as the opposition were saying (quietly) the same kind of things. I think it's a missed opportunity!!!

LordSutch

Maybe if he spoke proper he might loose popularity?

*Tripper*

The simple answer is that he would have to sleep with Mary Harney, video tape it and release it on the interweb!

Actually come to think of it this would probably boost his popularity.

Zombrex

Maccattack wrote:

'Bertie' s popularity has more to do with the Irish psyche than the man himself.

Apathy and ignorance gets him through.

Amen to that

There almost seems to be a level of resentment towards the opposition of trying to remove FF from power, as if this was some how an unfair or low thing to do. It reminded me of the backlash towards the paper that published the photos of the gay priest.

The concept of a working democracy seems to be lost on a lot of Irish people, that these people are only in these jobs as representatives of us. Its as if people think that everyone should just leave Bertie and Co alone to live their lives (in government)

jonny72

Yeah I am very interested in Politics, but I pay zero attention to Irish politics, its too frustrating.

If you can sit down and have a pint with the politician and he has a full head of hair, thats good enough for most people.

Akrasia

jonny72 wrote:

Yeah I am very interested in Politics, but I pay zero attention to Irish politics, its too frustrating.

If you can sit down and have a pint with the politician and he has a full head of hair, thats good enough for most people.

It doesn't even have to be a nice head of hair.
This guy topped the poll in Clare.

cousin_borat

It's the old Fianna Fail tactic. The whole Bertie scandal played right into their hands. If there's one thing FF have always thrived on over the years it's having a good grievance to get the diehards to stick with them.

sovtek

The first person (of the Irish persuasion that is) that asks me how us stupid Americans re-elected Dubya is going to get an ear-full.

Lennoxschips

The Mahon tribunal resumes. More **** hits the fan.

Ahern will not be leading this country in 2012.

nacho libre

Wasn't it handy how the tribunal was suspended till after the election;)

gandalf

Jaysus the first day of resumption of the Mahon Tribunial and already his account of things is unravelling. If this keeps up it will be Taoiseach Biffo when the new Dail sits.

I found this especially interesting from that article.

Mr O'Neill also said there is very little documentary evidence to support Mr Ahern's about the source of the five lodgements totalling over £116,000.

Surely if you were in that position you would make sure that you had all the documents in place to confirm these payments were above board?

Crash

If things keep going this way (as in the mahon tribunal continually finding discrepancies such as this) and he doesnt step down or isnt made to step down, I will never be happier to be leaving this country in not such a long time.

mike65

Facinating stuff today and I've a suspicion his ex is going to get dumped on from a great height. Amused to hear Aherns council moaning about the media being more intersted in the stuff that casts suspicion on Bertie than the material that backs his version of events. Clearly they know nothing of journalism or how stuff gets found out or at least they pretend to be idiots.

Mike.

Snake Plisken

I'd say Bertie might go sooner then later if the alligations continue to grow and I don't want to hear him blathering on about oh "I was going through a painful seperation" crap, so we might see the wurlus in charge sooner then we think.

Snake

Liam Byrne

There's coverage of an accusation by Bertie's lawyer in today's Examiner when he accused the tribunal was "interfering with the democratic process....."

I thought they did that three weeks ago when they deferred the hearings involving Bertie ? "Vote first - THEN we'll tell you whether he is a complete crook or a just a dodgy chancer" :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

[My old boss] he fired people left right and centre

He's completely different to Bertie, so.......despite complete screw-ups and inertia in telecommunications regulation, eVoting and numerous other areas, Bertie (to my knowledge) hasn't fired the people that are supposedly responsible for those areas.

You gotta admit that it was a nice stroke by FF to get back in before the **** begins to hit the fan, though.......now we know what the dawn rush to the Park was all about......

Villain

A thread was closed in the General Election forum which was discussing the Mahon Tribunal and we were directed to the main Politics forum here, but I can't find an existing thread on the Mahon Tribunal if I have missed one please merge.

So I will repost my previous reply to Tristrame for him to reply here

Originally Posted by Tristrame
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.

What due process is it you speak of Tristrame is it the same due process that was afforded to Ray Burke, Ivor Callely or Michael Lowry? You see the problem is these TD's didn't need a Tribunal to finish and make findings to force them to resign, I mean Bertie accepted Ivor Callely's resignation for having a free paint job. Are you suggesting Bertie is entitled to more due process than Ray Burke or Ivor Callely were?

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

I am drawing no more conclusions than Bertie did when allegations were made againt Ivor Callely!

Originally Posted by Tristrame
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?

Now let me make this very clear Tristrame my opinion here is not based on any newspaper reports, it is based on the transcript from the tribunal and the press release which Bertie released. These are available to anyone, I have linked to both in previous posts. So please stop trying to imply my posts are as a result of reports I have read elsewhere, I'm not sure what your opinon is of me (although I have a good idea) but I do have the intelligence to read transcripts and statments and form MY OWN opinion, if you are hinting otherwise I would rather you just came out and said it.

