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

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

Lol.
Did it make you spit out your tea?

It looks like valid comment.

Valid comment? For the front page of a newspaper? The whole piece is based on innuendo suggesting that there is some kind of conspiracy between people to bring down the taoiseach because of personal grudges.

If that 'comment' was posted on this thread you would delete most of it for being 'opinion not fact'

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Valid comment? For the front page of a newspaper? The whole piece is based on innuendo suggesting that there is some kind of conspiracy between people to bring down the taoiseach because of personal grudges.

Thats your opinion on the article isn't it? I don't know if there is a grudge against the Taoiseach or not.
What I can say is that, I have noticed in all my days on this board certain peoples willingness to accept the utterances of one newspaper or another if it suits their particular point of view.
That applies to say for example treating the Daily mail as gospel or the Sindo.
As you know both are highly opinionated in nature.

If that 'comment' was posted on this thread you would delete most of it for being 'opinion not fact'

Yes I would.
But as you know I wouldn't delete a post here telling us that the Daily mail has reported X,Y or Z even if they are opinion pieces mostly.
Nor would I delete an opinion on that opinion piece provided it is clear that it is an opinion and provided it wasn't making a direct accusation itself or calling someone a liar for example.

Terry

Quick question.
Has Bertie actually been found guilty of any kind of corruption?

Politics isn't really my thing.
I only ask because several people in AH have called him corrupt and I would just like some verification.

Thanks.

edanto

No, he hasn't been found guilty of anything and something as blatant as calling him corrupt is out of line.

There is a lot to be suspicious of - that we all know, but the house policy here is that we can't say anything bad about him until (if) Mahon makes a definitive statement about it.

Terry

That's all I needed to know.
Thank you.

DancesWithChimp

edanto wrote: »

There is a lot to be suspicious of - that we all know, but the house policy here is that we can't say anything bad about him until (if) Mahon makes a definitive statement about it.

Not completely true.
We can say that we think he sucks as a Taoiseach and that we think his stories about receiving money from businessmen are an unbelievable crock of bull, and that we think his performance at the Tribunal has been pathetic.

That's saying bad things about him and its fully within rules of this forum.

Speaking of performance at the Tribunal it appears Bertie will be back giving evidence before Christmas.
He'll be queried on the two dig-out "loans" and on the Manchester donation.
These are some of the most unbelievable aspects of his massive money taking "mistakes", IMO.

Yeah I've no problem with you saying all that here Dances with chimp,as long as you recognise that in theory the tribunal could still find different given that your statement above,though an opinion only, implies that you think there could be an element of deliberate conceit in the Taoiseach's evidence.
That of course has not been proven and without the "rider" of appreciating that things look one way to you in the absence of the full hearings conclusion,then what you said would not be acceptable.
I'm taking it as read for now that it is the former position that you are taking and would like to point out that if I see the latter here,it will be deleted.

DancesWithChimp

Tristrame wrote: »

Yeah I've no problem with you saying all that here Dances with chimp,as long as you recognise that in theory the tribunal could still find different given that your statement above,though an opinion only, implies that you think there could be an element of deliberate conceit in the Taoiseach's evidence.
That of course has not been proven and without the "rider" of appreciating that things look one way to you in the absence of the full hearings conclusion,then what you said would not be acceptable.
I'm taking it as read for now that it is the former position that you are taking and would like to point out that if I see the latter here,it will be deleted.

Excuse me if I implied deliberate deceit...for the record I don't know one way or the other if there is any deceit, deliberate or otherwise.
For some reason I can't edit that last post so you can edit it as to remove the crock of bull line if you wish while retaining the opionion that the stories are hard to believe.

On the Tribunals findings though: you do realize the Tribunal may never find or report one way or the other on all of the aspects of Ahern's stories.
Do you think they are going to release a report that takes every one of his continuously changing stories and proves one way or another if every word of them is true or not??
This isn't going to happen, because in many cases, proving his stories true or untrue is simply not possible.
There is no documentary evidence for much of what Ahern has testified to. Both Ahern's team and the Tribunal note this. Therefore any report published by the Tribunal dealing with Ahern's stories will end up being based not upon factual documentary evidence (unless it appears in the meantime), but merely upon the likeliness, probability and believability of his stories, in the absence of said documentary evidence.

