The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)

oscarBravo

As all the most interesting main players to the current module of this tribunal are due to start giving evidence in the coming weeks, (early september 07 onwards),Please keep all discussion pertaining to the tribunal in this sticky thread.
All threads started on the subject outside of this thread will be deleted.

Please post sensibly.
By that I mean strictly keep your own comments to being your own opinion and reason out your posts.
Do not attack other posters.
The moderators of this board if they see something posted that they think does not conform to the above instruction may edit or delete posts in this thread if they see fit.

#Thread now open#
Please also be mindfull of the discussion on pages 8 and 9 of the discussion on the rules thread as a more indepth guideline as to what we will allow or disallow in this thread.

[EDITED for clarity as people dont seem to be able to follow a simple instruction to read pages 8 and 9 of the rules thread]

That thread makes things very clear on those pages:
Specifically

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm really not sure how to make myself any clearer without typing more slowly: accusations of lying are a special case on this forum and will not be tolerated without proof. Accusations of all sorts of other things can be argued about on their merits, but I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

Once again: clear? I don't give a goddamn rat's ass. I'm talking specifically about accusations of lying. It doesn't matter whether anything else is better, worse or indifferent - we'll deal with them on their merits. I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

Now: is any of this unclear in any way?

and this

I'd have thought it obvious that unproven crimes cannot be thrown around as accusations here either-but I'll repeat that too for clarity.Accusing someone of a crime without proof of what you may even think might be a crime (as crimes are the subject of a legal process) are most definitely not allowed here.
Thank you.

Mr.Nice Guy

Whoops didn't see this sticky which I guess is why my post got deleted. Apologies. Anyone I found this very interesting:

Ahern’s former partner tells tribunal of 'bundles of cash'

The former partner of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Mahon Tribunal today that she saw bundles of sterling cash on a desk in his constituency office while he was finance minister in 1994.

Mr Ahern took some of the notes in his arms and went to a safe in a back office, the tribunal heard.

Ms Larkin has already admitted lodging in a bank account almost £30,000 given to Mr Ahern by the future owner of the Dublin home he was about to rent. The money was due to be spent on refurbishment work on the property.

In a packed tribunal courtroom at Dublin Castle, Ms Larkin today recalled how Manchester businessman Michael Wall gave Mr Ahern the cash in his Drumcondra constituency office.

“Part of the money was on the table. Bertie was bringing some into the back office. I presume into the safe,” she said.

“I didn’t take note of the denominations. I saw notes and they were sterling notes. There were a few bundles, one or two on top of each other.

She added: “I was surprised to see cash on the table. It wasn’t something that I would see every day.”

Mr Ahern’s personal finances dominated his the General Election campaign in May and he was forced to issue a statement with supporting documents relating to his home.

The Taoiseach is due to give evidence tomorrow and Friday in a politically-charged week at the tribunal.

Tribunal counsel Henry Murphy SC claimed that Ms Larkin had given three different versions of how Mr Wall’s money was lodged in an Allied Irish Banks account through interviews and statements given to the inquiry.

But the witness insisted that her first account was later clarified by her as she pieced together the events in her head.

“They’re nonsense, aren’t they,” said Mr Murphy of some recollections.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhcwqleysney/

Any thoughts on this latest development? I reckon our 'Teflon Taoiseach' is looking in a very fragile position. He's a chancer.

Well nice to see the thread hit the off!

Thats a much better put post than the one that was deleted.Please everyone do not directly accuse anyone being discussed in this thread of anything that has not been proven.
I'm fine with saying things like-it doesn't look good based on X's testimony or that of y etc.

It is possible to get your opinion across in that way.
But please be mindfull that if you were reporting on something thats on going,you'd have to hear what the other sides says aswell.

The tribunal will be doing that before reaching a conclusion.

You Suck!

Please everyone do not directly accuse anyone being discussed in this thread of anything that has not been proven.

Thats unfortunate, however if its an attempt to prevent trolling and maintain civil discussion, then I grudgingly accept. I sincerely hope its not for the sake of liability or fear of political repercussion, because regardless we are the public and are not as such bound by journalistic concerns and should be free to express what are opinions and not statement of fact.

Regardless, let me get the ball rolling. Will we by any chance be lucky enough to get a statistical probability on what the chances of a bundle of random cash being the equivalent to $45'000 to the penny for that particular days exchange rate. Bah to this legal bull! To me, the mathematical logic is as good an indictment as is needed that something is not forthcoming.

cast_iron

You Suck! wrote:

I sincerely hope its not for the sake of liability or fear of political repercussion, because regardless we are the public and are not as such bound by journalistic concerns and should be free to express what are opinions and not statement of fact.

Indeed we are the public, and you can make any outlandish statements you wish - in public. But this is a privately owned website, and (from a legal point of view), the owners are liable for anything you may publish - on this site. Sad, but true (as a current legal action by a certain company against boards.ie proves), which is why boards.ie is very careful on these matters.

You Suck! wrote:

Regardless, let me get the ball rolling. Will we by any chance be lucky enough to get a statistical probability on what the chances of a bundle of random cash being the equivalent to $45'000 to the penny for that particular days exchange rate. Bah to this legal bull! To me, the mathematical logic is as good an indictment as is needed that something is not forthcoming.

Until we see the formulae used by Ahern's legal team, it's hard to judge what went on.

You Suck!

Indeed we are the public, and you can make any outlandish statements you wish - in public. But this is a privately owned website, and (from a legal point of view), the owners are liable for anything you may publish - on this site.

As yet to be tested, especially given the international nature of the wed. I do agree that as boards is a privately owned website it has a right to dictate it's own terms of usage, However private ownership also emparts a desire not to have to endure external censorship and I suspect that some of the mod's and maybe even admin dislike external interferance.

Sad, but true (as a current legal action by a certain company against boards.ie proves), which is why boards.ie is very careful on these matters.

My best wishs to boards on this one, for all our sakes.

Until we see the formulae used by Ahern's legal team, it's hard to judge what went on.

I thought the implication was that there is no formula..........somehow randomly celia ahern deposited IR£28,772.90 which just somehow coincidently amounts to the exchange of $45'000 on that particular day. The formulae we should be concerned with here are those of probability. And I somehow suspect that Ms.Ahern was not couting out tens, pounds and coins on that particular day just to score what can only be called an extraordinary coincidence.

Or so the high counsel would put it......

meglome

I haven't had a chance to follow this fully but it's ****ing ridiculous. I realise we can't at this point be positive how the money was broken down but on the basis of probability I’d go along with the Tribunals numbers. Of course we haven't had the rest of the misdirection from the very forgetful people in the spotlight.

We should have a poll to see if anyone believes the tripe that Ahern and Co are dishing out. I don't want to be cynical but how many times can you change a story based on the facts placed in front of you. I'm not party political whatsoever but it really bothers me that the leader of the country can appear so blatantly dishonest.

El Stuntman

one thing that has struck me on this is the position of AIB. Their officials are pretty much sticking to their guns that the story that Bertie and his legal team are spinning does not tie in with the facts as they know them.
Well done AIB. (for once)

Fair play to them on this - especially when you have Bertie's legal team contacting them privately in order to 'clarify' matters. That must be a huge amount of implied pressure on these poor guys who are just trying to do their jobs. Not to mention the pressure on the AIB bigwigs when you are effectively spearing the incumbent Taoiseach's tall tales.

I just wonder that if these hearings had taken place 20 years ago and you replace BA with CJH, would records have been conveniently misplaced and bank officials memories become clouded under questioning?

changed times and all for the good imo...

Lennoxschips

Regardless, let me get the ball rolling. Will we by any chance be lucky enough to get a statistical probability on what the chances of a bundle of random cash being the equivalent to $45'000 to the penny for that particular days exchange rate.

The $45,000 thing is a moot point (for now). Ahern said at the tribunal it was Sterling that was deposited. But the AIB records show that that much Sterling wasn't bought that day (what was it again, only 2,000 or so worth handled by the branch?).

So either AIB's records are incorrect or Ahern is not telling the truth. That's basically what it boils down to, it would seem. So first we need to figure out which of those two it is. After that, the $45,000 thing becomes interesting.