Originally Posted by Tristrame
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?

My opinion as I stated above is based on what Senior Council for the Tribunal have stated the Tribunal have uncovered during their investigation and what they say Bertie stated during communication with the tribunal which included written communication and an interview. Mr Ahern my not have publically put his case to the tribunal but he has put his case to the public in the form of his statement and he has also put it privately to the Tribunal in both cases he says he did not deal in Dollars and that the money lodged on the 5th of December was in Pounds and Punts. I'm not sure if you aware of the procedure at the bank in relation to recording foreign exchange but they recorded the amount of Sterling exchanged and they recorded the amount of all other currencies exchanged also, the amount of sterling exchanged on the 5th of December 1994 was equal to £1,921.55 punts hence Bertie could not have exchanged what he said he did on that date, the records however show that the ammount of other currencies exchanged that day equalled £28,969.34 punts this would allow for a transaction of $45,000 and other non-sterling exchanges to a value of £196.44 punts

My analysis is based on the bank records provided to the Tribunal which they have outlined in their opening statement and the reports from the Tribunal of interview's and written communication with Bertie and also his statement.

Originally Posted by Tristrame
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.

Well I am looking at all the evidence which I can find and I am forming an opinion as Bertie did with Ivor.

In relation to how the sum could have been a mixture of Punt and Pounds remember they didn't accept less than £1 and everyone agrees on the dates and the maximum amount of Sterling was £2003 pounds.

Akrasia

Tristame wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish1
But the facts don't allow for that, what mixture would equal £28,772.90 Punts with a maximum of Sterling worth £1921.55 punts?

Some of his own money? The money converted on the tuesday instead of the wenesday?
Buying the paper?
Celia dropping by land of leather and picking up a sofa that she forgot about ?

Are you seriously suggesting Celia went to the bank, exchanged foreign cash, took the huge suitcase of cash, went next door to the newsagents with that huge suitcase of cash, bought a paper (or went to land of leather and bought a couch), and went back to the bank and lodged the remaining amount?
Is that the best you can do?

The wrong account being looked at.

More rubbish. The tribunal identified this account because of the large sums of money that flowed through it during the relevant time frame. How could they possibly have picked the wrong account? If they did, that would be even worse for Ahern and Co as it would mean that he has other accounts that he did not reveal to the tribunal that are also experiencing huge, unexplained cash transactions. It would also not answer the $45,000 question. Where did that money come from if Bertie has adamantly claimed he never dealt in large Dollar amounts?

Admit it mate, There are no explanations that will be consistent with the stories Bertrude has already told the public. He has dug himself into a huge hole and he is clearly in there stuck in it. A lot of his supporters are standing around the edges denying that the hole exists, calling it a 'slight dent', after all, what is a hole anyway?'

Lets hear the discourse at the tribunal first shall we?I know as little as you but I won't be drawing the same inferences as you.My mind is far from made up on this matter unlike yours.

I can predict the discourse in the tribunal over the next few months or years. More damning evidence about Aherns finances followed by more accusations by Bertie's legal team about bias and shenanigans meanwhile Bertie either ignores the issue, or makes up increasingly convoluted 'explanations' about each accummulating revelation, each one more improbably than the last, none of them with any documentary evidence to back them up. There will be a few legal actions from 'Bertie's team' to slow up the process and attempt to deny access to accounts.

But they are according to Bertie two different things.
Callelly accepted a write off of work done on his own house by strangers whereas Aherns GF administered monies on a house that was to be made available for Ahern to rent by a close friend and possibly own when it suited him to buy it,if it suited him.

Do you know what that is? Pure guff. First of all, bertie's close friend didn't even own that house at the time, so CL was apparently administering money from a third party to do up a house owned by a 4th party who nobody is claiming was a 'close friend' of anybody involved in this.
Anyway, it's beginning to look as though that money from Mr Wall never existed in the first place and was just an excuse to explain large expenditures over that period.
T

akrasia

Threads merged.

Irish1 I already replied to you but you chose to ignore it in that thread. I note that you've rehashed the same information that is the basis for your conviction newly in this thread ie you claimed I didnt reply in the other thread (but I did) and now here you are giving a new,more than one sentence retort to the reply.
You are of course entitled to form a one way tunnel visioned view based on the incomplete workings of the tribunal.
You are also entitled to mix and match the replies to the press questions that Ahern gave with the incomplete information you have on the tribunal.

I don't see how it is possible though to form a fair and accurate opinion without recourse to the as yet considerably unfinished workings of the tribunal in the matter.

akrasia wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting Celia went to the bank, exchanged foreign cash, took the huge suitcase of cash, went next door to the newsagents with that huge suitcase of cash, bought a paper (or went to land of leather and bought a couch), and went back to the bank and lodged the remaining amount?
Is that the best you can do?

