If what I learned from the Fifth Estate’s produces Harvey Cashore yesterday is true, then Oliphant Commission counsel Richard Wolson should be fired.
Apart from his unnecessarily aggressive demeanor towards Karl Heinz Schreiber and his predilection to phrasing his questions as inverted sentences, I have to really doubt Richard Wolson’s performance on the job.
I wonder whether he will be this aggressive and convoluted in questioning the Right Honourable Lin’ Brian?
Richard Wolson is going on ad nauseum about the fact that he contends Schreiber did not give a full account of all of his meetings with Brian Mulroney, in previous court cases on this smatter.
Oliphant Commission counsel Richard Wolson should be fired because he appears to be setting Schreiber up, and not giving a full account of the CIRCUMSTANCES of that previous testimony by Schreiber, by Wolson HIMSELF
The following took place yesterday:
In particular, he asked why Schreiber had not mentioned the meeting he says was held June 23, 1993, where he and Mulroney, who had not yet stepped down as prime minister, agreed in principle to work together once he returned to private life to promote the Bear Head project. He suggested Schreiber, who is known for boasting publicly about his friendship with Mulroney before their falling out, was trying hide their relationship.
"Why didn't you tell the prosecutor that you met at Harrington Lake to have an agreement with Mr. Mulroney to do business with him in the future? Why didn't do you that, sir?" Wolson said.
"I don't know," Schreiber said.
"I don't recall why I would not have told him. Everybody knew," Schreiber said later
What Richard Wolson is taking advantage of here, to falsely depict Schreiber as being evasive, is something that I learned from Harvey Cashore on CBC’s POLITICS with Don Newman, which is that when Schreiber was giving these accounts of his meetings with Mulroney, his testimony was halted by the JUDGE in response to one of the motions by a lawyer in that case.
And tell me that Richard Wolson doesn’t know these to have been the CIRCUMSTANCES?
If he didn’t, then he is incompetent. If he did, then he is suspect. Either way, Canadians don’t need a prosecutor on a matter as immense as the Schreiber/Mulroney hearings who is either incompetent or suspect, since that will only mean we will never get to the bottom of this matter involving possible corruption at the highest levels of government
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Posted by Fillibluster at 11:13 AM