In any other country he'd be a gonner already, but this is Ireland we're talking about.

mike65

The tribunal has demanded a third day of Ahern and he's looking like chap who might needs some 'rope time' as he gathers himself for the next round.

from ireland.com

In relation to the sterling, he said he may not have lodged all the money he was given in Manchester, or may have added more sterling, including small sterling notes, before adding the sterling to the money lodged.

When Mr O'Neill said he was "somewhat baffled" as to why Mr Ahern's account varied considerably since his interview in April, Mr Ahern said: "I think there is very little difference." However, he agreed that the effect of the changes was to render "meaningless" an analysis by the tribunal of his earlier account of the lodgement.

Perfect example of Berties tactics, juts keep the truth a fast moving target and hope it won't be hit. The result being that when it is, he looks like an a shifty idiot.

This sums up Ahern for me.

An Taoisach moaning about cradle to grave trawling is laughable. Apart from being a typical "poor me" exaggeration when you start to follow a money trial but can't stop at a point thats handy for the target. The image of Bertie with wads of filfthy lucre spilling out of sock drawers and Duffle coat pockets gets ever stronger for me.

Mike.

mike65

Does the concept of perjury exist in a tribunal? Is an oath taken?

Mike.

Rock Climber

mike65 wrote:

Does the concept of perjury exist in a tribunal? Is an oath taken?

Mike.

I'm not sure that it does.
I do know that it's the tribunals job to determine things like that.

1 post deleted by the way as per the instructions on how this thread is to be conducted.

mike65

To answer my own 'question' the answer appears to be yes. An oath of truth and potential for perjury is mentioned in cross examination between the lawyers for the Tribunal and Tom Gilmartin in a pdf transcript.

Mike.

Akrasia

Today Bertie Ahern said it was more likely that he gave the money to someone to change in small instalments on his behalf, which would make the transaction almost untraceable.

The Taoiseach agreed that there were not many people to whom he would entrust this large transaction, but he said none of the people to whom he could have given it had been able to confirm what happened.

Is this the biggest change of story yet from Mr Ahern?

He has done a complete U-Turn on the purchase of STG £30,000 from the AIB O Connell street which he had claimed was to be used to pay back Mr Wall his own money in relation to the purchase of a house that he may or may not have decided not to buy.

When no back records exist to back up his story, he changes his story to something that is untracable and uses an aliby of some un named individual who he admits would not be able to back him up if asked.

It makes absolutely no sense for Ahern to exchange small amounts of cash when there is a discount the more money is exchanged. It makes absolutely no sense that he would trust someone to make multiple small withdrawals but not trust them to make one withdrawal, and it makes even less sense that someone would not remember being asked to conduct a series of transactions rather than a single one.


Ahern still hasn't produced the 'Magic formula' that he mentioned before the election that would clear up the issue once and for all. It makes one believe that this magic formula never existed at all.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Ahern still hasn't produced the 'Magic formula' that he mentioned before the election that would clear up the issue once and for all. It makes one believe that this magic formula never existed at all.

RTÉ was reporting at 5pm that BA has admitted that his magic formula was incorrect, and something about 67 different possibilities all of which have been proven to be incorrect? Was cooking at the time so didn't hear all of it.

Dirk Gently

out of interest, what (if any) would be the consequence if no conclusion can be reached on Ahern purely because of his moving of the goal posts each time. Does he just have to continue this tactic or is there some kind of cut off where they can force him to explain?

JerkyBoy

clown bag wrote:

out of interest, what (if any) would be the consequence if no conclusion can be reached on Ahern purely because of his moving of the goal posts each time. Does he just have to continue this tactic or is there some kind of cut off where they can force him to explain?

This is clearly what his team are aiming for...just keep changing the story enough so that he always has an out for each of the transactions.
"It could have been this or it could have been this...I don't remember".

By not committing to a story he then cannot be comprehensively contradicted.

Similar to the Joe O Reilly murder trial.
The guards have said that had O' Reilly simply changed his story and said, "yes I went home for a few minutes at one point that morning", or "no, I didn't have my mobile with me all day", then they would not have been able to convict because they wouldn't have been able to catch him in a lie.
A simple fudging of the facts and he would have gotten away with murder...but it wouldn't have meant he wasn't guilty.