Well she could have,there was no barring order imposed on her at either establishments that I'm aware of.
Furthermore if you go back and read my replies to the GE thread,it's no worse or better than the anti Bertie gang's replies except it of course assumes one thing,one very important thing-the tribunal is where Ahern has to reply to the new questions posed by the tribunal and since he hasn't-then everything,absolutely everything here to the open minded is pure speculation.

More rubbish. The tribunal identified this account because of the large sums of money that flowed through it during the relevant time frame. How could they possibly have picked the wrong account?

It's hardly rubbish,it's just valid speculation similar in spirit to your own (except of course yours is the guilty untill proven innocent variety).
For example Celia did open a new a/c to deal with the house but that wouldnt proclude her initially doing an FEX transaction in her ordinary a/c.
Perhaps she wanted to go to land of leather that day and had to use some of the money with her own chequebook before they would issue one on the new a/c.

Theres a myriad of unknowns as yet to be discussed in the tribunal.

Admit it mate, There are no explanations that will be consistent with the stories Bertrude has already told the public.

Well I've no problem with your entitlement to your speculation and you seem to have plenty with mine.
I wonder why ? Mind already made up perhaps?
Preconceived opinion perhaps?
Guilty untill proven innocent perhaps?

I can predict the discourse in the tribunal over the next few months or years.

Would you like to do my lotto numbers? On second thoughts you're ok

First of all, bertie's close friend didn't even own that house at the time, so CL was apparently administering money from a third party to do up a house owned by a 4th party who nobody is claiming was a 'close friend' of anybody involved in this.

Allow me to counter speculate so.
One speculation being as valid or usefull as the next.
Bertie outsourced the finding of the house to Wall who may or may not have had a contract signed on this house at the time.
This outsourcing was open ended and the discussion included the possibility that Ahern might buy the house.
Ahern and Wall trusted Celia to do the interior designing on whatever house Wall sourced.
None of that would be illegal,quirky yes,unusual maybe, but illegal no.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

Threads merged.

Irish1 I already replied to you but you chose to ignore it in that thread..

You did not reply to the post in full you completely ignored most of it, the fact is you are saying Bertie is entitled to something he didn't afford Ray Burke Or Ivor Callely, of course you don't have to reply to all the post you ignore the parts you don't want to answer thats up to you. As for the last reply about the mix of pounds and punts you are ignoring the Fact that Celia said it was Sterling and Bertie said it was Sterling, Bertie only changed his story when it was put to him that the figures didn't support it, all that along with the fact he said he received £30,000 for a refit of a house from Mr Wall, even though Mr Wall didn't own the house, days before the transaction would I think lead anyone who is not biased in favour of Bertie to see that a story of him lodging £2003 Sterling and the rest in Puunts doesn't add up, I mean where would the £26,000 odd punts have come from??

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

One speculation being as valid or usefull as the next.
Bertie outsourced the finding of the house to Wall who may or may not have had a contract signed on this house at the time.
This outsourcing was open ended and the discussion included the possibility that Ahern might buy the house.
Ahern and Wall trusted Celia to do the interior designing on whatever house Wall sourced.
None of that would be illegal,quirky yes,unusual maybe, but illegal no.

The house while an odd arrangement is a side issue

Bertie has large sums of money going through accounts controlled by Celia Larkin.
Bertie has to explain where this money came from so as the tribunal can ascertain if the money came from Owen O'Callaghan
Berties explanations are that he saved the money in a safe(although no one else ever seen this money or part of it either in drumcondra or his ministerial office where he claims to have had it)
Berties next explanation is that Wall gave him £30,000 sterling in cash to do up a house which he claims Celia larkin Deposited except the deposit does not equate to the £30,000 sterling it oddly does equate to $45,000 but Bertie denies ever having large amounts of dollars.
The question arises if this is not the £30,000 Wall money what money is it and if it is what hapened to the rest of it.
Berties other explanations are that his friends had a whip around (although one of those denies ever giving money to Ahern and claims the money was for FF)
And then there is the Manchester Money.


While I agree that in normal circumstances the tribunal should be allowed to get on with its business these are not normal circumstances unfortunately or fortunately these issues are in the public domain and they are likely to have an affect on the forming of a new Government.
Ahern has already offered an explanation during the election and it was accepted by everyone( or virtually everyone) however the tribunal has revealed that the explanation offered by Ahern during the election does not stand up to the scrutiny that the tribunal is able to offer as such Ahern must offer an reasonable explanation for the differences in his story or he should step aside.
The election is out of the way now and I hope that the understandable reluctance shown by the opposition parties to engage these matters during an election will now stop and that they will try and hold Mr Ahern to account these matters are so serious that we can not wait for the tribunal to finish its work which could take years.

