Forty-two boxes of documents, details of £1.5 million in payments he received, a list of political donations going back over 25 years, an apology - Mr Liam Lawlor is certainly coughing up masses of information.
With his back to the wall, the West Dublin TD has switched to an apologetic mode, far removed from his feisty, argumentative performance at the Flood tribunal last month.
"I regret my efforts were inadequate and I apologise," Mr Lawlor said in an affidavit read out yesterday by his senior counsel, Mr John Rogers.
But if Mr Rogers was putting his hands up on behalf of his client, he was not admitting guilt. Far from it: Mr Rogers maintained that the TD tried to co-operate with the tribunal last month, and had redoubled his efforts since then.
"There is no sense of this man not playing ball," Mr Rogers opined, though Mr Lawlor may have "put a shoulder up" at times during his evidence in Dublin Castle.
"The whole thing up there is frightening and terrorising for the people involved," Mr Rogers explained.
Mr Lawlor's case, set out in a four-hour presentation by Mr Rogers, is that he "totally misinterpreted" the High Court order directing him to produce details of his finances and company records and to give evidence to the tribunal.
Instead, Mr Lawlor says he expected to be asked about the matters set out in two earlier letters from the tribunal, which listed the main areas of allegation against him: Quarryvale and other rezonings, his relationship with Mr Jim Kennedy, etc.
The problem here is that last October's court order indicated that Mr Lawlor was to produce the documents demanded and to present himself to give evidence on these documents. The matter seems fairly clear.
Mr Rogers's case is that his client was put under "oppressive pressure" in the tribunal. Things went "slightly off the rails" as Mr Lawlor was asked to sign letters to third parties, have documents fetched from his office immediately and give instant answers to questions of which he had no notice.
It was, for example, a "joke" to ask him to account for his alleged income of £4.69 million without giving him time to give a response.
Mr Justice Smyth suggested that it was often better to get a witness to answer a question on the spot because "an unvarnished answer often has the ring of truth to it".
As for the event which ended Mr Lawlor's evidence to the tribunal, his failure to answer questions about credit card accounts, Mr Rogers said his client had not refused to answer. Instead, his answer had been cut off by Mr Justice Flood.
However, according to Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, there was a "conscious, deliberate and significant" failure by Mr Lawlor to co-operate. Mr Clarke said this failure "should not go unmarked", though he steered clear of the "j" word.
In his submission to the crowded courtroom, Mr Rogers argued that a criminal level of proof would be needed if Mr Lawlor was to be convicted. He read out lengthy extracts from the transcript of Mr Lawlor's evidence to show that the politician did not intend to commit a contempt. "Momentary recalcitrance is not a reason to send someone to jail," he argued.
Mr Clarke will today reply to those arguments before Mr Justice Smyth retires to consider the matter.