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

Dave!

I'll certainly not be giving them a preference in future.

john grace

i am only barely begining to be interested in polotics. I feel that you have to have a certain life experiance behind you before you would develop a natural interest in this area.Once you begin to pay taxes and care about how your world is around you, can you discuss things in this crucial area of public life. This is a beginning for me so i hope the people who have become disillusionshioned or cynial can have patience and discuss with me the events of the day. i am only learning about this great world.

I am a keen follower of sport so to talk tactics is a parlance i understand. why did fine gael call a no confidence motion if they knew it was never going to win. i presume there was a game plan behind it? to make the greeens lay down a voted position on the events ??

so now as i try to understand what is going on..i hear brian cowen talking about the people having decided and giving mandates etc, but clearly cowen is talking ****e since the ff party spent most of the election deflecting any questions re berties payments as something for the futue tribunals to sort out. now if the people did not have this info in advance the only manadate bertie got was that at that time people thought he could explain himself. if cowen wants to keep on talking of mandates let him have another post tribunal election,

democracy in this country is as weak as in the dark days of 1928-32

meglome

Mick86 wrote:

And rightly so. Without the Greens the Government would have lost the Motion of No Confidence. Green hypocrisy is keeping FF corruption in power.

I meant more from the point of view that Fianna Fail should be hit hard but it'll end up being the Greens that actually take the fall. But after all their election talk about Bertie it's disgusting that they supported him even though he really does have a case to answer. Is there any integrity in Irish politics?

Dave!

john grace wrote:

I am a keen follower of sport so to talk tactics is a parlance i understand. why did fine gael call a no confidence motion if they knew it was never going to win. i presume there was a game plan behind it? to make the greeens lay down a voted position on the events ??

so now as i try to understand what is going on..i hear brian cowen talking about the people having decided and giving mandates etc, but clearly cowen is talking ****e since the ff party spent most of the election deflecting any questions re berties payments as something for the futue tribunals to sort out. now if the people did not have this info in advance the only manadate bertie got was that at that time people thought he could explain himself. if cowen wants to keep on talking of mandates let him have another post tribunal election,

democracy in this country is as weak as in the dark days of 1928-32

I guess the no confidence motion gave people a chance to dissent, but yes I think the main reason was to embaress the greens and have them take some of the hit if anything is uncovered about Bertie.

There was information out about the payments before the election, I think particularly the "whiparound" and the Manchester payment, but people still voted them back in. There have been other revelations since then and Bertie has been before the Tribunal, but I don't think that anything has been revealed that would cause real FFers to change their mind.

I'm not sure what would happen if there was an election tomorrow... FF would probably stay the same, but the Greens could lose some seats possibly.

JerkyBoy

It appears that the motion by Fine Gael was designed more to stick it to the Greens than to stick it to Bertie.

I think it was a bad move...there are many questions arising from Ahern's testimony that should be put to him now that he's given his evidence. Before the election he couldn't be probed on it because he said he had yet to respond to the tribunal and it would be inappropriate to answer in public, but now that he has given his evidence and he claims to have given "a full discloure" and that he's happy with his performance...it should now be open season on him.
He has no excuse now to dodge questions. Everything is now in the public domain.

And there are so many holes in his stories that it would be like shooting fish in a barrel...a few days of relentless questioning and he'd be on the ropes.

But no...Fine Gael squander a chance to roast Ahern properly and look for real answers just so they can take a swipe at the Greens.

Pathetic!!!
It's such a pity we don't have a competent opposition to take on our incompetent Goverment.

brianthebard

Mick86 wrote:

And rightly so. Without the Greens the Government would have lost the Motion of No Confidence. Green hypocrisy is keeping FF corruption in power.

I said it when they first announced talks that the greens were being brought into government purely to make up voting numbers. Five ministers were away on business at the time of the vote, can you imagine how it might have gone if the greens were in opposition. The worst thing is that they as a party have been taken in hook line and sinker, without once questioning their role in government. Gormley may claim not to be the moral guardians of the government but they have a duty to the Irish people who elected them to uphold morals and not to allow the Taoiseach to blatantly lie to us. Shame on them all, they will be destroyed in the next election (which I still believe will be sooner than five years) and it will only be too good for them if they don't even have the spine to stand up to Bertie and his gang.