Bertie on the other hand is dishing out the fudge like Willy Wonky...hence...he'll get away with it.

However, even though they may not be able to nail him on the payments, the Tribunal may criticize him in a way that is very politically damaging.

Who knows...he's some chancer!

mike65

The only thing one can say with some confidence is that someone is not telling the truth. Beyond that, its gets harder. Ahern is certainly laying down enough smoke.

Incredible to think a man with such a dodgy memory was in charge of the nations finances.

Mike.

oscarBravo

One thing shocked me. Over the weekend I saw the results of a poll that said something like 59% of people thought that Bertie should resign if he was found to have lied to the Tribunal.

That means two in five people think that he shouldn't resign if he's found to have lied.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

JerkyBoy

oscarBravo wrote:

One thing shocked me. Over the weekend I saw the results of a poll that said something like 59% of people thought that Bertie should resign if he was found to have lied to the Tribunal.

That means two in five people think that he shouldn't resign if he's found to have lied.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

2 in 5 is 40%
Look at the election results...not a coincidence.

mike65

Well thats no surprise, its the same 40% who were Charlie Men. FF is FF until the ends of the earth and thier family is loyal like mafia clan.

Am I right in saying that Bertie did'nt have a driving licence since the 80s?

Mike.

Dave!

The Dail is starting back shortly aint it? And the opposition parties have been alot more critical of the Taoiseach in the past couple of weeks than they were throughout the election campaign (obviously). It's been suggested that they'll start a vote of no confidence, what do ye think?

Can't forsee that or anybody calling for his resignation just yet, but I really wish they would tear him apart over this. Even if he didn't lie, all of this cash floating about is just ridiculous and highly inappropriate for a public representative in such a high position. Then you consider poor Ivor Callely...

They should be ripping him apart! We're not in the midst of an election, they can really stop being so bloody cautious now.

mike65

mike65 wrote:

Well thats no surprise, its the same 40% who were Charlie Men. FF is FF until the ends of the earth and thier family is loyal like mafia clan.

Am I right in saying that Bertie did'nt have a driving licence since the 80s?

Mike.

When he was on the opposition benches his Ministerial Charioteer was given to someone else, and he was apparently driving himself around.

cast_iron

oscarBravo wrote:

That means two in five people think that he shouldn't resign if he's found to have lied.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

I think they may have misunderstood the question. Perhaps some of them were thinking it meant "if he gave incorrect information to the Tribunal".
The fact that the possible lies have nothing to do with the Tribunal investigations may also be in Bertie's favour.

An irrelevant question really, as it will be almost impossible to prove just who (if anyone) is lying.

The whole situation is all the more strange, as now Tom Gilmartin claims these are not his allegations - he is just relaying what Eoin O'Callaghan told him.

So his evidence amounts to hearsay?

Dave!

ooooohhhhhhhh......... Eamon Gilmore has just been on Newstalk calling for the Taoiseach to resign! Fine Gael should now echo those sentiments, and then the Greens will have to put pressure on FF to get rid of Bertie. If they don't then they'll lose any credibility they have (already).

Surely Bertie won't try to weather this... He's been a huge asset to the party, but I can't imagine FF would be too eager too hang onto him any longer.

Paddy Power are giving 5/4 for him to be the next leader to resign... No odds on the timeframe though

Akrasia

cast_iron wrote:

I think they may have misunderstood the question. Perhaps some of them were thinking it meant "if he gave incorrect information to the Tribunal".
The fact that the possible lies have nothing to do with the Tribunal investigations may also be in Bertie's favour.

An irrelevant question really, as it will be almost impossible to prove just who (if anyone) is lying.

The whole situation is all the more strange, as now Tom Gilmartin claims these are not his allegations - he is just relaying what Eoin O'Callaghan told him.

So his evidence amounts to hearsay?

Gilmartin has always made that position clear that he is only reporting elements of conversations he has had down through the years.

Hearsay is a complicated legal concept. There are exemptions in terms of Police informers as well as for Whistleblowers who are reporting acts of illegality carried out by others.

