Commentary by Hamlet Mark The many questions that remained unanswered following a week of testimony in the Grenada inquiry, might not be seriously broached until Prime Minister Keith Mitchell himself, Eric Reisteiner and Timothy Bass are brought to the stand. But as things stand, it is very unlikely that any of the three will do so. The downside of all of this would be that we would never get to the bottom of what transpired on Prime Minister Mitchell's visit to Reisteiner at his bomb shelter and chalet in St Moritz, Switzerland in the summer of 2000. As far as Dr Mitchell's legal team is concern, the Grenadian leader will stay away from making any more public comment on the issue, unless Reisteiner and Bass, give any of their alleged damning testimony. But Reisteiner and Bass have their own legal troubles to be worried about, and at this stage neither are inclined to testify from fear of incriminating themselves. From all indications, Reisteiner, who is now sitting in a Massachusetts jail awaiting further trial on a myriad of fraud charges, will only be willing to testify if he can get a plea bargaining deal that will help him in his own legal troubles. There are no indications that officials are pushing for a deal, though lone commissioner Richard Cheltenham said that negotiations are continuing with his lawyers. At the close of the hearings on Friday, lawyer Lawrence Ramesh Maharaj, providing a show for the cameras, said that his client has nothing to answer to since it was "clearly" brought out that he received no money during that controversial 2000 visit to Switzerland. His two security aides who accompanied him on the visit said that, while they were not in on the meeting between Prime Minister Mitchell and Reisteiner -- he went in and came back out -- with the same briefcase. And there was no cash in it. Maharaj has used that to indicate the Prime Minister may have not received any cash. Except there is one problem with that story. He did. By his own accounts. The dispute had long gone past the stage of whether he did receive cash -- to how much, and exactly what for. And they've got to figure out that part of the story very quickly. As of now, the Prime Minister's legal team thinks they can hunker down and let the storm pass, once Bass and especially Reisteiner do not come forward with their evidence. That will achieve its legal purpose -- but then there are many things which go beyond that. For his own legacy, Prime Minister Mitchell would not like an O. J Simpson-like verdict thrown on him -- where he is free, but his innocence is forever questioned. If what transpired in 2000 was his own personal business, Dr Mitchell has to continue to heed the advice of his legal team and remain quiet. But as it turned out, it was not. And he still has more explaining to do beyond what he said in his national address on the issue a year ago this month. And he has to say it, whether or not the powers that be get Reisteiner and Bass to testify. The intervention of Hurricane Ivan last September would have saved his prime Ministership just when the storm about his conduct was picking up steam. If the probe remains inconclusive, Dr Mitchell would have saved his job. But saving his name would take another set of construct. And while many had called for this very commission that has been sitting -- too many people are too busy trying to figure out how not to get wet in their uncovered houses with the next rains, to care. There is interest. But no outrage. Or maybe, many have come to the conclusion that our democracy is a farce -- and in the end it doesn't matter. We've copied Westminster without copying its accountability standards. Basdeo Panday (the Trinidad opposition leader) might have been right after all. Politics has a morality of its own. Ask Ramesh. Reprinted from caribupdate.com