JerkyBoy

Does anyone here believe that Bertie Ahern, alone among Burke, Lawlor, Haughey, Flynn, etc, didn't take money for personal gain?

Does anyone believe he came up through the ranks of Fianna Fail, during it's most corrupt days, without ever being involved in some form of corruption?

cast_iron

JerkyBoy wrote:

Does anyone believe he came up through the ranks of Fianna Fail, during it's most corrupt days, without ever being involved in some form of corruption?

Ok, does anyone here believe any of the politicians, who worked their way up through the ranks to top level politics, never told a lie or misled the public for political gain ever in there lives?

It's equally as relevant, if not more so in all those "holier than thou" crap going on here.

JerkyBoy

Big difference between misleading the public (what is every election campaign, but an exercise in misleading the public?) for political gain, and taking bribes for personal gain.

People usually find a way to excuse crooked politicians but this is lame...

And yeah, what's the problem with taking a "holier than thou" position...I'm not a crook...I have a right to demand that the politicians whose salaries we pay are working for us and not some crooked developers.

Jeez...how dare I?

cast_iron

JerkyBoy wrote:

Big difference between misleading the public (what is every election campaign, but an exercise in misleading the public?) for political gain, and taking bribes for personal gain.

I'm not trying to excuse any crooked person; just putting some perspective on the issue.
Of course there's a practical difference in the examples you mentioned, but I'm not on about a general election campaign; I'm on about the general cut and thrust of politics, in which honesty hardly a feature.

In any case, we can use your example, and the principle is EXACTLY the same when talking about ones credibility:
Is it okay to to take 50e but not 300k euro?
Is it okay to lie about/not disclose the 50e but not the 300k?
Is it ok to lie about/not disclose 50euro/300k, but knowingly (they ain't stupid) mislead the general public during a General Election?

The answer to all 3 questions is, of course, no. But you are suggesting answer 3 is yes, thus blowing your principle out of the water.

JerkyBoy wrote:

And yeah, what's the problem with taking a "holier than thou" position...I'm not a crook...I have a right to demand that the politicians whose salaries we pay are working for us and not some crooked developers.

Sorry, perhaps I could have phrased that better. I was actually refering to some politicains being holier than others (as opposed to ourselves - which may well be true, but is an argument for another day). Same logic as above applies.

Akrasia

Your argument rests on the idea that if they are permitted to commit one crime, then we should permit them to commit every crime.

(If they jaywalk and we let them get away with it, then we shouldn't be surprised of they go off and rape someone)

Do you not think there is a line somewhere that we should stand up if they try to cross it?

Politicians mislead people all the time, it's what they do, and we expect it of them... but when they come out and tell us blatant lies, it's a different league.

Politicians also pander to their own vested interests, we also expect that of them, we don't like it, but at least it's semi transparent, but when they are bought and paid for in secret by wealthy developers, that is across the line

cast_iron

Akrasia wrote:

Your argument rests on the idea that if they are permitted to commit one crime, then we should permit them to commit every crime.

(If they jaywalk and we let them get away with it, then we shouldn't be surprised of they go off and rape someone)

It may seem like semantics, but your analogy is flawed. Comparing jaywalking to rape is clearly unfair; I compared different degrees of the SAME crime, where the principle DOES remain the same.

Akrasia wrote:

Do you not think there is a line somewhere that we should stand up if they try to cross it?

Yes, and the country appears to be split as to where the line is in Bertie's case.

Akrasia wrote:

Politicians mislead people all the time, it's what they do, and we expect it of them... but when they come out and tell us blatant lies, it's a different league.

You are entering a grey area if implying BA is a liar. I'm not sure what you specifically meant here.

I would like to remind viewers and listeners of the first post in this thread.


There has been no proof presented whatsoever that Ahern has taken Bribes.
There has been evidence presented that he has been in receipt of large sums of money in the early 90's that so far lack an apparently suffecient explanation in the light of a statutory obligation to have one.
It's for the tribunal to decide whether legally [within it's remit] those funds constitute corrupt payments.

That said I must admit I'm not satisfied with the public explanation to date as to the origins of those funds.
My dissatisfaction does not stem however from a belief that Ahern has been involved in taking corrupt payments as theres been no evidence put foward for this.
My dissatisfaction arises out of whether I think a minister of Finance should have been conducting his affairs in the semi-secretive and bizarre way that he had been doing.