In this case, if the Tribunal ends up taking Ahern's word for his stories of getting dig-outs from friends, or if they cannot prove that his stories are untrue in as much as they cannot prove that they are true, then neither I, nor anyone else, is forced to automatically take the Tribunal's position and accept Ahern's word that his stories are true, as a result.

The opinion of the Tribunal is still that. Opinion. If they find something as fact, that is a different story.
No one has to take the Tribunal's opinion on something as fact, in the absence of documentary evidence.

Therefore we can always, quite rightly, be of the opinion that his unproven stories are unbelievable.

So to answer your question, yes, if the Tribunal finds differently that every aspect of Ahern's stories are true then I will accept them to be true.
However, if the Tribunal decides to merely accept Ahern's word for his stories, in the absence of hard evidence, then I will likely continue to find his stories as unbelievable as I do today.

Without hard evidence being presented to support Ahern's claims...I will always take them with a grain of salt...as I am entitled to.

However, I understand that we should still not allege deceit, or opine on it, in this forum in the absence of proof of deceit.

DancesWithChimp

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

Excuse me if I implied deliberate deceit...for the record I don't know one way or the other if there is any deceit, deliberate or otherwise.
For some reason I can't edit that last post so you can edit it as to remove the crock of bull line if you wish while retaining the opionion that the stories are hard to believe.

Well I've not disagreed with the notion that the stories to date are hard to believe,they are.I'll have to accept that theres loads of acceptable memory issues there at the heart of that or private issues though in the absense of any proof one way or the other.
You won't find me not accepting that they may be true or just simply a collection by Ahern of make it up as I go along as I haven't a clue either in an effort to present several possibilities in denial of wrong do-ing.

On the Tribunals findings though: you do realize the Tribunal may never find or report one way or the other on all of the aspects of Ahern's stories.
Do you think they are going to release a report that takes every one of his continuously changing stories and proves one way or another if every word of them is true or not??

I'm simply not in a position to say this and neither are you.

This isn't going to happen, because in many cases, proving his stories true or untrue is simply not possible.

As is , it would appear to date ,proving any corruption.

There is no documentary evidence for much of what Ahern has testified to. Both Ahern's team and the Tribunal note this. Therefore any report published by the Tribunal dealing with Ahern's stories will end up being based not upon factual documentary evidence, but merely upon the likeliness, probability and believability of his stories, in the absence of said documentary evidence.

That reads like an annoyance you're having with the probability of an outcome like that.
I'd suggest that such an annoyance flies directly in the face of a fair trial,beyond reasonable doubt etc.

In this case, if the Tribunal ends up taking Ahern's word for his stories of getting dig-outs from friends, or if they cannot prove that his stories are untrue in as much as they cannot prove that they are true, then neither I, nor anyone else, is forced to automatically take the Tribunal's position and accept Ahern's word that his stories are true, as a result.

So it's a lie unless proven otherwise?
Forgive me if I don't subscribe to that kind of justice system.

The opinion of the Tribunal is still that. Opinion.
No one has to take the Tribunal's opinion on something as fact, in the absence of documentary evidence.

Therefore we can always, quite rightly, be of the opinion that his unproven stories are unbelievable.

Yeah you can but I'd be carefull at using it to imply anything illegal or that a lie has happened publically.
Do that at your own peril if you wish.

So to answer your question, yes, if the Tribunal finds differently that every aspect of Ahern's stories are true then I will accept them to be true.
However, if the Tribunal decides to merely accept Ahern's word for his stories, in the absence of hard evidence, then I will likely continue to find his stories as unbelievable as I do today.

Without hard evidence being presented to support Ahern's claims...I will always take them with a grain of salt...as I am entitled to.

Why not the reverse?You see if you don't believe Ahern now or at the end of the tribunal (in the absence of a finding to agree with you) you are basically accusing him of lying.
Now you can do that in the comfort of your own home if you wish, thats fine, but I'd strongly advise not doing it elsewhere publically unless you have the resources to waste on a law case.

However, I understand that we should still not allege deceit in the absence of proof of deceit, and that while we are entitled to be of the opinion that there was possible deceit, that opinion cannot be expressed here, as it is taken as an accusation.

