Yesterday Karlheinz Schreiber appeared on Parliament Hill in handcuffs and flanked by police. His hearing before a parliamentary committee was well orchestrated. What was unusual was that it was orchestrated by Karlheinz Schreiber himself.

Months ago Schreiber signalled he wanted to talk about the Mulroney affair. Then he said if he were deported to Germany he wouldn’t say a word. At the beginning of yesterday’s hearing he said he would remain silent. Half way through the procedure he was singing like a jail bird.

Throughout all this the politicians and the media jumped through hoops waiting for Schreiber’s next move. Say what you like this talkative German is a master chess player.

Nevertheless throughout the two hour hearing Schreiber revealed only two pieces of evidence not previously known. The first was that the original payment to Mulroney was to have been a half a million dollars, not $300,000. Second that a letter Schreiber wrote to Mulroney exonerating the former prime minister of all wrong doing was in fact written by one of Mulroney’s cronies, Elmer MacKay.

In this dance of the seven veils, Schreiber has so far only lifted the first one, and that just a peep. And he issued the committe a veiled warning. Before he will give more testimony he must consult his papers which comprise about 25,000 pages.

Whatever the committees’ agenda is, Karl Schreiber’s is clear. He wants to delay his extradition to Germany as long as possible, preferably forever. So far he’s doing a good job.

Do you agree we are all dancing to Karlheinz Schreiber’s tune?



  1. 1
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Schreiber reminds me of a car salesman whose success is based upon his flamboyancy rather than whether the product he sells is any good. But I can’t blame him if he is does whatever has to be done to stall his extradiction and if he’s got us dancing to his tune, well, we’re the suckers!

    Changing the subject a bit: being down here in Arizona I am not able to follow the Mulroney Affair to the extent that I’d like to. But one question comes to mind. The online version of the Gazette last week had an article stating that one of Mulroney’s $100,000 cash payments occurred in New York City in 1994. I don’t know if this has been discussed yet in the Canadian media but the U.S. has (and had back in 1994 even before 9/11) very strict anti-money laundering laws. Anytime anyone transports $10,000 across the U.S. border, they have to notify the authorities. What did Mulroney do with the $100,000 he got…put it in a bank account? Safety deposit box? Spend it on goods and services while in the U.S.? Or did he bring it back to Canada?

    If Mulroney did, indeed, transport more than $10,000 across the border without notifying authorities, he may be in violation of U.S. law. Does the statute of limitations apply?

    Will U.S. authorities get involved in the Schreiber-Mulroney Affair?

  2. 2


    That’s a good point. I saw it raised some weeks ago in one article but the Canadian media in general do not seem to have picked up the story. They have concentrated on the fact Mulroney delayed paying taxes on the $300,000;

    Mulroney received the $100,000 in the Hotel Pierre in New York city. As you suggest, if Mulroney brought the money into Canada, he should have notified the U.S. authorities. I have not seen any reference as to whether the U.S. people have investigated this.

  3. 3
    Barbara Says:

    As I said in an earlier post, Schreiber is pulling someone’s chain. By putting all this in the public arena with Parliamentary Committee inquiries and potential public inquiries, Canadians are being suckers and wasting more tax money than they may have lost from Mulroney.
    Let the police and their forensic accountants and tax lawyers be allowed to do their work. If necessary, cannot Schreiber be subpoened to appear (with the agreement of the German government, I presume) to testify at a subsequent trial, if it comes to that?
    This is not, I suspect, about legalities, but rather an unseemly political dance and Schreiber is playing the tune.

  4. 4
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Could the respected Mr Schreiber be a worthy protagonist of a famous Wagner opera? On how many people, in all parties, does he have an handle? It would go a long toward explaining the current dancing…or singing!

  5. 5
    Barbara Says:

    He’s not Wagnerian — too small a man. He’s Kafkaesque.

  6. 6
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    I have heard that in the Balkans Kafka is considered as very funny. Poor Karlheinz is pathetic…but not funny.

  7. 7
    Chimera Says:

    Oh, I don’t know about his being not funny, Paul. I’m picking up items from all over the place that have me chortling with absolute glee! And that have the Blogging Tories running for cover.

    A few days ago, I wasn’t all that interested in the man. But he has since let drop a couple of extremely entertaining tidbits, and now I’m all ears…

    Let him stay. As long as he sings, let him have the stage.

  8. 8
    Paul Costopoulos Says:


RSS Feed for this entry

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )


Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :