to be all that we can be Regardless of who did what wrong, I always find myself feeling sorry for any old folks that find themselves in a position of defending wrongdoings of their past. Both Mulroney and Schreiber are rather weathered old men, and I feel bad for them and their families for having to endure this obviously stressful event.

I guess this is a lesson for people in general. If you do things in life that are going to make you worry for years to come about whether they will come back to haunt you, it is probably best either not to do them or deal with them as honestly and quickly as possible when they rear their heads later, and just deal with the consequences. Things get pretty messy when you compound your past misdeeds with complicated stories trying to justify these actions.

This committee hearing has some pretty intense moments, with the members mostly being respectful and deferential to Mr. Mulroney, but they do get testy when he gets evasive and off-point, which he is quite adept at doing, I must say. He and Schreiber are some slippery characters.

Mulroney is confusing things, I think, by sometimes answering questions posed to him by reading back some of Schreiber's sworn testimony from his appearance either in front of this committee or in other court settings. He's using Schreiber's words in these instances to confirm a point. But then he turns around and generally asserts that Schreiber is not to be trusted because he has contradicted his own sworn testimony. So on the one hand Schreiber is a lying guy, but on the other, here's his answer to your question. It's a muddled way to respond to questions.

This concludes your live-blogging update of the Mulroney testimony.  | ¶ 12:28 p.m.