From listening to the last word yesterday,I'd say Tony Gregory is good to go depending on what he's offered-he's not worried about the speculation,he wants the tribunal to deal with it properly-thats what its there for.
McGrath is an unknown but supposed to be close to Gregory so perhaps willing.

The others (2 pd's,Flynn and Healy-Rae are a given)
Thats 83 and make Lowry Ceann Comhairle and they're in business as regards electing Ahern-also given that the others 83 wont include Sinn Féin and they would need them.

There is a precedent for such a tight operation to survive.
The greens are better off outside if they dont want to be decimated as are labour.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

You did not reply to the post in full you completely ignored most of it, the fact is you are saying Bertie is entitled to something he didn't afford Ray Burke Or Ivor Callely, of course you don't have to reply to all the post you ignore the parts you don't want to answer thats up to you.

But I did reply regarding callely see post 140
Ray Burke resigned before Flood was set up and Lowry wasn't in Aherns cabinet ever.

As for the last reply about the mix of pounds and punts you are ignoring the Fact that Celia said it was Sterling and Bertie said it was Sterling, Bertie only changed his story when it was put to him that the figures didn't support it, all that along with the fact he said he received £30,000 for a refit of a house from Mr Wall, even though Mr Wall didn't own the house, days before the transaction would I think lead anyone who is not biased in favour of Bertie to see that a story of him lodging £2003 Sterling and the rest in Puunts doesn't add up, I mean where would the £26,000 odd punts have come from??

You see here you go again expecting me to have a crystal ball and see what Ahern will say to the tribunal when he will have to reply to these new questions first posed in the tribunal this week.
His replies to date have been to media questions which despite what they might think are not the legal mechanism for dealing with the newer queries.
There are others who have had to answer questions posed in the tribunal and subject to the time frame of the tribunal they were able to walk away from it having given satisfactory answers.
In your case you want it all now now now,you are so convinced of your viewpoint.
Thats the epitome of unfairness but how and ever to each their own I say.

Glenbhoy

Voipjunkie wrote:

The house while an odd arrangement is a side issue

Yes and no, i think what the tribunal are getting at re the house is: who exactly was the beneficial owner of the house?

Glenbhoy

Tristrame wrote:

The greens are better off outside if they dont want to be decimated as are labour.

Why would they be decimated? You're surely not inferring that perhaps a ff led govt. may not be in the best interests of the country?

Tristrame wrote:

You see here you go again expecting me to have a crystal ball and see what Ahern will say to the tribunal when he will have to reply to these new questions first posed in the tribunal this week.

What do you mean by new questions? Which questions are new? Bert has been dealing with the tribunal since last April according to the transcript, they have been investigating 5 lodgements, yet, now, over 12 months later, he has still not given the tribunal a satisfactory explanation as to where any of these lodgements came from (and that includes the ridiculous 'loan/gift' story/manchester gift money, which the tribunal state was equal to £25K STG, who knows maybe the story was concocted to fit the facts).
I can understand party loyalty and so on (well, actually, I can't), but come on, as a rational human being you must see that Bertie has lied to you and me, to McDowell, to the dail and to the tribunal. Personally, I don't like people making a fool of me - do you?

Villain

Tristrame I seriously think you need to read the Trinual's record in the PDF link I supplied, Bertie has spoken to the Tribunal in person and through written exchanges several times over the past year or so, its not as if Bertie hasn't said anything to the Tribunal yet, in fact all that remains is for him to be cross examined in public and tbh I would be very surprised if he says anything different when he does as that would make things look worse than they already do. When you say

His replies to date have been to media questions which despite what they might think are not the legal mechanism for dealing with the newer queries.

you are ignoring the replies he has given to the Tribunal along with the written statement he realeased through FF. I really think you should read the transcripts.

Glenbhoy

Glenbhoy wrote:

What do you mean by new questions?

The public session is new.
We were never supposed to be in posession of anything else prior to the public session.Afaik the new "discrepencies" were put out there by the public session.They certainly weren't in the public domain to my knowledge at the time of Aherns statement (on the FF site) and werent required to be answered by the media at that time.I would guess now that it would not be proper whilst the tribunal is in session and examining these things for Ahern to answer them in any other forum.

irish1 wrote:

Tristrame I seriously think you need to read the Trinual's record in the PDF link I supplied, Bertie has spoken to the Tribunal in person and through written exchanges several times over the past year or so, its not as if Bertie hasn't said anything to the Tribunal yet, in fact all that remains is for him to be cross examined in public and tbh I would be very surprised if he says anything different when he does as that would make things look worse than they already do.