Thats it in a nutshell.
You've skated that line very closely in your last 2 posts so I'd request that you stick to the it's hard to believe line,if thats the way you are feeling at this point, leaving at least some room for an inconclusive conclusion in the absence of the rest of the tribunals hearings and it's ultimate report.

DancesWithChimp

Tristrame wrote: »

So it's a lie unless proven otherwise?
Forgive me if I don't subscribe to that kind of justice system.

Not at all.
I'm simply saying some of his stories will remain hard to believe unless proven true, as the narrative is just off the wall.
On the other hand I actually believe some of his other stories put before the Tribunal, again stories with no documentary evidence, but I believe them because they make sense and the numbers add up.

But there are just too many ludicrous explanations within certain aspects of his stories, that even if the Tribunal gives him the benefit of the doubt...in the absence of proof that the explanations are indeed truths, I will like contintue to find them unbelievable.

Rock Climber

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

But there are just too many ludicrous explanations within certain aspects of his stories, that even if the Tribunal gives him the benefit of the doubt...in the absence of proof that the explanations are indeed truths, I will like contintue to find them unbelievable.

But doesnt that amount to the same thing? ie it's not the truth because it doesn't add up?

I appreciate that supposition being arrived at,but at least it leaves open the room for arriving at an allied conclusion that the man just doesn't remember things from that time properly.
Unbelieveable in that scenario just means hard to believe and that you think it must be something else that the person can't remember that is the actual case.

Regardless of what you think is the "actual" case or what theory you have,Do not post it here or allude to it if it involves implications of deceipt/lying or corruption on the part of Mr Ahern.
Posts like that will be deleted if seen by me as mod.

DancesWithChimp

>> But doesnt that amount to the same thing? it's not the truth because it doesn't add up?

No it's not the same thing.
Claiming something is not the truth and finding something hard to believe are completely different. Hence, you are allowed to say something is hard to believe in here but you aren't allowed to say something is a lie.

Also, I'm not talking about aspects of stories that the man can't remember, I'm talking about aspects of his story which he has put forward clearly and just make no sense...practical, financial or otherwise.

Therefore they render those aspects of the story hard to believe...and unless it is proven with hard evidence that those aspects of the story check out...I'll always find them hard to believe.

It's simple, logical, and fair.

DancesWithChimp

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

It's simple, logical, and fair.

To be frank,it's not simple,it is logical (your disbelieving) but it's hardly fair.

Fair would mean giving the benefit of the doubt rather than the implication of guilt.
A Perfect example of this is in your last post stating categorically that unless something "checks out" you will still disbelieve coupled with your expectation that it won't.
It's the coupling that is one of the unfair bits along with the decision to go with the lack of a benefit of doubt associated with something that is hard to believe.

I mean,In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary,one must always assume inocence untill proven guilty here.

That goes here as per the several instances that it has been pointed out in this thread.

Now unless there is something new to add in relation to tribunal proceedings,this part of the conversation on believability etc is closed.
The direction on where and how to take the discusion has been done ad infinitum.
The next post bordering on that or attempting to flout that , that I see will be deleted.

ballooba

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

The stories coming out today would look to improve Gilmartins credibility. The head of the Air Corps corroborating the story on the early morning helicopter flight from Cork to Dublin. Also a flight to the Bahamas in quick succession.

ballooba

JerkyBoy wrote: »

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.

Des Richardson seems to have slipped up here on Tuesday when he said it wasn't a loan. As reported in today's Daily Mail.

JerkyBoy wrote: »

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.

It would look like you were right. At least in respect of the O'Connor draft and the invoice raised against it.

transylman

The whole loan story has just had its credibility further undermined. Padraic O Connor, according to Berties version of events one of his close friends that gave him a dig out loan, now says that he wasnt a close personal friend of Berties, it wasnt a loan, and the money wasnt a personal donation to Bertie but was intended as a donation to the party. The implications of this are very serious indeed.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-broker-says-ahern-not-telling-the-truth-on-digout-1232552.html

JerkyBoy

Of course...I have never found the story of "loans from friends" to be believable...it has always sounded completely absurd to me.

