FLOOD TRIBUNAL ANALYSIS: Before he even gets a chance to deal with Frank Dunlop's allegations in detail, former Fine Gael Senator Liam Cosgrave has seen his reputation demolished in two short days of evidence, writes Paul Cullen
Already, Mr Cosgrave has changed his story crucially in relation to the payments he got from Mr Dunlop. He could face prosecution for filing inaccurate returns under ethics legislation. He is in difficulties with the taxman for failing to declare other payments.
He could also be in trouble for misleading the Fine Gael inquiry into payments to politicians in 2000, that is, if any of his colleagues have the courage to stick their heads over the parapet on the issue. This was another day of vindication for Mr Dunlop, as the established version moved closer to his account and away from that espoused by a politician he allegedly bribed.
Mr Cosgrave is still insisting that the payments he got from Mr Dunlop were legitimate political donations. He still insists they had nothing to do with his votes on rezoning motions.
But if they were straightforward contributions, why has he had such great difficulty recalling the number and amount of these payments?
Why did he wait until April Fool's Day to tell the tribunal how much he got?
It is clear now that the checks undertaken by Mr Cosgrave prior to the Fine Gael inquiry were cursory. He seems to have relied on his memory, which has already been exposed as unreliable, rather than sift through his financial records carefully.
Many of the payments he now acknowledges receiving were made by cheque, so there was no excuse for not being able to trace the details.
Yet this Fine Gael senator can say he received a "generous" £2,500 cheque from a former Fianna Fáil press secretary, and yet have forgotten all about it six months later when asked to declare donations to the Public Offices Commission.
Mr Cosgrave lost no opportunity in recent years to bleat about the Fine Gael inquiry, which found it was unable to reach a "definite conclusion" about the payments he received.
Even yesterday, he described it as "sloppy", even as his own testimony was shown to be just that. In recent months, too, he has complained over and over again about the unfairness of the tribunal.
Any sympathy he won is quickly evaporating. If he had spent more time getting the record straight, and less time whinging, he might be in a stronger position today.
Take, for example, his assertion yesterday that Mr Dunlop specifically told him on making a payment that "this is a legitimate contribution for your campaign".
Why on earth, asked tribunal counsel John Gallagher, would anyone say such a thing. Presumably only a legitimate politician who supported legitimate rezonings would know.