Bertie’s court case isn’t that complicated, you know, when you take a few minutes to look into it.
Will we do that?
Will we just take a minute or two to examine what our Leader is up to?
Right. Well you see, Bertie produced certain documents when demanded by Tribunal, but he also made a statement on the matter in the Dáil.
Now, this got the Tribunal worried because it looked like Bert was claiming to have more information than he’d handed over. It looked like Bert had said, There ya go, Mr So-called Tribunal, here’s everything I have, har, har, har.
But now it sounded like he was telling the Dáil there was another stash of stuff he never mentioned anything about, even under oath. Not even in a sworn affidavit.
The Tribunal was so concerned by this statement that it wrote to Bertie in October 2006, looking for clarification.
The Tribunal’s letter pointed out seven things it believed Ahern told the Dáil, and these things weren’t covered by the documents he’d handed over.
The Tribunal believed that Ahern stated as follows in the Dáil:
- he had examined the personal financial records relating to his wife and children as far back as 1977,
- he had sought professional advice on his records for the previous seven years
- he had surrendered full documentation on the loans (which the Tribunal was inquiring into)
- he had supplied all documentation requested by the Tribunal
- his documents included legal and tax advice
- he had up-to-date paperwork on the famous dig-out loans from Paddy the Plasterer and all the other good buddies
- he possessed full records on capital gains and gift tax.
So what does this all mean?
Well, you see Ahern swore an affidavit of discovery to the Tribunal in March 2006, and these items aren’t on it, according to the Tribunal. in other words, he left them out, even though he was supposed to hand over everything.
It means the Tribunal was tearing off its wigs and dancing on them. It means the judges were saying That lying bastard Ahern never gave us what we asked for, the lying bastard.
In effect, the Tribunal is saying, Bert, you told us one thing, and you told the Dáil something else. Now which is it?
What do you think Bert replied?
Well, he said, there’s a great principle at stake here. What an elected representative says in Parliament is privileged and he can’t be questioned on it by anyone. It’s in the Constitution, and I must protect the Constitution.
You see? Bertie the Democrat.
Listen carefully to what Bertie is telling you.
He’s going to the High Court, to stop the Tribunal asking these questions. Bertie claims that an elected representative can’t be questioned on a statement he makes to our elected parliament. Not even if that statement is totally at odds with something he told a Tribunal of Inquiry. Not even if what he tells the Dáil is a pack of lies. Not even when that Tribunal is investigating the bribery of politicians.
Now, wouldn’t it seem logical, if there is a contradiction between something he told the Tribunal and the Dáil, that somebody has been lied to? You would have thought so, wouldn’t you?
And wouldn’t it seem logical, if the Tribunal is prevented from asking the question, that our elected Parliament would be asking him the same question. It might be saying, well, Bert, you told the Tribunal one thing and you told us something else. What’s going on, Bert? And did you lie to us, Bert?
So, let’s see now.
Did he tell the truth to both of them?
Or did he tell the truth to the Dáil and lie to the Tribunal?
Or did he tell the truth to the Tribunal and lie to the Dáil?
It can’t be all three, you know: even I can see that, and I’m not a lawyer or a politician or anything clever at all.
So which is it, Bert? Hmm?