That said I do appreciate that it is possible that personal matters may have made him [mistakenly and unwisely inmho] conduct his affairs in the way that is so far becoming apparent from the tribunal.
If thats the case though and despite the effect it may have on his ex wife,he should come out and say it -rather than to continue to stretch credibility with a lack of memory of what went on.If that is the case he seems to be putting private face ahead of public face.Thats probably a laudable trait in itself but ultimately it would cost him dearly.
I'm not sure that matters now ,given that his interntions not to stand at the next election are clear.

In all honesty too, if it is a lack of memory and thats the line he maintains and if he feigns the acceptability of the way he did business back then,I'd have to conclude he's not the person for the top job that he has..At least I wouldnt hire him.
I can't give a definitive conclusion of my own on this of course untill the "bertie" module is over.

is_that_so

I think it is his reticence to have people "poking into his private life" that is driving him at present. I agree with the assertion that whatever he was up to, it was certainly not something anyone in his position should have been doing. It suggest an unfitness for office. It also makes me wonder why some "friend" did not see this coming and point out the folly of what he was about, as a public servant and minister. History will probably be kinder to him than to CJ and he'll retain that man of the people image, but politically he may find it expedient for his party to reverse towards the backbenches quicker.

JerkyBoy

cast_iron wrote:

I compared different degrees of the SAME crime, where the principle DOES remain the same.

How can you argue that providing the public with less than full information around tax policy and throwing around misleading soundbites is the same "crime" as taking a corrupt payment.

And no I am not suggesting that deliberately misleading the public on policy is ok.
I'm arguing that it's a HELL OF A LOT different than taking bribes...it's not even in the same league!
And you are the one who equated the two in the first place.

JerkyBoy

JerkyBoy wrote:

WTF?

The man had more cash to his name at the time than most people would earn in 4 years.

Give me a friggin break!

Is that the general gist of your problem? That he had cash ? more cash than you ?
Thats not a crime you know.

He should have had more sense regarding recording the cash though given the job he was in.Thats a more serious though not illegal transgression.
Serious in the sense that I mentioned 5 posts up.It displays in my opinion a muddled mind and a blazé attitude not befitting the job spec of a minister for finance.

mike65 wrote:

The green tide never happened and never will now
Mike.

Thats almost right but there might be a sinn Féin tide

JerkyBoy

JerkyBoy wrote:

I thought my problem was clear.
I could care less how much cash the man has...if he's earned it then fair play to him.

Well really your last post gave a different impression.

I cannot respond to a lot of your post which I've had to delete in it's entirity as its a complete bypass of the instructions for this thread as well as posting opinion as fact.Please be mindfull of this when replying on this thread.
I'll only respond to the bit below that I'm quoting.

Btw, do you deny that Ahern's sob story about having no money during that Brian Dobson interview was untrue?

Do you deny that at the time he took these payments from businessmen, far from having no money, he was already wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of the vast majority of Irish people?

Imagine even using the term "dig-out" with a straight face, when referring to a situation where tens of thousands of pounds are added to your kitty where you already have tens of thousands of pounds.
Astonishing.

Why are you bothering to ask me those questions ?
It's not for me to deny or confirm what I don't know.
All I can do is offer alternative opinions to your own.Neither is invalid as opinions go but neither of them could be entirely certain facts either.

I'll tell you something I do know though and that is there as many plausable spins you could put on the mish mash that Ahern has given to date besides calling him a liar.
I was talking to someone yesterday and for a few moments they couldnt remember George Hooks name-that doesn't make them a liar in relation to any of the facts they were using in relation to him-mistaken maybe-liar no.

Right.

I've had to delete more than a few posts now.
The next person to bypass the instructions on this thread will be banned for a month.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Is that the general gist of your problem? That he had cash ? more cash than you ?

Well, I can't speak for jerky boy, but a serious problem for me, is the fact that he had all of this cash, but still claims that he was destitute, living in his office, unable to provide for his childrens education or pay his legal bills, and in need of some emergency assistance from his 'friends'
It simply does not add up. If he had all this money in savings, then he didn't need the 'loan' or gift or the 'whip round' in manchester.

