Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Concoct is the new "Is"

What to make of Karlheinz Schreiber's first day of testimony into the public inquiry about the no longer secret payments he made to Brian Mulroney? All I can say is that Schreiber's version of events gets more fantastic every time he tells the story -- except now he's under oath, and he's been directly accused of not telling the whole story when he did not reveal until recently he actually met with Mulroney at the Harrington Lake retreat.

Schreiber says he has a problem with the word "concoct," in describing the now infamous "Britan" account where he stashed a half million to be later withdrawn by Mulroney. What else does one call it? And was the withdrawal $300,000 or $225,000; and who in their right mind hands over that much money in an envelope without at least asking for a receipt?

"Concoct" is the new "Is." If you know what I mean. Both Schreiber and Mulroney have a lot to answer for. I can't wait to hear Mulroney's version of events -- under oath.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.


penlan said...

Why do I have the creepy feeling that "under oath" will mean nothing to Mulroney? He's lied under oath before it seems.

BlastFurnace said...

I have to agree, Penlan. Funny thing about the truth -- it's absolute. That both men have changed their stories so many times means anything they say now is not worthy of belief.