Gosh how many more times do you have to expose your position as being one of a mind made up prior to Aherns answers inside the tribunal in it's public session.He has to be cross examined yet by the tribunal as has the tribunals lawyers effectively in a proper rebuttal or clarification of their questions.
Your assumption that there is no answer and that we here on the outside know it all speaks volumes for the back the front way you are looking at the justice of this.

When you say"His replies to date have been to media questions which despite what they might think are not the legal mechanism for dealing with the newer queries.",you are ignoring the replies he has given to the Tribunal along with the written statement he realeased through FF. I really think you should read the transcripts.

No I am distinguishing between the seperate queries the media had from their selective leaks plus the answers Ahern gave to those, AND the entirely new and legitimate path of inquiry this week in the public discourse of the tribunal.
You linked to this weeks transcripts and to this weeks public discourse by the tribunal.
The new "discrepencies" arise out of that and not what Ahern had to answer prior to the public sitting of the tribunal.
Honestly this is a kindergarden distinguishment,you should get with the programme

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

The public session is new.
We were never supposed to be in posession of anything else prior to the public session.

So what? The information is out there, Bertie gave his explanations, and they have been proven to be false.

Afaik the new "discrepencies" were put out there by the public session.They certainly weren't in the public domain to my knowledge at the time of Aherns statement

The only thing new in the public statement, was the fact that the Bank did not take in anywhere near the 30k sterling Ahern claimed was exchanged on that day. The only thing new was concrete proof that Bertie's story is a lie. (Well that's not strictly true, the statement also reveals bank records that cast a huge cloud over many of the other convoluted explanations Ahern has given for different transactions around the same period.)

and werent required to be answered by the media at that time. I would guess now that it would not be proper whilst the tribunal is in session and examining these things for Ahern to answer them in any other forum.

So in other words, If Bertie had known that the bank records would have screwed up his sterling story, he would have been able to make up a more suitable excuse instead?

The Tribunal opening statements would have been public record before the election if the tribunal hadn't been delayed by legal actions by 'Bertie's team' that were specifically designed to delay proceeedings until after the election.

Gosh how many more times do you have to expose your position as being one of a mind made up prior to Aherns answers inside the tribunal in it's public session.

How many people have you banned for 'playing the man not the ball' and here you are accusing the poster of being biased and seeking to hang bertie before the evidence is in.
There is more than enough information out there to conclude that Bertie's explanations do not make any sense. (and there has been for a very long time now)

He has to be cross examined yet by the tribunal as has the tribunals lawyers effectively in a proper rebuttal or clarification of their questions.
Your assumption that there is no answer and that we here on the outside know it all speaks volumes for the back the front way you are looking at the justice of this

Every single media leak from the tribunals has been proven correct. Everytime Ahern responds to those leaks, his answers have been either lies, bluster or have raised even further questions about his own finances. If Ahern had a reasonable explanation that would make all of this go away, one must assume, that he would have given it by now.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

So what? The information is out there, Bertie gave his explanations, and they have been proven to be false.

your assumption having not heard Aherns contribution to the public tribunal.The tribunal has asked questions , it's not given a declaration yet because it cant without hearing back from Ahern and certainly not untill it's full business in this session is concluded.

The only thing new in the public statement, was the fact that the Bank did not take in anywhere near the 30k sterling Ahern claimed was exchanged on that day. The only thing new was concrete proof that Bertie's story is a lie. (Well that's not strictly true, the statement also reveals bank records that cast a huge cloud over many of the other convoluted explanations Ahern has given for different transactions around the same period.)

Which is it a huge cloud or a lie? Or an incomplete assessment.
You don't know so stop posting opinion as fact please.

So in other words, If Bertie had known that the bank records would have screwed up his sterling story, he would have been able to make up a more suitable excuse instead?

your opinion,stop posing it as fact.

The Tribunal opening statements would have been public record before the election if the tribunal hadn't been delayed by legal actions by 'Bertie's team' that were specifically designed to delay proceeedings until after the election.

Really? I thought it was Mrs Lawlor that was holding them up.Today it's actually Gilmartin.
Oh wait maybe Gilmartin has arranged this delay so more trouble won't come out prior to june 14th? Now that would be some conspiracy theory...

How many people have you banned for 'playing the man not the ball' and here you are accusing the poster of being biased and seeking to hang bertie before the evidence is in.

Theres a difference between indicating a mind made up in a post and specefically attacking a poster.
But let me say if there is thin ice anywhere politics charter wise, you've chosen it there with that part of your post.Quit that and deal with my posts (if you can)

There is more than enough information out there to conclude that Bertie's explanations do not make any sense. (and there has been for a very long time now)

I see so when you can't deal with my alternative way of looking at it ,you resort to either attacking me or just plainly saying you are right and nah nah na nah na to anything else.
Great debating that I don't think.
I mean nowhere have I declared that your position could not actually be right.I'm questioning the veracity of it when it's working on limited information.Thats the way things are done fairly.

