'Ahern to act as go between for bank money men'. This is not a joke.

Crikey!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-gobetween-for-bank-money-men-1549295.html

Satire has been exhumed from its grave (where Kissinger's Nobel Peace Prize put it) - stuffed, dressed and murdered all over again.

We're saved. No one, but no one has experience like Ahern when it comes to banks.

Quote :

His name has been linked in financial circles with involvement in the banking negotiations. "Having an ex-prime minister on board opens a lot of doors," one source said.

"It lends a certain clout and respectability when you're trying to get to meet with big private equity houses and sovereign wealth funds."

Strange, this bit, though...

Quote :

Last night, a Fianna Fail
spokesperson categorically denied Mr Ahern was involved in any capacity in
the banking negotiations.

"Bertie Ahern is working for neither (the Government nor private equity
groups) in that regard and is in full support of the minister for finance's
work," the spokesperson said.

A Government spokesman also said Mr Ahern was certainly not working on behalf
of Taoiseach Brian Cowen
or Mr Lenihan. "He is not acting on anyone's part in Government. He has
no involvement," he said.

Aren't they basically calling Ahern, or whoever put out this PR fluff on his behalf, a liar?...

Who or where did this story come from at all though in the first place ?

Quote :

Mr Ahern recently contacted the Department of Finance to try to arrange a meeting with Minister Brian Lenihan on behalf of a potential investor in the banks, sources confirmed to the Irish Independent.

His name has been linked in financial circles with involvement in the banking negotiations.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Who or where did this story come from at all though in the first place ?

Quote :

Mr Ahern recently contacted the Department of Finance to try to arrange a meeting with Minister Brian Lenihan on behalf of a potential investor in the banks, sources confirmed to the Irish Independent.

His name has been linked in financial circles with involvement in the banking negotiations.

This is really weird - from the information in your and toxic's posts it seems there is a major rift between the Ahern/Independent camp on the one side and Cowen/FF on the other.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Who or where did this story come from at all though in the first place ?

Quote :

Mr Ahern recently contacted the Department of Finance to try to arrange a meeting with Minister Brian Lenihan on behalf of a potential investor in the banks, sources confirmed to the Irish Independent.

His name has been linked in financial circles with involvement in the banking negotiations.

I wouldn't look too far from a particular pub in Drumcondra...

Aragon wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Who or where did this story come from at all though in the first place ?

Quote :

Mr Ahern recently contacted the Department of Finance to try to arrange a meeting with Minister Brian Lenihan on behalf of a potential investor in the banks, sources confirmed to the Irish Independent.

His name has been linked in financial circles with involvement in the banking negotiations.

This is really weird - from the information in your and toxic's posts it seems there is a major rift between the Ahern/Independent camp on the one side and Cowen/FF on the other.

Indeed, while both Government & Ahern are saying that Ahern has had no involvement whatsoever, this is most probably a smoke screen and therefore is clear evidence of a rift.

Aragon wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Who or where did this story come from at all though in the first place ?

Quote :

Mr Ahern recently contacted the Department of Finance to try to arrange a meeting with Minister Brian Lenihan on behalf of a potential investor in the banks, sources confirmed to the Irish Independent.

His name has been linked in financial circles with involvement in the banking negotiations.

This is really weird - from the information in your and toxic's posts it seems there is a major rift between the Ahern/Independent camp on the one side and Cowen/FF on the other.

Cowen and Lenihan's true feelings about Ahern, both his Mahon issues and his conduct since leaving office, would not be printable here, I suspect...

toxic avenger wrote:

Cowen and Lenihan's true feelings about Ahern, both his Mahon issues and his conduct since leaving office, would not be printable here, I suspect...

Is it already public information ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Cowen and Lenihan's true feelings about Ahern, both his Mahon issues and his conduct since leaving office, would not be printable here, I suspect...

Is it already public information ?

No, but I know personally, from a relative (who was sympathetic to Ahern) that Lenihan wasn't happy with Ahern's evidence. And Lenihan has given several public clues, such as his Dublin Castle speech several months ago, as to his real feelings. Plus, it wouldn't take a genius to work out what Cowen must think of Ahern effectively absolving himself of all responsibility for the downturn ('Everything was fine when I left office'), and by implication laying the blame at Cowen's door...

toxic avenger wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Cowen and Lenihan's true feelings about Ahern, both his Mahon issues and his conduct since leaving office, would not be printable here, I suspect...

