The Irish Times reports that the Moriarty Tribunal report will be published today. It should make for interesting reading to say the least.
Update: You can get it at theMoriarty Tribunal Report. It’s a PDF so you need Adobe Acrobat. It’s a fairly hefty 7mb download.
I especially like this bit (my emphasis)
Given the totality of the evidence heard in relation to the Tripleplan payment, and subsequent payments by Mr. Ben Dunne to Mr. Haughey, communications had by Mr. Haughey with the Revenue Commissioners, and the course of dealings had between Mr. Dunne, Mr. Noel Fox and the Revenue Commissioners, it is the conclusion of the Tribunal that Mr. Haughey in return for such payments acted with a view to intervening improperly in a pending tax case of great magnitude. Whilst recognising that ultimately the Dunnes tax appeal was successful, Mr. Haughey’s role in this matter is particularly noteworthy in the context of the state of thepublic finances in 1987.One of the salient features of his involvement in the Revenue handling of the matter was his persistence in intervening with successive Chairmen, matched only by Mr. Dunne’s persistence in requesting his intervention. This is not explicable, at least on Mr. Dunne’s part, on the basis of a desire to meet the Chief Officer of the agency he was dealing with when, without Mr. Haughey’s involvement, the Dunnes Trustees had already gained access to and made contact with Mr. Pairceir. At a time when the finances of the State were under extreme pressure, Mr. Haughey, as the head of the Government, had a particular duty to maintain the paramountcy of Revenue in collecting taxes, and this ought to have been reflected in a studious avoidance of unnecessary contact as opposed to his persistence in advertising to Revenue his interest in Dunnes affairs so as to signal his support for a radical reduction in the amount of tax being demanded by Revenue.
Or in other words, in return for getting money from Dunne, Haughey did make represenatations to the Revenue on Mr Dunne’s behalf.
Insofar as any personal aspects did emerge from evidence heard, they undoubtedly included an acknowledgement of much diligence and capability in the manner in which Mr. Haughey discharged his day-to-day responsibilitiesas Taoiseach, but also included elements of fear and domination engendered by him in individuals in both private and public sectors.
The word ‘corrupt’ only appears once in the entire 704 pages.