Why would a supposed finance expert do any of the following:
1) Take out a loan to pay for something when they already have enough cash funds to pay for it
2) Allow interest to build up on a loan unneccessarily when you have cash funds to clear the loan
3) Do what is essentially the reverse of consolidation by taking multiple loans from multiple sources in order to pay off a single loan, when they have enough cash funds to clear the loan
4) Allow interest to build up for 13 years on the multiple loans

I could maybe understand a severely retarded person with nobody looking out for them doing this.
But a Minister for Finance?

Amazing that some people still swallow this horse excrement!

The recent testimony from the NCB cheif only undermines this story further.
Bertie claimed that the people who contributed to him were all "close", "long standing", "personal friends".
Again, you either believe O'Connor or Ahern.

Akrasia

A former head of the National Lottery is reported in the Independent today as saying that Bertie Ahern had personally approved the construction of a controvertial Casino project in the Phoenix park.

The development of this casino has been central to many of the corruption and bribery allegations surrounding Ahern and other key political figiures at the time including credible allegations of bribery of Charles Haughey

Tom Morressey of the PDs claims that he was offered a £30,000 bribe to support the casino project, and it is public information that mr turner paid Des Richardson $10,000 as a donation to Fianna Fail.

Bertie denies ever having received a dollar payment from anybody, despite the fact that his personal accounts show a foreign exchange transaction that equals exactly $45,000, a figure that he claims is actually £28,000 (and some change) despite the fact that no such foreign exchange transaction could have taken place given the exchange rates at that time. Ahern insisted before the election that he had a secret formula that would prove it was a sterling amount, but when he was in front of the tribunal, he admitted that no such formula existed, he has since failed to provide any possible explaination for how the transaction could have been in STG£)

akrasia.
1 more post like the one I deleted and you will be getting a 1 month ban.
To answer your question regarding what you can and cannot say here-NO.
You will not be pre judging anything on this thread or drawing conclusions for the tribunal.
There is to be No more discussion of the parameters already adequately explained.

ballooba

I think the discussion of the Mahon Tribunal here is highly amusing. i.e. it isn't discussed. I wonder why.

The Indo article today wasn't the revelation that Senan Malony promised but it does join up a lot of the dots. It's what the tribunal can't investigate that is interesting. A lot of trustees mentioned in the article for the St Luke's fund. I believe this funds outside the remit of the tribunal.

edanto

ballooba, do you happen to know offhand the main areas of interest that the tribunal cannot investigate? Also, why would you think they are relevant to the current inquiry?

ballooba

There were SBP articles in 2002 and 2003 on Ken Rohan and Berraway. It makes a lot more sense in light of the way in which the Padraic O'Connor draft was dealt with. The tribunal cannot investigate Rohan because he is not on the J1 list.

DancesWithChimp

JerkyBoy wrote: »

Of course...I have never found the story of "loans from friends" to be believable...it has always sounded completely absurd to me.

Why would a supposed finance expert do any of the following:
1) Take out a loan to pay for something when they already have enough cash funds to pay for it
2) Allow interest to build up on a loan unneccessarily when you have cash funds to clear the loan
3) Do what is essentially the reverse of consolidation by taking multiple loans from multiple sources in order to pay off a single loan, when they have enough cash funds to clear the loan
4) Allow interest to build up for 13 years on the multiple loans

I'd have to correct you on number 3.
While Bertie did claim to have taken multiple "loans from friends" to pay off his single AIB loan (ludicrous behavior if ever there was), he did not actually use these payments to discharge the loan as he has claimed.
He used those payments to help buy a house, according to his fundraiser.
Bertie has himself changed his story on this a few times.

"Ahern dig-out 'spent on home not legal fees'":
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-digout-spent-on-home-not-legal-fees-1227282.html

We're also expected to believe that neither Bertie's cheif fundraiser, nor his own solicitor, were aware that Bertie had already settled his legal bills when they were both out looking for "dig-out" money from "friends" to help Bertie with said bills.

One would have to be very naive...

Akrasia

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

I'd have to correct you on number 3.
While Bertie did claim to have taken multiple "loans from friends" to pay off his single AIB loan (ludicrous behavior if ever there was), he did not actually use these payments to discharge the loan as he has claimed.
He used those payments to help buy a house, according to his fundraiser.
Bertie has himself changed his story on this a few times.