Is it already public information ?

No, but I know personally, from a relative (who was sympathetic to Ahern) that Lenihan wasn't happy with Ahern's evidence. And Lenihan has given several public clues, such as his Dublin Castle speech several months ago, as to his real feelings. Plus, it wouldn't take a genius to work out what Cowen must think of Ahern effectively absolving himself of all responsibility for the downturn ('Everything was fine when I left office'), and by implication laying the blame at Cowen's door...

Lenihan's Dublin Castle speech ... what do you remember he said about Ahern ? As for the rest, we'll never know really how Cowen feels towards Ahern; FF don't really spill it out too much how they felt and feel about each other except rose-tinted stuff. Besides, if this downturn proves to be an utter disaster for the next ten years or more then it will be FF at large who will be remembered as not providing for it, and Brian Cowen in particular who as Minister for Finance during the half of it could perhaps have done a geansai-full of things to ease us through a downturn but didn't. Regulation regulation regulation.

I can't remember the exact quip at Dublin Castle, but he said this on The Week in Politics:

Quote :

"it doesn't appear he has done anything wrong in terms of the tribunal's terms of reference, but it is not a pretty picture, and the Tribunal has to make sense of this".

Which prompted Ahern to respond thus:

Quote :

"You know, I would very much doubt if Minister Lenihan was in there to
look at me for 14 hours last week. If he knew that, I think he would
see the full facts, and you know, perhaps he should have done that
before he said that."

Not on each other's Christmas card list, anyway...

That looks like factions there alright toxic - Ahern had serious power over the troops didn't he ? Could you be able to put a finger on the Ahern supporters and otherwise ? I doubt if Cowen has revealed whatever inappropriate feelings for Ahern they way Lenihan has done so publicly up there. I think I remember that Week in Politics episode.

What do you think is the public perception of Ahern now ? He's still seen as a Knight by the public. Will he go on to gain the stature of Haughey do you think ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

That looks like factions there alright toxic - Ahern had serious power over the troops didn't he ? Could you be able to put a finger on the Ahern supporters and otherwise ? I doubt if Cowen has revealed whatever inappropriate feelings for Ahern they way Lenihan has done so publicly up there. I think I remember that Week in Politics episode.

What do you think is the public perception of Ahern now ? He's still seen as a Knight by the public. Will he go on to gain the stature of Haughey do you think ?

I think he'll be remembered largely with affection, the 'lovable rogue' schtick. The extent to which he is so will largely depend upon the severity of the Tribunal report (and, in my opinion, it will be very severe, I think they'll state that they can't rule out corruption). People are gullible, and conmen prey on that. Not that he's without some significant achievements too, to be fair.

toxic avenger wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

That looks like factions there alright toxic - Ahern had serious power over the troops didn't he ? Could you be able to put a finger on the Ahern supporters and otherwise ? I doubt if Cowen has revealed whatever inappropriate feelings for Ahern they way Lenihan has done so publicly up there. I think I remember that Week in Politics episode.

What do you think is the public perception of Ahern now ? He's still seen as a Knight by the public. Will he go on to gain the stature of Haughey do you think ?

I think he'll be remembered largely with affection, the 'lovable rogue' schtick. The extent to which he is so will largely depend upon the severity of the Tribunal report (and, in my opinion, it will be very severe, I think they'll state that they can't rule out corruption). People are gullible, and conmen prey on that. Not that he's without some significant achievements too, to be fair.

Honestly, I don't think people will care that much of the tribunal can't rule out corruption.

evercloserunion wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

That looks like factions there alright toxic - Ahern had serious power over the troops didn't he ? Could you be able to put a finger on the Ahern supporters and otherwise ? I doubt if Cowen has revealed whatever inappropriate feelings for Ahern they way Lenihan has done so publicly up there. I think I remember that Week in Politics episode.

What do you think is the public perception of Ahern now ? He's still seen as a Knight by the public. Will he go on to gain the stature of Haughey do you think ?