Gilmartin already has a track record of honesty through the flood tribunal which has already exposed a lot of corruption in public life, and this gives him more legitimacy than other third parties who might make similar accusations.

JerkyBoy

One thing I don't get is how he is not called out on each of his stories as none of them add up.

Especially the "dig-out"\"whip-around"\"loan" stories.
Just take that example for now...

This is all fact: (all verifiable in Tribunal transcripts)
Bertie took out a loan from AIB in Dec 93 for around 19,000 to pay his legal bills, which were around 19,000. So his legal bills were at this point paid.
At this time he had also accumulated 50,000 in cash savings which could have more than paid off his AIB loan, not to mention the lack of need for a loan in the first place as he could have met his legal bills with this 50,000 in cash.

Around this time he gets 22,500 from friends, which he now claims was a loan to help pay his legal bills (or pay off his AIB loan which covered his legal bills), but in reality he lodged it to his account, and did not proceed to pay back his AIB loan until 18 months later. That's another matter.

But look at what he's claiming here:
He took out a single loan from, from a single source, AIB, to cover his legal fees.
Then he takes several different loans, from several different sources ("friends"), to pay off his single loan to AIB.
Remember this is all while he has 50,000 in cash savings (even though Bertie pretended on RTE that he got money while he was in financial trouble.)

So while normal people who have multiple loans tend to take out a single loan, called consolidation, to reduce their multiple loans into one loan...here we have Bertie with enough money to meet his bills in cash, decides to take a single loan to pay the bills, then claims to have taken multiple loans to pay off the single loan (but doesn't do so in the end).

This, for someone who is meant to be an accountant and Minister for Finance, just does not make any logical, rational, or practical sense whatsoever.

He goes against all good financing practice here by doing this.
Most people consolidate loans...here Bertie, an accountant, was spreading his single loan out among mutliple lenders.

And also these multiple "loans", from "friends", were never paid back until he was caught out for taking the money 13 years later, another matter.

So it really stretches credulity that this 22,500 was an amalgamation of loans taken to pay off his AIB loan.

This is also another case where Bertie changed his story.
Bertie initially claimed the money was given by his friends to help him buy a house.
Des Peelo's report said it was given to help pay Bertie's legal fees.
Bertie again said that it was for his house.
Then Bertie changes his mind and claims the Peelo version is the actual version of events.

Funny, coz that version is actually the least credible of the two.

In my opinion, he either had an insanely poor grasp of finances (for a Finance Minister) or he's being deceitful about where the 22,500 came from and what is was for.

mike65

A government spokesman declined to comment on whether Mr Ahern had a driving licence at the time.

However, Mr Ahern has previously confirmed that he does not hold a driving licence due to his almost continuous use of a State car and driver for the last 20 years.

The reason I wondered about his licence was cos if he drove Larkin to the bank while not licenced then he was also not insured I think.

Mike.

cast_iron

Akrasia wrote:

Hearsay is a complicated legal concept. There are exemptions in terms of Police informers as well as for Whistleblowers who are reporting acts of illegality carried out by others.

I'm not sure of the legal defn of the term, but whistleblowers usually have phtsically seen (or been closely involved in) something - not just "he told me...."
To me, it sounds like nothing but hearsay.

Akrasia wrote:

Gilmartin already has a track record of honesty through the flood tribunal which has already exposed a lot of corruption in public life, and this gives him more legitimacy than other third parties who might make similar accusations.

I never claimed he wasn't honest, if someone tells me a lie, and I relay it to someone else, that doesn't make me dishonest.
But he has changed and withdrawn a few of the "allegations" or whatever they were.


@JerkyBoy:
All god and well, but what does it prove? That his finances were a shambles and it's all highly dubious? Yes. That he took bribes or did anything else illegal? Apparently not.

cast_iron

mike65 wrote:

The reason I wondered about his licence was cos if he drove Larkin to the bank while not licenced then he was also not insured I think.

About as relevant today as whether Brian Cowen took a spliff in the '70s.