Every single media leak from the tribunals has been proven correct.

No you cant be that definitive.Every single leak (that I've seen) has been factually correct but selectively spun.The proper spin on it will be when the other side is put fully to the tribunal and Judge mahon deliberates on it.
But hey why wait for that when you have your mind made up already shur thats a great way to go about justice.

Everytime Ahern responds to those leaks, his answers have been either lies,

opinion not fact unless of course your brand of tarot card reading is 100%?

bluster or have raised even further questions about his own finances.

Of course further questions are to be expected, thats the nature of the adversarial approach the tribunal is structured to take.The whole idea is to get to the bottom of the issues. Extra questions don't automatically assume guilt (unless of course you have your mind made up) especially given that the tribunal is awaiting the answers which will have to be given and judged upon.

If Ahern had a reasonable explanation that would make all of this go away, one must assume, that he would have given it by now.

Not necessarally.He gave answers to the media because they backed him into a corner at a vulnerable time for him ie in the middle of the election.
I'm pretty sure of 2 things (1) that he would have left any answers in their entirety to the tribunal if the media didnt make a fuss of the leaks during the election and (2)He feels it proper that the place to deal with the rest of the questions now is actually in the tribunal and not in the media.

Glenbhoy

Tristrame,
the transcript makes clear that:
1. There has been voluminous written correspondence between Ahern and the tribunal, including a report on Ahern's finances 12 months ago (compiled by Des Peelo - have we heard that name before?), this was submitted to the tribunal, however in the tribunal's opinion that report has been found wanting, that can be concluded by the fact that these lodgements are still being investigated
2. There has been a private interview between Ahern and the tribunal, in that interview, when asked about the dollar lodgement, Ahern's response was "I've never dealt in dollars", indeed, convincing. He had previously told the tribunal that the lodgement was STG30K, this was amended for general release to being STG circa 30K and IR£ Plug figure to make the IR£28772.90 which was lodged.
Now, as someone else said the only new information appears to be AIB's information that 2000 odd sterling was dealt with that day in the branch, seriously, if I were FF I'd start disowning him asap - he's damaged and no matter what he'll be gone by christmas imo.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

Gosh how many more times do you have to expose your position as being one of a mind made up prior to Aherns answers inside the tribunal in it's public session.He has to be cross examined yet by the tribunal as has the tribunals lawyers effectively in a proper rebuttal or clarification of their questions.
Your assumption that there is no answer and that we here on the outside know it all speaks volumes for the back the front way you are looking at the justice of this.

My opinion or mind as you put it is formed based on the what SC for the Tribunal has stated, that includes what he has stated Ahern has said in a face to face interview with the Tribunal and what his accountants have provided in writtern replies on behalf of their client, it is alos based on what the SC has stated Celia Larkin an Michael Wall told the tribunal. It is also based on the statement Bertie Ahern issued through FF.

Tristrame wrote:

No I am distinguishing between the seperate queries the media had from their selective leaks plus the answers Ahern gave to those, AND the entirely new and legitimate path of inquiry this week in the public discourse of the tribunal.
You linked to this weeks transcripts and to this weeks public discourse by the tribunal.
The new "discrepencies" arise out of that and not what Ahern had to answer prior to the public sitting of the tribunal.
Honestly this is a kindergarden distinguishment,you should get with the programme

The new inquiry as you put it is only new to us the Tribunal have been investigating this for some time as is evident from the amount of information they have presented and the charge of $45,000 was put to Mr Ahern before the election and he replied to that charge in his written statment however the facts don't support his statement.

I am not acting as judge or jury I am presenting my opinion based on the facts known to me not media reports, I am simply using my intelligence and common sense to form my opinion and I honestly believe anyone who has read the facts would be of the opinion that his version of events don't match up. If one wanted to speculate on the unknowns they could start thinking about where the cash came from if it didn't come from Wall......

JerkyBoy

The interesting thing is that if the money Larkin lodged was indeed $45,000 and not £30,000 sterling, then what did Ahern do with the 30k sterling he recieved from Michael Wall?

This could possibly be answered by two of the foriegn exchange transactions that Ahern made in sterling.
The first was a lodgement of precicely 10,000 sterling lodged to Larkin's 2nd account, the one for fitting out the house.
The second is a lodgement of 20,000 sterling lodged to Ahern's own account, which he claims was money unspent from the 50,000 paid to Larkin's 1st account and then subsequently withdrawn in cash back to Ahern.

Ahern admits that he made both of these sterling lodgements, amouting to a total of 30,000 sterling, to the tribunal and they are supported by the AIB dockets.

Now, the tricky part for Ahern is that he claims that he bought this 30,000 in sterling from AIB, and paid for it from the 50,000 that I just mentioned above.

