1) What is the relationship between former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and German businessman (so called) Karlheinz Schreiber?
There was no relationship between the two men. Mulroney ran into Schreiber on the street once or twice, but that was about the extent of –
2) Why did Mulroney accept $300,000 from Schreiber?
Oh. That. Well, it was a retainer, wasn’t it?
For work. What else do you get retainers for? It certainly wasn’t for his teeth!
Ha ha ha! Not for his teeth! I kill me! Why don’t you lighten up? You’ll find life is much more enjoyable if you do.
5) Thanks for the advice. Seriously, though, what work did Schreiber pay Mulroney for?
The work he was given the retainer for, of course. Isn’t that obvious?
6) Are you going to give me a better answer?
Are you going to ask me a better question?
7) But, you haven’t – okay. Why did Mulroney accept payment in cash?
Because that’s what Schreiber offered. It would have been in poor taste, once the offer had been made, to have said, “Well, sure, I’ll be happy to take your money, Karlie Boy, but do you think you could give it to me on a money order from a reputable bank?” Where would the trust be? How could Schreiber have felt the love?
8) Schreiber claims that he gave Mulroney the money in cash to avoid a paper trail.
Different people express their love in different ways.
9) Schreiber claims that Mulroney was given the cash in three installments in hotel rooms. That certainly sounds like a relationship.
Oh, everybody in Ottawa knows that Schreiber is just a big old silly.
10) Why didn’t Mulroney immediately claim the money on his tax return for the year in which he earned it? Why did he wait until years later to declare it?
Declaring it years later was perfectly legal.
11) That may be, but why did he do it?
Because it was perfectly legal.
12) You understand that that response is not actually an answer to the question, right?
And, yet, the response is perfectly legal.
13) Could Mulroney have done anything to make his relationship with Schreiber appear even more sleazy?
Oh, sure. Hookers could have been involved. But, err, I’m sure that if hookers had been involved, there would have been a perfectly simple and entirely innocent reason. Uhh…yeah.
14) Schreiber claims he notified current Prime Minister Stephen Harper about this seven months ago. Why didn’t Harper do anything about it at the time?
The Prime Minister says the letters were never forwarded to him from the Privy Council, where they were received.
Oh, absolutely! Everybody knows what a hands off manager the Prime Minister is.
16) Why did Mulroney insist upon a public inquiry into Schreiber’s allegations?
Because he knows that a full and complete public disclosure of the facts will exonerate him completely.
17) And, he hopes to get another settlement like the $2.1 million he already received from the Canadian government?
Now you’re just being cynical.
18) If Mulroney really wants full disclosure, why does he want the inquiry to start looking at events in 1988? Could it be that he doesn’t want anybody asking about how Schreiber helped his 1983 election campaign?
Oooh, you’ve gone beyond cynical, now. What do you call someone who has gone beyond cynical? Oh, right. A journalist.
19) Oh, please. Mulroney has been harping on his media critics, but, let’s be honest, the generally conservative Canadian press has been mildly critical to embarrassingly fawning. Can you name even one journalist, aside, perhaps, from Stevie Cameron, who has been critical of Mulroney?
Well…there is, uhh…you know…you.
20) Oh, for the love of – look. If Mulroney believes that “a full and complete public disclosure of the facts will exonerate him completely,” why doesn’t he give them? He doesn’t need a public inquiry to tell the Canadian people what the money was for, right?
Wrong. Only a full and complete public disclosure of the facts will exonerate him completely.
21) Like the full and complete disclosure you’ve given in this FUQ?
Were you born cynical, or is it part of the embitterment of old age?