He should have had more sense regarding recording the cash though given the job he was in.Thats a more serious though not illegal transgression.
Serious in the sense that I mentioned 5 posts up.It displays in my opinion a muddled mind and a blazé attitude not befitting the job spec of a minister for finance.Thats almost right but there might be a sinn Féin tide

Muddled finances aside, he still accepted very large quantities of cash from wealthy businessmen for his own personal use. That is unacceptable by his own declared standards, never mind mine.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

I was talking to someone yesterday and for a few moments they couldnt remember George Hooks name-that doesn't make them a liar in relation to any of the facts they were using in relation to him-mistaken maybe-liar no.

There is a very big difference between something slipping your memory momentarily, and the taoiseachs performance at the tribunal.

He has had years to get this information together. He had the time to put together professional and considered statements and afidavits. It's not as though someone cornered him one day on his way home from work and demanded that he explain in detail what he was doing on a certain day 10 years ago. He had a team of professional lawyers and advisers to help him with all the details.
It's not like he's an incompetent man, he was minister for Finance, and now he's the Leader of the Irish Government. Are you suggesting that it is plausible that Mr Ahern couldn't put forward a simple summary of his own financial dealings involving the equivilent of almost a half a million euros?

JerkyBoy

Tristrame wrote:

Right.

I've had to delete more than a few posts now.
The next person to bypass the instructions on this thread will be banned for a month.

I posted several facts which you have decided are merely my opinion, but which were in fact, facts, and as such you have deleted them.
If you are unaware that something is fact, it is not my fault. I called out in my posts things that were facts but they still got deleted.

So let me clearly delineate facts and opinion, by providing facts, this time with supporting documentation, in the hopes that they satisfy the "instructions on this thread":

Bertie Ahern told the Irish public that when he received tens of thousands of pounds from businessmen, that it was because the money he had saved was gone - http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/0926/breaking78.htm
"I also had to pay off other bills, so the money I'd saved was gone. So my friends knew that. I had no house, the house was gone so they decided to try and help me."

However, Bertie's bank records show that he was wealthy to the extend of tens of thousands of pounds, at the times that both of the payments from businessmen were received - http://www.planningtribunal.ie/images/SITECONTENT_578.pdf

The above are verified, and verifiable, facts.
It is a fact that Bertie stated one thing in public.
It is a fact that his bank records show that statement to be untrue.

Here is my opinion based on those facts:
In my opinion, Bertie told porkie-pies when he gave his sob story to the Irish public on RTE last year, when he told us he had no money and that that led to the "loans" from "friends".

Facts...opinions. It's really quite simple.
And if we cannot have a discussion around these...then what is the point of a Mahon Tribunal discussion folder?

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

There is a very big difference between something slipping your memory momentarily, and the taoiseachs performance at the tribunal.

I'd have thought it plausable that trying to remember something that you thought was private and unnecessary of remark from 14 years ago would be much tougher to remember than an everyday mind slip-especially if you are either holding your own value that your personal affairs should be private or you are to all intents and purposes extremely muddled when it comes to organising your personal finances.
In theory at least in the case of the latter,if you think you are not doing anything wrong and ergo don't think you would ever have to go through the accounting of it all that now has to be done...in theory you could just leave it all in a mess and get on with your own job as long as you werent making a mess of that too.
Whats currently laughable of course is the fact that a minister for finance should be exposing himself as having such a muddled personal financial state of affairs.

He has had years to get this information together. He had the time to put together professional and considered statements and afidavits. It's not as though someone cornered him one day on his way home from work and demanded that he explain in detail what he was doing on a certain day 10 years ago. He had a team of professional lawyers and advisers to help him with all the details.

That assumes that he had the information catologed in such a way as to make what you describe easy.
Perhaps he didn't.
He is claiming he didn't.

It's not like he's an incompetent man, he was minister for Finance, and now he's the Leader of the Irish Government. Are you suggesting that it is plausible that Mr Ahern couldn't put forward a simple summary of his own financial dealings involving the equivilent of almost a half a million euros?

It would appear so.

he still accepted very large quantities of cash from wealthy businessmen for his own personal use. That is unacceptable by his own declared standards, never mind mine.

You mean the loans don't you? he maintains he tried to give them back earlier (and now has whether his loan givers liked it or not).
It seems he is giving across an air of blazé regarding the fact that a 14 year stay on the payment of any repayments or interest amounted to a benefit to him.
Whether it did or not is in the hands of the revenue commisioners afaik and not for you or I to determine.
They may look upon it as a balloon payment arrangement.
We can of course tut tut about it which is effectively what we are doing here.

