What is the meaning of "full true and plain disclosure" if not full true and plain disclosure?
Would have disclosed cash if questioned, Mulroney says
After two days of friendly questioning, former prime minister is cross examined on why he chose not to reveal his business relationship with Schreiber in 1996 court hearing
BILL CURRY and GREG MCARTHUR
Globe and Mail Update
May 14, 2009 at 2:33 PM EDT
OTTAWA — Brian Mulroney says he would have disclosed his cash relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber 12 years ago, if only federal lawyers had asked the right question when he gave sworn testimony as part of his defamation lawsuit against the government.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Which does nothing to explain why he didn’t disclose the cash to Revenue Canada?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A lie by omission is still a lie.
Dr Mike
Yep - reminds me of the old 'HERMAN' cartoon -
"JUDGE: Repeat after me... I swear to tell the truth...
WITNESS: I swerve to smell de soup...
JUDGE: The whole truth...
WITNESS: ..de toll-booth...
JUDGE: ...and nothing but the truth.
WITNESS: an nuts sing on de roof.
LAWYER: Now tell us in your own words exactly what happened."
Disgusting isn't it - to pay to have the charade of democracy - from government.
Hmm wasn't his nickname "Lyin' Brian"? Obviously well deserved and still applicable today.
Post a Comment