However, AIB has NO record of Ahern making a foreign exchange transaction purchasing this 30,000 sterling. And Ahern also has no documentary evidence to support the assertion that he ever bought the 30,000 sterling from AIB.

So, it's entirely possible that if Larkin actually did lodge $45,000 in dollars as is being put forth by the Tribunal, then the 30,000 that Ahern had lodged to his and Larkin's accounts, 20,000 and 10,000 respectively...could actually have been the 30,000 sterling that Michael Wall gave to him in a briefcase.

From reading the Mahon transcripts...this is what it looks like to me.

If true, it means that Ahern used 10 grand of the Wall money to put into an account for expenses relating to the house...and then he pocketed the remaining 20 grand for himself.

Voipjunkie

JerkyBoy wrote:

The interesting thing is that if the money Larkin lodged was indeed $45,000 and not £30,000 sterling, then what did Ahern do with the 30k sterling he recieved from Michael Wall?

This could possibly be answered by two of the foriegn exchange transactions that Ahern made in sterling.
The first was a lodgement of precicely 10,000 sterling lodged to Larkin's 2nd account, the one for fitting out the house.
The second is a lodgement of 20,000 sterling lodged to Ahern's own account, which he claims was money unspent from the 50,000 paid to Larkin's 1st account and then subsequently withdrawn in cash back to Ahern.

Ahern admits that he made both of these sterling lodgements, amouting to a total of 30,000 sterling, to the tribunal and they are supported by the AIB dockets.

Now, the tricky part for Ahern is that he claims that he bought this 30,000 in sterling from AIB, and paid for it from the 50,000 that I just mentioned above.

However, AIB has NO record of Ahern making a foreign exchange transaction purchasing this 30,000 sterling. And Ahern also has no documentary evidence to support the assertion that he ever bought the 30,000 sterling from AIB.

So, it's entirely possible that if Larkin actually did lodge $45,000 in dollars as is being put forth by the Tribunal, then the 30,000 that Ahern had lodged to his and Larkin's accounts, 20,000 and 10,000 respectively...could actually have been the 30,000 sterling that Michael Wall gave to him in a briefcase.

From reading the Mahon transcripts...this is what it looks like to me.

If true, it means that Ahern used 10 grand of the Wall money to put into an account for expenses relating to the house...and then he pocketed the remaining 20 grand for himself.

That is exactly what it looks like

The IR£28772.90 is nothing to do with Micheal Wall or at least not to do with the £30,000 sterling Wall gave him.
That is what I meant by the House being a side issue the real and substantive issue is the IR£28772.90 on the face of it it appears highly likely that this was $45,000 which poses a major problem for Ahern as he has said he had no $ transactions.
That is what the tribunal seem to be saying this is not the Wall money so where did this come from. They aso appear to be dubious about the exactly IR£50,000 that appears with no explanation other than savings.

cast_iron

Glenbhoy wrote:

2. There has been a private interview between Ahern and the tribunal, in that interview, when asked about the dollar lodgement, Ahern's response was "I've never dealt in dollars", indeed, convincing. He had previously told the tribunal that the lodgement was STG30K, this was amended for general release to being STG circa 30K and IR£ Plug figure to make the IR£28772.90 which was lodged.

Like I said previously, it's entirely possible for the £30,000 stg to be made up of some of the £1921 stg odd and the rest in IR punts - even if Bertie did first say it was £30,000 at first. I was never involved in his affairs, so I can't say where all the punts would have came from. It doesn't mean he lied, but he may well have been mistaken.

Is it entirely fair that Mr Ahern was asked to say which lodgements were which almost 15 years, when he didn't really have a paper trail.
I know if you asked me about a FX transaction I did 15 odd years ago, I might have a bit of trouble remembering.

And I repeat, this whole £30,000 stg issue is out by just £1.32!

irish1 wrote:

My opinion or mind as you put it is formed based on the what SC for the Tribunal has stated, that includes what he has stated Ahern has said in a face to face interview with the Tribunal and what his accountants have provided in writtern replies on behalf of their client, it is alos based on what the SC has stated Celia Larkin an Michael Wall told the tribunal. It is also based on the statement Bertie Ahern issued through FF.

For a start, Larkin and Wall's recollection were just that, recollections of what happened almost 15 years ago - not plain facts, which people here use to their advantage when they can, and then say its okay to draw conclusions without fact when it suits their position. Though in fairness, when they all agreed it was £30,000 stg originally, it does make one wonder (not convict though).

irish1 wrote:

The new inquiry as you put it is only new to us the Tribunal have been investigating this for some time as is evident from the amount of information they have presented and the charge of $45,000 was put to Mr Ahern before the election and he replied to that charge in his written statment however the facts don't support his statement.