He has kept the bulk of his separation settlement private afaik.

JerkyBoy

Tristrame wrote:

All I can do is offer alternative opinions to your own.Neither is invalid as opinions go but neither of them could be entirely certain facts either.

Try reading the Tribunal transcripts. Facts have been established there and they are established and agreed by Ahern as facts.
And facts established there contradict statements Bertie made in public last year.
Specifically, it has been established that he was wealthy to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds at the time that he received tens of thousands of pounds from businessmen, as supposed "dig-outs".
And it is a fact that Ahern told the Irish people otherwise, that he had no money at the time and this was why the "dig-outs" occurred.

The transcripts are free for anyone to read.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

I'd have thought it plausable that trying to remember something that you thought was private and unnecessary of remark from 14 years ago would be much tougher to remember than an everyday mind slip-especially if you are either holding your own value that your personal affairs should be private or you are to all intents and purposes extremely muddled when it comes to organising your personal finances.

How often did Ahern get 'loans and digouts' from friends and businessmen that he considered it to be a private and unimportant event?

In theory at least in the case of the latter,if you think you are not doing anything wrong and ergo don't think you would ever have to go through the accounting of it all that now has to be done...in theory you could just leave it all in a mess and get on with your own job as long as you werent making a mess of that too.

If Ahern didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why was he hiding all his transactions through cash transactions. He obviously was trying to hide something. Whether that was illegal or not remains to be seen.

Whats currently laughable of course is the fact that a minister for finance should be exposing himself as having such a muddled personal financial state of affairs.
That assumes that he had the information catologed in such a way as to make what you describe easy.

I went to a wedding when I was 8. I didn't remember much about it until I met someone recently who reminded me all about it and a lot of the details came flooding back. This is more than 16 years ago. Bertie Ahern had ample opportunity to talk to the other people involved in his affairs. If he did not remember some of the details, then surely someone else did (especially considering the very strange nature of his financial comings and goings)

Celia Larkin's testimony so far has been that she hardly remembers anything at all, and is taking Bertie's word that these events happened. Ahern recently changed his story about the exchange of IR Pounds to sterling and claimed that he got someone else to do it in instalments but that he doesn't remember who it was, and if you asked him, he wouldn't remember either.

This is testimony that totally contradicts what he said earlier about driving Celia to the bank and waiting outside while she went in and made the transaction.

Celia claims that she specifically remembered this event, and Bertie claims it never happened.

JerkyBoy

JerkyBoy wrote:

I posted several facts which you have decided are merely my opinion, but which were in fact, facts, and as such you have deleted them.

No you dressed them up as support for your assertion,yes assertion of an accusation you have been specefically asked not to make in this thread.

If you are unaware that something is fact, it is not my fault. I called out in my posts things that were facts but they still got deleted.

See my previous point.

So let me clearly delineate facts and opinion, by providing facts, this time with supporting documentation, in the hopes that they satisfy the "instructions on this thread":

Bertie Ahern told the Irish public that when he received tens of thousands of pounds from businessmen, that it was because the money he had saved was gone - http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/0926/breaking78.htm
"I also had to pay off other bills, so the money I'd saved was gone. So my friends knew that. I had no house, the house was gone so they decided to try and help me."

However, Bertie's bank records show that he was wealthy to the extend of tens of thousands of pounds, at the times that both of the payments from businessmen were received - http://www.planningtribunal.ie/images/SITECONTENT_578.pdf

The above are verified, and verifiable, facts.
It is a fact that Bertie stated one thing in public.
It is a fact that his bank records show that statement to be untrue.

Untrue or just an honest result of his first look into a minefield of confusion?
Who are you to assert a lie out of that? Thats the tribunals job and not ours.

Here is my opinion based on those facts:
In my opinion, Bertie told porkie-pies when he gave his sob story to the Irish public on RTE last year, when he told us he had no money and that that led to the "loans" from "friends".

Again I'd respectively suggest that you quit acting the judge and jury and wait for the process to conclude before determining that.
You have been deliberately it seems flouting all instructions in this thread to rant off with the liar accusations.

Facts...opinions. It's really quite simple.
And if we cannot have a discussion around these...then what is the point of a Mahon Tribunal discussion folder?