JerkyBoy

cast_iron wrote:

@JerkyBoy:
All god and well, but what does it prove? That his finances were a shambles and it's all highly dubious? Yes. That he took bribes or did anything else illegal? Apparently not.

What does it prove?...nothing. Proving corruption is exceptionally difficult.
There are rarely receipts and IOUs crossing palms when bribes are given...so we rarely have hard evidence or proof.

But what it suggests is that, if Bertie ahern was not a completely inept individual where finance is concerned (being the Minister of Finance and an accountant would seem to support that), then he is being deceitful about where that money came from and what it was given for.

If the explanation was entirely innocent, and credible, it would have been given.
This suggests, to me, that it is concealing a truth that is less than innocent.

I don't think we will see proof that Ahern took corrupt payments...that's pretty clear from the evidence we've seen...but it does indicate that Ahern's large lodgements did not originate from where\whom he claims...and this lends credence to the corruption allegations.

Let's not forget also that Bertie Ahern took actions, very specific and oddly timed actions, as Finance Minister, that directly benefitted Owen O'Callahan to the tune of millions of pounds.

There's a lot of smoke.

Dave!

cast_iron wrote:

@JerkyBoy:
All god and well, but what does it prove? That his finances were a shambles and it's all highly dubious? Yes. That he took bribes or did anything else illegal? Apparently not.

It doesn't have to prove that he took a bribe. The fact that such a high ranking government minister has been engaging in transactions that could have bought him a few houses at the time, and he can't give a plausible explanation for it, as well as that he can't account for huge lodgements made on his behalf, is grounds enough for his dismissal in my books.

meglome

I really am incredulous at this point. I appreciate that people may support one political party over another but the way people are patting Bertie on the back the whole time is getting on my nerves. I'm not party political whatsoever so I'm only looking at this from the point of view of justice and fairness. In what reality is it okay for the leader of a country to have such dodgy financial dealings. Seriously we'd be saying how terrible it was if this was happening in some third world country with such inequality in those countries. But when Bertie was holding all this money under his mattress people in Ireland didn't have the kind of money they have today so there was plenty of inequality. It really is making me angry that no one in the whole Fianna Fail party will say anything bad about it. His story is a joke. I'm at the point where I'll never vote for those ****ers again ever, unless the opposition are all crack addicts. Rant over.

Mr.Nice Guy

meglome wrote:

I really am incredulous at this point. I appreciate that people may support one political party over another but the way people are patting Bertie on the back the whole time is getting on my nerves. I'm not party political whatsoever so I'm only looking at this from the point of view of justice and fairness. In what reality is it okay for the leader of a country to have such dodgy financial dealings. Seriously we'd be saying how terrible it was if this was happening in some third world country with such inequality in those countries. But when Bertie was holding all this money under his mattress people in Ireland didn't have the kind of money they have today so there was plenty of inequality. It really is making me angry that no one in the whole Fianna Fail party will say anything bad about it. His story is a joke. I'm at the point where I'll never vote for those ****ers again ever, unless the opposition are all crack addicts. Rant over.

The fact that people in the gallery applauded when Ahern said he couldn't remember what he had done with his finances shows how f*cked up this country really is.

O'Cuiv on Questions and Answers the other night was a disgrace as well saying that sometimes people forget things. As Brian Hayes pointed out, "you don't forget what you did with £50,000."

The really sad thing is that in a few month's time they'll probably do a poll and Ahern will come out as the most popular leader in the country. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damn pathetic.

meglome

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

O'Cuiv on Questions and Answers the other night was a disgrace as well saying that sometimes people forget things. As Brian Hayes pointed out, "you don't forget what you did with £50,000."

O'Cuiv was terrible on Questions and Answers. That was the least convincing political performance I've seen in quite a while (leaving aside Bertie). I enjoyed Brian Hayes ripping into him.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The really sad thing is that in a few month's time they'll probably do a poll and Ahern will come out as the most popular leader in the country. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damn pathetic.

Sadly I agree.

patrickc

bertie is as corrupt as CJ ive always said and and I'll always maintain it

Mexicola

DaveMcG wrote:

It doesn't have to prove that he took a bribe. The fact that such a high ranking government minister has been engaging in transactions that could have bought him a few houses at the time, and he can't give a plausible explanation for it, as well as that he can't account for huge lodgements made on his behalf, is grounds enough for his dismissal in my books.

