The evidence of Mr Charles Haughey has become tedious except for the occasional outburst of his extraordinary egotism.
Mr John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, yesterday continued to ask questions about the relationship between Mr Haughey and the late Mr Des Traynor, the friend who for 40 years was Mr Haughey's financial adviser.
Mr Haughey continued to say that Mr Traynor located the money to sustain his lavish lifestyle without bothering Mr Haughey with the details of where the money came from.
Furthermore, Mr Haughey claimed it rarely, if ever, crossed his mind to ask where the money was coming from. He was too busy running the State for the benefit of everyone.
"Where did you think the money was coming from?" Mr Coughlan asked.
"I don't suppose I gave it very much thought," said Mr Haughey.
He cannot deny that he knew the level of expenditure involved as his involvement in his own affairs is documented in his AIB file from the 1970s, when the cost of running Abbeville caused his overdraft to grow to £1.14 million. He was living on air in a Gandon mansion and, despite his training as an accountant, he says he never gave the matter any serious consideration.
Mr Haughey's egotism provides a thin veneer for his unconvincing evidence. Mr Traynor, he said yesterday, was a very discreet and professional businessman who, while not interested in party politics, made his contribution to the State's affairs by relieving Mr Haughey of the bother of looking after his own.
Mr Haughey disputed the £8.6 million figure, calculated by the tribunal as his total expenditure in the years 1979 to 1996, but had no lower figure to offer yesterday. He acts as if it has never dawned on him that he is giving evidence to a tribunal which has him as its main focus. The people who made donations to him over the years, through Mr Traynor, were "public-spirited, altruistic" people, he said yesterday, while at the same time repeatedly saying he did not know their identities. He talks as if he is constantly affronted by the cynicism which exists in the world.
He seems almost bored as he listens to Mr Coughlan's questions. Mr Coughlan, for his part, has yet to show exasperation with Mr Haughey or any inclination to launch a full frontal assault. Mostly when Mr Haughey displays some animation it is to make a point that he considers in his favour, or to complain. On a number of occasions yesterday he said ruefully that "in my day" professionals, such as bankers and accountants, knew how to treat their clients' affairs confidentially. He also sprinkled his evidence with condemnations or dismissals of the media.
An article in the Evening Press in 1982, which correctly reported that Mr Haughey had run up a bank overdraft of £1 million, was a "hostile" report and not one which he would have deemed worthy of responding to.