As I said ,you don't seem interested in discussion.you are only interested in coming here to call Ahern a liar with added ranting.Thats not the purpose of this thread.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the tribunals proceedings and evidence and comment on it and exchange opinions on the evidence etc.
You know that well and you "probably" know well how to discuss the topic leaving out the liar accusations.

Given your carry on,I'm instructing you to no longer post in this thread and let the people who are willing to post within the rules of the thread carry on.
Disobey that instruction and you will get a 1 month forum ban.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

How often did Ahern get 'loans and digouts' from friends and businessmen that he considered it to be a private and unimportant event?

Well I'm only aware of whats in the public domain so that wouldn't be too often.

If Ahern didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why was he hiding all his transactions through cash transactions. He obviously was trying to hide something. Whether that was illegal or not remains to be seen.

You know theres the bit I find amusing in this tale.A lot if not all of the cash being questioned did at some point wander through the bank system which meant it's presence and destination was recorded.
Thats hardly a thorough example of how to hide something.

I went to a wedding when I was 8. I didn't remember much about it until I met someone recently who reminded me all about it and a lot of the details came flooding back. This is more than 16 years ago. Bertie Ahern had ample opportunity to talk to the other people involved in his affairs. If he did not remember some of the details, then surely someone else did (especially considering the very strange nature of his financial comings and goings)

Hardly plausable in that you would need people to be reading his mind as to his every daily action with money.Apart from Celia,I don't think there could be many if any of them.
Then you are left with the bare evidence of the cash transactions as they appeared in the bank statements.

If you are suggesting that there may be something illegal in their origin,or corrupt in their purpose then I'd have to put it to you that it's not the cleverest of criminal minds that would be putting money into the banking system that was of dubvious origin or purpose.
It would seem far more plausable that the money sloshing about was sourced legally and ergo it didn't seem to Ahern a mistake to let it enter and exit the banking system for whatever purpose he had for it on any given day.

As I said earlier,it's the lack of accounting that I think was his biggest error here along with probably not doing what should have jumped out at him as the thing to do from the start and that is to put his case to the bank for a loan.

Celia Larkin's testimony so far has been that she hardly remembers anything at all, and is taking Bertie's word that these events happened. Ahern recently changed his story about the exchange of IR Pounds to sterling and claimed that he got someone else to do it in instalments but that he doesn't remember who it was, and if you asked him, he wouldn't remember either.

This is testimony that totally contradicts what he said earlier about driving Celia to the bank and waiting outside while she went in and made the transaction.

Celia claims that she specifically remembered this event, and Bertie claims it never happened.

I don't think he claimed he never drove her to the bank,I think he claimed not to remember that he drove her there and that he could have in that he was driving for a time but simply didn't remember.
I do however think that his evidence is all over the place,thats self evident.I also sympathise to an extent with people drawing less than favourable conclusions from that.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

You know theres the bit I find amusing in this tale.A lot if not all of the cash being questioned did at some point wander through the bank system which meant it's presence and destination was recorded.
Thats hardly a thorough example of how to hide something.

It is when you claim that you don't have a bank account and you are using a series of proxy accounts in other people's names. It is when he makes every effort to keep his money out of banks (by storing it in a safe in his constituency office, no matter how inconvenient it is when you're claiming to have entrusted it to a third party who doesn't have a key to the safe.)

He had to deal with banks occasionally, How exactly was he supposed to exchange foreign currencies without using a bank? The bureau de changes on O Connell street mightn't have had the daily float do deal with Ahern's level of cash.

Hardly plausable in that you would need people to be reading his mind as to his every daily action with money.Apart from Celia,I don't think there could be many if any of them.
Then you are left with the bare evidence of the cash transactions as they appeared in the bank statements.

And that evidence contradicts Aherns sworn statements. It is 99% probable that Ahern dealt with $45,000. (i say that because all of the evidence points towards that amount, and none of the evidence points towards his version of events)

If you are suggesting that there may be something illegal in their origin,or corrupt in their purpose then I'd have to put it to you that it's not the cleverest of crimanal minds that would be putting money into the banking system that was of dubvious origin or purpose.

Even in the early and mid 90's, it's hard to completely avoid the all pervasive banking system.

It would seem far more plausable that the money sloshing about was sourced legally and ergo it didn't seem to Ahern a mistake to let it enter and exit the banking system for whatever purpose he had for it on any given day.

