Liam Lawlor came out fighting yesterday, insisting to the Fianna Fail Standards in Public Life Committee that not even a penny piece had crossed his palm in return for planning decisions. It was a bravura performance but leaves some questions. Like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, words meant precisely what Mr Lawlor intended them to mean, nothing more and nothing less.
So the Dublin West TD denied receiving a £40,000 political contribution from Frank Dunlop at his office. But he went on to recall numerous business discussions with Mr Dunlop and said he had conducted them on a normal commercial basis as a registered consultant. The value of those discussions to Mr Lawlor was not disclosed.
Political donations from Mr Dunlop, amounting to about £11,000 over a number of years, were acknowledged by Mr Lawlor. But those were all legitimate political donations. He had never been offered or requested one penny, not to mind the aforesaid sizeable financial contribution, to influence his vote.
After confronting Fianna Fail's ethical watchdogs at Mount Street, Mr Lawlor went public with his defence and released 23 pages of justification. There were pages of legal correspondence with Mr Dunlop's solicitors and others, accumulated as Mr Lawlor prepared his defence before the Flood tribunal and sought to rebut a Sunday Business Post report that he had been paid £50,000 by Mr Dunlop on behalf of Mr Tom Gilmartin.
It was all a little dated, however, because the correspondence preceded Mr Dunlop's dramatic change of heart before the Flood tribunal and his decision to tell all.
In spite of all that, Mr Lawlor was certain he had never sought or received any monies that had ever influenced any of his decisions in public life. And, just in case the opposition parties got the idea of putting the boot in, he engaged in a Ray Burke touch and showed his teeth. It might be productive, Mr Lawlor suggested, if the other parties undertook detailed scrutiny of the actions of their elected members at local and national level to ensure that public confidence could be restored to the body politic.
What will the Fianna Fail ethics committee make of him? The man who has the trick - as one senior Fianna Failer described it - of "hiding in plain view". The chairman of the parliamentary party, Dr Rory O'Hanlon, wasn't sure what the Standards in Public Life Committee would do but he felt it would at least make general recommendations. As for individual cases, any decisions would have to wait until next Saturday when the committee was expected to complete its report. Dr O'Hanlon would not deal in specifics or discuss the nature of the presentations made to the committee, along with the questioning of Mr Lawlor and others. Due process was under way and had to run its course.
In the normal course of events, Fianna Fail would point to the Flood tribunal as the ultimate arbiter in the matter. But events have moved on since last year when Padraig Flynn was said to have received £50,000 from Mr Gilmartin.
Last week, the Progressive Democrats made it clear they weren't prepared to wait for the Flood report. A political judgment would have to be made on the evidence available, they said, or Mary Harney would walk from Government.
It's a tough one. Political colleagues might find Mr Lawlor's carefully prepared defence less than convincing, but where was the smoking gun? Was he asked directly about consultancy fees by the Fianna Fail committee and what did he answer?
Next week, the Standards in Public Life Committee will present its report to the Taoiseach, and Mr Ahern has promised to publish the document. But, before that happens, it may go to the Fianna Fail Parliamentary Party and to the party's national executive for consideration. The former organisation may withdraw the party whip; the latter holds the power of outright expulsion.
Fine Gael upped the ante last week by publishing its report on payments to councillors and announcing it would withhold ratification at election time from three candidates unless they provided further clarification. That decision brought criticism of John Bruton at yesterday's parliamentary party meeting.
Against that background, Mr Ahern's response is likely to be carefully tailored to fit the committee's report.