"Ahern dig-out 'spent on home not legal fees'":
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-digout-spent-on-home-not-legal-fees-1227282.html

We're also expected to believe that neither Bertie's cheif fundraiser, nor his own solicitor, were aware that Bertie had already settled his legal bills when they were both out looking for "dig-out" money from "friends" to help Bertie with said bills.

One would have to be very naive...

And it begs the question, why would Bertie accept money from his 'friends' that he didn't desperately need? Just because the money was there?

I certainly wouldn't accept money from my friends who were concerned about my legal situation then go and spend (without telling them) it on remodeling a rented house (that was only a few years old to begin with) and then not repay the money for 13 years.
That in itself is extremely dishonest. I mean really, How would you feel if your friend was the minister for finance on a very good salary accepted money for you on the pretext that he desperately needed it to pay his legal bills, and you later found out that he spent it on cushions from Brown Thomas and had personal savings at that time of 4 times the average industrial wage at that time.

There was absolutely no need for him to remodel that house at that time. He was absolutely not in the 'dire' situation that he claimed he was in because his legal bills were already paid off and according to his own claims, he had savings of about £50k.

Ahern Claims that he tried to repay the money (Something Padraig o Connor vehemently denies) but his 'friends' wouldn't let him. He shouldn't have accepted it in the first place Why didn't Ahern simply say when Richardson handed him the cheques and cash "I don't need the money".

I don't understand how anybody could actually believe Aherns claims on this issue? They simply don't make any sense and they do not match the financial records of that time.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Ahern Claims that he tried to repay the money (Something Padraig o Connor vehemently denies) but his 'friends' wouldn't let him. He shouldn't have accepted it in the first place Why didn't Ahern simply say when Richardson handed him the cheques and cash "I don't need the money".

I have a simple "oirish" theory that might explain that.
But I couldn't post it here.
It's up to Ahern if he want's to give it himself.He has plenty of time,the tribunal is far from over and has a good way to go before making a conclusion prior to asking all it's questions.It does have plenty more to ask and answers to get before it builds a picture.

I don't understand how anybody could actually believe Aherns claims on this issue? They simply don't make any sense and they do not match the financial records of that time.

That may or may not be the case.
Remember - like it or not-Those deciding on this (the mahon tribunal) weren't there when all this was happening so they are going to have a hard time proving corruption if all they have to go on is one interpretation as opposed to more than one.
It's like saying that a person must exact their business in one particular straight foward way and thats that.
They don't and therein lies the problem for those apparently predisposed to a critical view of this.

JerkyBoy

Good article in the Indo pointing out how the believability of even the 1st of the "dig-outs", being examined by the Tribunal, is falling apart.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rule-no-1-when-youre-in-a-digout-stop-digging-1241291.html

Can't wait to hear the story of how Bertie needed his 2nd "dig-out" in late 94...

JerkyBoy

You gotta love this:

"I was asked for cash and I said I would give cash. I think the reason for that is that Bertie is an extremely proud individual and if he got cheques he was going to rip them up," Mr McKenna added.

So Bertie was too proud to accept a 2 grand cheque but not too proud to accept 39 grand in cash?
I guess beggars can be choosers afterall! :-)

One would think that if somone was genuinely that hard up they would take the help in whatever form it would come.
And if they weren't that hard up...why would they take the money at all.

Especially since the person taking the money in question already had 50 grand of his own in cash.
Not to mention that he had already dealt with his bills...bills which the people who were giving the money were let to believe they were helping to pay.

Every revelation that comes out of the Tribunal only makes Ahern look even more untrustworthy.

Fuascailt

So Bertie got quite agitated today... Has his credibility been cracked? Does anyone believe him? Does the public even care anymore?

I must say his line for the not having a bank a/c was quite creative... He always thought he'd be going back home... for six years....

mike65

Its farce by this stage with the supporting cast of jokers and clowns invading the media to complain at what a carve up it all is. They are quite out of touch, if Aherne was capable of answering a question without use of "smoke and daggers" he'd not be in front of Mahon today.

Mike.

El Stuntman

mike65 wrote: »

Its farce by this stage with the supporting cast of jokers and clowns invading the media to complain at what a carve up it all is. They are quite out of touch, if Aherne was capable of answering a question without use of "smoke and daggers" he'd not be in front of Mahon today.

Mike.

yes, but who amongst the FF crew is going to plunge the dagger into his back?