I think he'll be remembered largely with affection, the 'lovable rogue' schtick. The extent to which he is so will largely depend upon the severity of the Tribunal report (and, in my opinion, it will be very severe, I think they'll state that they can't rule out corruption). People are gullible, and conmen prey on that. Not that he's without some significant achievements too, to be fair.

Honestly, I don't think people will care that much of the tribunal can't rule out corruption.

Very possibly. But it will at least put the kybosh on a FF nomination for the Park.

toxic avenger wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

That looks like factions there alright toxic - Ahern had serious power over the troops didn't he ? Could you be able to put a finger on the Ahern supporters and otherwise ? I doubt if Cowen has revealed whatever inappropriate feelings for Ahern they way Lenihan has done so publicly up there. I think I remember that Week in Politics episode.

What do you think is the public perception of Ahern now ? He's still seen as a Knight by the public. Will he go on to gain the stature of Haughey do you think ?

I think he'll be remembered largely with affection, the 'lovable rogue' schtick. The extent to which he is so will largely depend upon the severity of the Tribunal report (and, in my opinion, it will be very severe, I think they'll state that they can't rule out corruption). People are gullible, and conmen prey on that. Not that he's without some significant achievements too, to be fair.

Honestly, I don't think people will care that much of the tribunal can't rule out corruption.

Very possibly. But it will at least put the kybosh on a FF nomination for the Park.

If so they could then use the Mounties slogan “We always get our man” with an added “even if the evidence doesn’t”.

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Very possibly. But it will at least put the kybosh on a FF nomination for the Park.

If so they could then use the Mounties slogan “We always get our man” with an added “even if the evidence doesn’t”.

They'd be loathe to claim the credit, I'm sure. I think they'd be happy to leave the credit where it's due, with the man himself...

toxic avenger wrote:

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Very possibly. But it will at least put the kybosh on a FF nomination for the Park.

If so they could then use the Mounties slogan “We always get our man” with an added “even if the evidence doesn’t”.

They'd be loathe to claim the credit, I'm sure. I think they'd be happy to leave the credit where it's due, with the man himself...

Ah come now TA my man, you know how good they are with “claims”, it’s always the evidence bit where they fall down.
Do you really think they would have the neck to report "we don't have the evidence but he still might be guilty"?

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Very possibly. But it will at least put the kybosh on a FF nomination for the Park.

If so they could then use the Mounties slogan “We always get our man” with an added “even if the evidence doesn’t”.

They'd be loathe to claim the credit, I'm sure. I think they'd be happy to leave the credit where it's due, with the man himself...

Ah come now TA my man, you know how good they are with “claims”, it’s always the evidence bit where they fall down.
Do you really think they would have the neck to report "we don't have the evidence but he still might be guilty"?

On the 50K allegation for 1989, probably not, if only because the fact that a serving Minister for Labour/Finance not having a bank account, ridiculous as that might seem, makes it impossible to pass a judgment on.

But on the 30K in 1994, very possibly yes (and there is plenty evidence, if circumstantial to a large degree). The basic facts laid out by Gilmartin, that there was an AIB Board Meeting (in March 94) where O'Callaghan stated that Ahern had confirmed Blanchardstown not getting designation, have been corroborated both orally and in contemporary documents. The final part, that 30K was paid over for this, ties in with the 30K lodgment to Ahern within the month (some co-incidence, perhaps Gilmartin got lucky), given that Ahern's explanation for the provenance of the money clearly doesn't hold water (except with your good self, of course). Add in that the money brought in that day was a good distance in excess of the limit for the special savings account it was meant to open, the balance having to be put in an ordinary account. Then add in the meeting that Ahern had with Frank Dunlop the very morning of the lodgment. You then have more than enough to be able to say that Gilmartin's allegation simply can't be discounted.

Then the 28,772 ($45K) of December 94, can't be ruled out as having come through O'Callaghan's American business partners, particularly as Dunlop's account of his movements between here and America at the time, plus Ahern and O'Callaghan's account of their November 94 meeting, don't stand up to serious scrutiny. Gilmartin (and Dunphy) allege that Ahern was paid for a designation of O'Callaghan's Athlone site, which was passed by Ahern, separate from the ordinary designations in Athlone weeks before, on it's own, the night before the Government fell, his very last act as Finance Minister.