Fine, lets wait and see if he lied, or was mistaken as to why the transaction was out by £1.32 of £28772.90

Lennoxschips

And I repeat, this whole £30,000 stg issue is out by just £1.32!

No, only 2,000 odd in sterling was exchanged that day at the AIB branch, so it's more like he's out by 28,000.

He says he got 30k sterling in cash from Mr. Wall. If he could have only lodged a maximum of 2,000 of it according to AIB, what happened to the rest of the Wall sterling? And where did the rest of the money come from to make up the 28,772.90 punts deposit?

This is when two points become interesting...
Somebody who deposited $45,000 that day would have ended up with exactly 28,772.90 in their account. And:
The AIB branch did almost 29,000 punts worth of non-sterling exchanges that day.

cast_iron

Lennoxschips wrote:

No, only 2,000 odd in sterling was exchanged that day at the AIB branch, so it's more like he's out by 28,000.

He says he got 30k sterling in cash from Mr. Wall.

No, he now claims it was both sterling and punts to the order of aprox £30,000. He doesn't give a breakdown of how much of each, so the math allows it.

Lennoxschips wrote:

If he could have only lodged a maximum of 2,000 of it according to AIB, what happened to the rest of the Wall sterling? And where did the rest of the money come from to make up the 28,772.90 punts deposit?

If you are asking me, I already answered that.

Lennoxschips wrote:

This is when two points become interesting...
Somebody who deposited $45,000 that day would have ended up with exactly 28,772.90 in their account. And:
The AIB branch did almost 29,000 punts worth of non-sterling exchanges that day.

Indeed.

Voipjunkie

cast_iron wrote:

No, he now claims it was both sterling and punts to the order of aprox £30,000. He doesn't give a breakdown of how much of each, so the math allows it.

Except in order for that to be the case then most of the money would have been in punts over 26,000 punts yet Mr Wall says the money came from cash that his Business in Manchester accumulated and hence he can not show any paper transaction of him withdrawing the money from a bank account.
Does it not seem odd that a coach hire business in manchester would have 26,000 punts in cash. That is completely ignoring the fact that Ahern and Wall said it was cash sterling.

Also is it not a Bizarre coincidence that the exact amount of money deposited on behalf of Ahern on 4 ocassions equate exactly to amounts of punts you would get get in round foreign exchange transactions and that the bank in question on those days did have foreign exchange transactions that would allow for that but on the day that Ahern claims £30,000 sterling was deposited it could not have happened.


Lastly Gilmartin made an allegation that O'Callaghan told him he had paid Ahern £80,000 made up of a £50,000 and a £30,000 and that it transpires that Ahern has £50,000 that is undocumented that he claims to have saved. and then this lodgement which is not possible that it is £30,000 sterling that is very close to 30,000 which if it is not the wall money it is again undocumented and that these add up to very nearly £80,000 and they are in 2 separate amounts just as Gilmartin claimed but he would have had no Knowledge of Mr Aherns accounts when he made this claim but on investigation into Aherns accounts there appears at this stage to be nearly £80,000 that Ahern can provide not documentary prove of where it came from..

Glenbhoy

Okay, leaving aside the substantive issue here, what do you all make of the PD's assertion, that this is not enough to stop them forming a government with FF and in particular not enough to stop them voting for Ahern as taoiseach?
Is this a tactical decision on their part? In other words they realise that their time a 'moral watchdog' is at an end and the only chance the party has, is by aligning themselves with Bert, in the forlorn hope he can ride this one out.
On a side issue, where has Bert been all week?

Villain

Well I think the PD's know their bargaining power is greatly reduced with only having two votes available to them so I think they may do or say whatever is needed to stay in Government.

I would be much more interested to see what the Greens take on this is, I mean they have being saying one of their main policies is to clean up politics even if Biffo says FF don't need anyone to clean them up I think they might be a little worried by the tribunal and what a vote for Bertie as Taosieach would look like.

Lennoxschips

On a side issue, where has Bert been all week?

I'd say that despite the united front being presented in public, a lot of **** is hitting the fan over at Fianna Fail at the moment. They're probably behind closed doors at each other's necks over this.

Villain

I believe the Taoiseach is in Berlin today for talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

cast_iron

irish1 wrote:

Well I think the PD's know their bargaining power is greatly reduced with only having two votes available to them so I think they may do or say whatever is needed to stay in Government.

I think the PDs may well accept Bertie for now, and be willing to let him have his say (later) before kicking up a fuss. They have to, as if they don't get into Govt now, they may well be dissolved as a party.
That would only leave the Independents as potential stumbling blocks for a FF lead Govt.

lostexpectation

so this tom gilmartin fella, what his motivation it so long ago I forgotten if I ever read how the tribunal started, now its been delayed and he's 71.. you see him smiling and walking out of the court did he really mean to start sometihng that would take up 10 years of his life?