THAT the former Taoiseach, Mr Reynolds, led his party to its worst defeat in the election of 1992 was the opening shot yesterday of Mr James Price QC, counsel for the Sunday Times, in Mr Reynolds's libel case against the newspaper.
No, he was just unlucky, Mr Reynolds responded. He lost eight or nine seats by losing less than 500 votes around the country, according to the former Taoiseach.
Well, two coalition partners had described him as dishonest and had pulled out of government with him, said Mr Price.
No, said Mr Reynolds, Mr Des O'Malley's words had been spoken in the context of a robust election campaign, and Mr Dick Spring should not have pulled out of government when he had a duty to find out all the facts of the situation. In any case, he had pulled out of a previous coalition as well.
The Sunday Times is denying libel, pleading justification and qualified privilege.
Well, continued Mr Price, Mr Reynolds had given a very misleading account of the results of his negotiating the EU structural funds, claiming over £8 billion when the real figure was far less.
Oh, no, responded Mr Reynolds. It was far more complicated than that. "It's a pretty long story," he warned.
Surely Mr Reynolds would concede that his claim of £8 billion was controversial? There was an explanation for that too.
Mr Price interrupted hastily: "Your answer to the last question was a trifle long, perhaps?"
Mr Price's efforts to convince Mr Reynolds that he had not emerged unscathed from the beef tribunal were no more successful.
According to the former Taoiseach, the tribunal's chairman, Mr Justice Hamilton, had criticised the government policy of the time. Mr Reynolds agreed with that.
So what about the Bill hugely increasing export credit insurance, at a time when the bulk of that was going to Iraq, but this fact was never mentioned in the Dail? Of no significance, according to Mr Reynolds. This was only a minor piece of legislation.
Well, what about the writing of the press release claiming complete vindication in the report, asked Mr Price. And what about the furore created by Mr Reynolds's coalition partner about the way in which it was released? There were explanations here, too.
A door was mysteriously locked that had never been locked before, Mr Reynolds had to find somewhere quiet to read the report and also had to go for something to eat. There was nothing sinister about the fact that Mr Spring failed to contact him.
But, he conceded, there was one thing amiss about that press release. The quotations from the report should have included dots to indicate that there were gaps between them. Those dots were not there, and they should have been there. The government press secretary, Mr Sean Duignan, had apologised.
Mr Justice French asked someone to spell "Duignan", and at one point Mr Price referred to "Mr Fitzreynolds". There is no indication that things are any clearer for the jury.