I couldnt have said it better myself.

JerkyBoy

After reading the transcripts of Bertie's final day before the Tribunal it's clear to me that the Larkin lodgment is now most likely 45,000 dollars.

Bertie maintained all along that he had a magic mathematical formula which would prove that the transaction had to be sterling. That formula, Bertie has now conceeded before the Tribunal, doesn't stand up and is not applicable.

Bertie claimed there were 67 possibilities which proved his case...each of the 67 has been blown out of the water, and Bertie Ahern has agreed with the Tribunal that this is so.

Bertie also said he retained an expert who would prove that the lodgement was not dollars.
It turns out this expert merely expressed his opinion that it was not dollars. The expert report contained no formulas, facts or figures...just opinion and belief. Incredible!!!

Judging from what I've read from the Tribunal's questioning and testimony...I reckon they're gonna rule that the lodgement was in their opinion, weighing all the possibilites and probabilites, most likely a 45,000 dollar transaction. They have effectively shown that it could not have been sterling.

Dave!

http://newstalk.ie/newstalk/news/806/fine-gael-to-table-motion-of-no-confidence-in-the-taoiseach.html

Fine Gael gonna table a motion of no confidence!

The Dáil resumes at 2.30pm I believe.

walshb

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe the whole tribunal and everything to do with it is an absolute disgrace. It's a money racket and at the end of the day, Ahern will never resign and will NOT be found guilty of any crime because the tribunal is a sham. Those solicitors will drag and drag and drag it out as long as possible, because ultimately, they are the winneres as they are the ones earning massive amounts of taxpayers money. Ahern's got the full backing of his party and the greens, which makes it very difficult to get to the truth.

All it takes is for one person with an ounce of honesty to stand up and say enouh is enough. I believe Ahern is not fit to be leading our country. There are simply too many inconsistencies in his testimony and he did wrong IMO.
Maybe not criminally, but for the leader of the country, surely we can expect the highest standards.

If this was Britain, he'd never have even made it to the witnes box. He'd be sacked....

Jonny Arson

DaveMcG wrote:

http://newstalk.ie/newstalk/news/806/fine-gael-to-table-motion-of-no-confidence-in-the-taoiseach.html

Fine Gael gonna table a motion of no confidence!

about time, in my opinion this is coming 12 months too late, maybe a smack of opportunitism from FG but this motion has to be submitted and it is clear to any rationally thinking person that Ahern is not fit to be Taoiseach for his constant changing of versions of his story under oath, failing to fully cooperate with the tribunal... etc. etc.

not a chance in hell of this passing unless Greens/PDs want to pull out of government or a FF backbench rebellion occurs

with FF certain to propose a counter motion of confidence in Ahern this will firmly nail everyone's colours to the mast over this Ahern saga...... if the Greens vote for this they can't go back on it and i'm certain this WILL be a day they are going to regret for a long long time...... same goes for other Ahern money affair critics pre-May 2007 such as Finian McGrath

either way this motion of no confidence from FG sets out the opposition's stall for this Dail term, they have to go out all guns blazing not only over Ahern but Health, Economy etc.

Red Alert

I noticed over on breakingnews.ie that 'pairing' will occur with opposition TD's of FF'ers who are away on business. Is this mandatory or by gentleman's agreement? Surely if the matter is that serious then the opposition should make hay while the sun shines.

Mick86

walshb wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe the whole tribunal and everything to do with it is an absolute disgrace. .....There are simply too many inconsistencies in his testimony and he did wrong IMO.
Maybe not criminally, but for the leader of the country, surely we can expect the highest standards.

Without the tribunal, Aherns dodgy past would never have come to light.

Dave!

Apparantly the government have countered the opposition with a motion of confidence in the Taoiseach. The debate is going on now and the vote will be at 9pm.

You can stream the video live through the oireachtas.ie website.

The Taoiseach is speaking now.

Akrasia

Did I hallucinate, or did Bertie just say he had 20 bank accounts at the time when he claimed to the public and the tribunal that he had none?