The only times his money seemed to enter the banking system, was when he was changing it from one currency to another, and always in a third party bank account that was not in his name. Ahern claimed in the Dail last week that he had the use of 20 accounts during that time, none of which were in his name. (this of course contradicts the spirit of his earlier statements that he didn't have any bank account and dealt in cash)

As I said earlier,it's the lack of accounting that I think was his biggest error here along with probably not doing what should have jumped out at him as the thing to do from the start and that is to put his case to the bank for a loan.

He had a bank loan. He took it out to pay his legal bills, before he got the 'dig out' and even after he got the 'dig out' he still didn't pay back that bank loan for more than 18 months, despite also having £50,000 in cash savings at that time (both forgoing the interest on his deposits, and the interest on the loan, a double whammy). If these aren't the actions of someone trying to avoid the paper trail of the banking system then I don't know what is.

I don't think he claimed he never drove her to the bank,I think he claimed not to remember that he drove her there and that he could have in that he was driving for a time but simply didn't remember.

When the banking records show that there was no transaction in that branch on that day to match Aherns account, he changed his story to say that the money was exchanged in instalments.(although perhaps I'm wrong on this detail, and maybe it was a different transaction he changed his story on)

I do however think that his evidence is all over the place,thats self evident.I also sympathise to an extent with people drawing less than favourable conclusions from that.

Today his major contribution to the news cycle was that he's going to 'Ignore' criticism from the opposition. Perhaps this is advice from his late mother whenever he was called names at school.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Today his major contribution to the news cycle was that he's going to 'Ignore' criticism from the opposition. Perhaps this is advice from his late mother whenever he was called names at school.

I noticed that and I instantly thought that it must have driven Enda Kenny mad.
Thats probably what it was designed to do.

Regarding your examples of conflicting evidence,yes theres plenty of that-so many in fact that theres little need to list them all off at this stage.
Unfortunately for those minded towards an irrevocable opinion of distaste towards Ahern,those examples can all easily be dismissed as Ahern admiting he doesn't have a clue how to piece together his financial inflows and outflows.
Thats absolutely incredible for a previous minister for finance and now Taoiseach of 10 years plus standing.

That position is more likely to be the more damning one to churn it's way out of this than a declaration of coruption-going on whats presented to date in my opinion.

DancesWithChimp

Tristrame wrote:

Unfortunately for those minded towards an irrevocable opinion of distaste towards Ahern,those examples can all easily be dismissed as Ahern admiting he doesn't have a clue how to piece together his financial inflows and outflows.
Thats absolutely incredible for a previous minister for finance and now Taoiseach of 10 years plus standing.

Also, incredible is that a Finance Minister would display the most absurd financing practices with regard to lending.
According to Ahern's evidence at the Tribunal, he got a loan from the bank to pay off the legal fees from his separation, then takes several loans from friends to pay off his bank loan (what is the opposite of consolidation?), but instead of using the loans from friends as intended he does not even begin to pay off his bank loan for a year and a half - allowing interest to accumulate on it (why end up paying more money to the bank when you have the means to discharge the loan immediately), and then he does not pay off the several loans from friends for 13 more years - allowing presumably LOTS of interest to accumulate on the loans.

Nothing there makes practical financial sense.
And for a Finance Minister to conduct finances this way, it is incredible.

meglome

Tristrame I'm trying to see what your real point is here. I understand you saying that certain things are not known as fact. So to take them as fact is making assumptions and it could be concluded that people are against Bertie personally.

I have no problem with Bertie personally but his whole story about this money is patently ridiculous. I'd laugh if he wasn't the leader of the country who (you would think) should be setting an example. I appreciate that given the passing of time he might not remember exactly what happened. But the idea that a man who was supposedly strapped for cash wouldn't remember the details of getting such large sums of money... I really don't know what to say. I've read the details of criminal trials in which the defendants looked less guilty and were still convicted. What do you think would happen if you were in court and each time they presented you with a set of facts you changed your story?

People say a lot of things about Bertie but I don't recall stupid being one of them. But now even though he's an accountant?? and former minister of finance we are to take it he hasn't a clue about money. And even though we are expected to believe he hasn't a clue about money he's has the most convoluted manner possible set up to deal with this money. A manner which would only make sense if you're trying to hide money.