Not the criminal standard of proof, I grant you, but more than enough to be able to state that such payments can't be ruled out...

toxic avenger wrote:

Not the criminal standard of proof, I grant you, but more than enough to be able to state that such payments can't be ruled out...

They don’t have criminal or any other standard of proof in my opinion and on that basis if they come out with anything like you suggest I’ll eat my liquorice hat.

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Not the criminal standard of proof, I grant you, but more than enough to be able to state that such payments can't be ruled out...

They don’t have criminal or any other standard of proof in my opinion and on that basis if they come out with anything like you suggest I’ll eat my liquorice hat.

I didn't state that they would try to prove the source as O'Callaghan, only that they could say that it can't be discounted. The report will be damning just in terms of the believability of his own explanations at any rate. But perhaps speculation is idle, we'll know in time...

toxic avenger wrote:

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Not the criminal standard of proof, I grant you, but more than enough to be able to state that such payments can't be ruled out...

They don’t have criminal or any other standard of proof in my opinion and on that basis if they come out with anything like you suggest I’ll eat my liquorice hat.

I didn't state that they would try to prove the source as O'Callaghan, only that they could say that it can't be discounted. The report will be damning just in terms of the believability of his own explanations at any rate. But perhaps speculation is idle, we'll know in time...

Is it all over now with O’Callaghan? Did they get anything out of him?

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Not the criminal standard of proof, I grant you, but more than enough to be able to state that such payments can't be ruled out...

They don’t have criminal or any other standard of proof in my opinion and on that basis if they come out with anything like you suggest I’ll eat my liquorice hat.

I didn't state that they would try to prove the source as O'Callaghan, only that they could say that it can't be discounted. The report will be damning just in terms of the believability of his own explanations at any rate. But perhaps speculation is idle, we'll know in time...

Is it all over now with O’Callaghan? Did they get anything out of him?

It's all over altogether. O'Callaghan's evidence (which despite the media focus on Ahern, and like Gilmartin's evidence, really has quite little to do with Ahern) was a joke. He was picked apart every day by Patricia Dillon. He couldn't explain large transfers to Frank Dunlop, which then went missing, both he and Dunlop claiming memory loss. His company's accounting procedures were unravelled to show payments to politicians being mistreated in the books in order to hide them. He still insists he knew nothing of what Dunlop was up to, and Dunlop claims the same, but that was never going to be bought. Dillon asked him several times on his last day of evidence how it was that Gilmartin could identify Dunlop as a bagman for crooked politicians in his very first phone-call to the Tribunal in early 1998, despite the two men loathing each other and only having met twice, when O'Callaghan, who was in daily contact with Dunlop and was paying him large sums of round-figure, VAT-free, invoiceless money, claims he was 'shocked' by Dunlop's evidence? The best he could come up with is that Gilmartin made a 'lucky guess'. The evidence was generally of a similarly untenable nature. Whatever about Ahern, O'Callaghan is definitely in for a rough ride come Report time...

toxic avenger wrote:

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Not the criminal standard of proof, I grant you, but more than enough to be able to state that such payments can't be ruled out...

They don’t have criminal or any other standard of proof in my opinion and on that basis if they come out with anything like you suggest I’ll eat my liquorice hat.

I didn't state that they would try to prove the source as O'Callaghan, only that they could say that it can't be discounted. The report will be damning just in terms of the believability of his own explanations at any rate. But perhaps speculation is idle, we'll know in time...

Is there any reasonably reliable indication of what it is likely to say? Anyone given any hints that you know of?

As discussed on another thread, Terry Prone is all out spinning for Ahern this week, plus we have that documentary and now this Ahern as the saviour of the financial crisis - it's all a bit over-egged maybe? There's something frantic about so much strange and persistent Bertie eulogising. Possibly he's expecting something fairly severe?

(On politics.ie someone has come up with a spectacularly vulgar but incredibly apt description for Terry Prone: a turd polisher. Is this a new one? The perfect description for her efforts on Ahern's behalf though.)