This guy is a complete and utter joke.

walshb

Mick86 wrote:

Without the tribunal, Aherns dodgy past would never have come to light.

But don't you think it is purely going thru the motions?
I am not saying it is not needed. I am saying it's a farce and
is not asking the tough questions.
These people conducting the tribunal couldn't give a toss
what Bertie did or did not do. They still are getting
paid and the longer they drag it out, the more we will have to pay them.

It doesn't take a bleedin rocket scientist or a tribunal to tell me that Ahern
is BENT. That is obvious, and like I said previously, if it were Blair or Brown, there
would be no need for a long drawn out money racket tribunal.
Ahern has admitted to taking money, he knows it was wrong and we all know
it was wrong. His ministers Know and still he's riding it out, as are the whole lot of them...

Mick86

walshb wrote:

But don't you think it is purely going thru the motions?...

I'd say that it appears that Bertie has a case to answer. At this stage in a grown up country there would be a police investigation under way. In our "will you have a pint or a transfer" democracy, the police will only move when they have absolutely no other choice.

Do you wonder that the tribunals are just going through the motions. The people who run these things are from the ruling class. They attended the same schools more or less together. If the intention was to assign guilt we'd have a real trial but trials are for the little people, not for dodgy politicians. Tribunals are there to give the impression of taking action and to produce a huge amount of paper that no mortal will ever trawl through to find out for himself what went on.They also have the added attraction of prejudicing any potential criminal trial.

Mick86

Akrasia wrote:

Did I hallucinate, or did Bertie just say he had 20 bank accounts at the time when he claimed to the public and the tribunal that he had none?

This guy is a complete and utter joke.

Really. I thought he kept all his money under the mattress.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Did I hallucinate, or did Bertie just say he had 20 bank accounts at the time when he claimed to the public and the tribunal that he had none?

This guy is a complete and utter joke.

Breakingnews mention the 20 bank accounts him and his family had.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0926/breaking10.htm

He also denied allegations that he not co-operated with the tribunal and said he had unearthed a "valuminous" amount of information for the tribunal including details of more than 20 bank accounts in his and his family members' names.

Fuascailt

No confidence was defeated of course. Wouldn't it have been great if there was a backbencher rebellion?

The Irish have always had an affinity with the "rogue" or the "chancer". You know the likes of it "Sure he's a nice fella, we'll let him of with it" "sure he's done so much for the country" " Sure he doesnt show off any big money"In my opinion, these are the people who know nothing about politics.

Fianna Fáil has a culture of corruption. Jack Lynch was one of their only honest leaders, and he couldnt handle them. Remember how Charlie Haughey described Bertie "the most brilliant, the most cunning, the most devious of them all". I fell sorry for the honest FFers- Mícheal Martin, Brian Cowen and the like. They know full well what happened and are having to defend him, for fear of backlash from the people.
History will be the ultimate judge of Bertie Ahern.

There doesn't seem to have been any FFer's on this thread...

Dave!

God the Greens are a spineless bunch. After the moral highground they adopted during the election, they should be ripped apart in the media for this.

Look at this quote from Trevor Sargent:

“We cannot allow cynicism about our democratic system to grow. Shame on you, Taoiseach, for undermining the people’s trust. Shame on you for bringing the office of Taoiseach into disrepute,” Mr Sargent said.

“By anyone’s standards, including your own expressed standards, you should not be Taoiseach today. You have lost moral authority. What you have done is not right. It is unethical, improper, and not befitting of high office.”

And he finished by calling for the Taoiseach to resign: “I give you your choices, Taoiseach: take positive action to clean up Irish politics. Do the decent thing and resign – or give the electorate the choice between your politics and mine.”
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWQLSNEYIDKF

What the HELL?!?! They've lost any credibility as far as I'm concerned. Trevor Sargent resigned as leader so that he wouldn't have to lead the Greens into government with FF. Now, with more damning facts emerging from the tribunal, he votes for a motion of confidence in the same person.

What a sham of a man.

I hope to god the media have the sack to tear these people apart.

I'm appalled today. The Greens have nailed their colours to the mast, and I hope they go down with the boat.