Michael Martin asks for tribunal to be reopened

raymon

The leader of Fianna Fail has asked for the Moriarty tribunal to be reopened so Lowry can explain undeclared payments.

Should he not be calling for the Mahon tribunal to be reopened so that he can explain how a donation from developer Owen o Callaghan ended up in Martin's wife's account.

Don't get me wrong , Lowry should be held to account , but Martin is not the man who should be shouting about this one .

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/kenny-rejects-call-to-get-moriarty-tribunal-to-look-into-lowry-payments-29096266.html

Cookie_Monster

What a waste of time. The only people to benefit from those tribunals were the lawyers. They really are not the forum for solving issues like this, if MM thinks Lowry acted impropery report in to AGS for criminal investigation.

wonder88

Fair play to Martin for getting himself in the news. Of course he knows well that there is no chance of re-opening a tribunal or setting up a new one as the Irish people are sick of them, and no wonder as no one has ever been held to account for the apparent criminality that was exposed by them.

raymon

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0201/1224288694192.html

Sierra Oscar

Technically the tribunal has not closed as of yet, and it is already considering some very serious documentation which it was provided with in recent weeks by Senator Denis O'Donovan. The recent explosive revelations relating to Lowry have also been passed on to Moriarty, alongside the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Watch this space - this story is on the back-burner.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Technically the tribunal has not closed as of yet, and it is already considering some very serious documentation which it was provided with in recent weeks by Senator Denis O'Donovan. The recent explosive revelations relating to Lowry have also been passed on to Moriarty, alongside the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Watch this space - this story is on the back-burner.

Sierra, do you agree that your leader has his own questions to answer?

antoobrien

raymon wrote: »

Should he not be calling for the Mahon tribunal to be reopened so that he can explain how a donation from developer Owen o Callaghan ended up in Martin's wife's account.

He has already done so when the report was published. It was in the media, so he ios not protected by dail privilege, so if you have some evidence that he (ir his wife) did wrong report him (or her) to the gardaí or sue.

raymon

antoobrien wrote: »

He has already done so when the report was published. It was in the media, so he ios not protected by dail privilege, so if you have some evidence that he (ir his wife) did wrong report him (or her) to the gardaí or sue.

Antoobrien, Please provide a link to the explanation " in the media " you are referring to.

The public deserves an explanation from both Martin and Lowry
,

20Cent

Forget a tribunal send the garda and CAB in.
Apparently there are more tapes than just that one released.

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

Sierra, do you agree that your leader has his own questions to answer?

His explanation was published in the Mahon Report, and to the best of my knowledge that explanation was accepted - was it not? If it was not then he would be in serious trouble.

If you have any concerns or new information then you should report it to the Gardai.

20Cent wrote: »

Forget a tribunal send the garda and CAB in.
Apparently there are more tapes than just that one released.

Indeed, it is a very serious matter. I am surprised that it is receiving so little attention to date.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

His explanation was published in the Mahon Report, and to the best of my knowledge that explanation was accepted - was it not? If it was not then he would be in serious trouble.

If you have any concerns or new information then you should report it to the Gardai.
.

You are mistaken

Please show me where this is explained in the report .

What did he explain and what did Mahon accept ?

golfball37

Champ did nothing wrong using his wife's bank account to facilitate payment from Mr O'Callaghan. Even the tribunal said so.

raymon

golfball37 wrote: »

Champ did nothing wrong using his wife's bank account to facilitate payment from Mr O'Callaghan. Even the tribunal said so.

Please provide a link , to where the tribunal said it was not wrong.

Where did they say this? What page is it on ?

antoobrien

raymon wrote: »

Antoobrien, Please provide a link to the explanation " in the media " you are referring to.

Transcript of an interview on Ireland AM February 11, 2011

Sinead Desmond (presenter): “You’re representing a new Fianna Fail, but then I was thinking about two things from your past. One of them being a – totally legitimate – donation by [Cork property developer] Owen O’Callaghan that found its way into your wife’s Dublin bank account. That seemed strange to me and had a sniff of the old Fianna Fail. And the second thing, in the Mahon Tribunal you were asked if you ever brought Owen O’Callaghan to meet Bertie Ahern and you said no that you would have remembered if such a thing happened. And then you were shown Mr Ahern’s ministerial diary which seemed to recollect a meeting between yourself, Bertie Ahern and Owen O’Callaghan but you said you couldn’t recall it. I’ll give you a chance to explain but both of those incidents smell of the old Fianna Fail that put ourselves in the position we find ourselves in.”

Micheál Martin: “I think that’s very unfair because I gave a very comprehensive account to the Tribunal on this…You’ve picked out two things…I gave a very comprehensive account and documentary evidence to the effect in terms of that donation that the money was spent on the party’s electoral operation in that local election. We showed the receipts – we didn’t have the full receipts, but we showed the receipts also the money left very quickly in the month around the General Election itself so every political party got donations at that time and they didn’t have to declare them.

Desmond: “But it ended up in your wife’s bank account?”

Martin: “My wife and I worked together in terms of the politics at the time. There’s nothing strange about that. We both lived in Dublin for that period and so there was nothing in that. When I say I lived in Dublin I was up here during the week in the Dail. Mary worked in Dublin for that year so there’s nothing wrong with that at all and no one has ever suggested any impropriety or any wrongdoing in terms of that.”

Desmond: “Neither was I.”

Martin: “Yeah (laughs) but when it’s taken out like that in full isolation like that it creates an innuendo and it creates an issue when there was none and in fact all I was ever was asked and every TD was asked at the time was for a list of donations that they received from that gentleman (O’Callaghan). And I gave them full comprehensive information with receipts which I even didn’t have to have at the time but I did and presented what I had at that time and there’s never been a suggestion by anyone that there anything wrong or any impropriety in relation to that”

Desmond: “What about the meeting mentioned in The Mahon Tribunal.”

Martin: “I never had a meeting with Bertie and Owen O’Callaghan.”

Desmond: “It’s all there recorded in his diary.”

Martin: “But it wasn’t you see even the tribunal itself didn’t seem to be going into (pause) I don’t want to be going into this because it’s based on the report (pause) didn’t seem to be too clear about it (pause) never any indication in advance that that was going to be raised (pause) I certainly didn’t…(trails off)”

If we are to take Mr Martin at his word he acted above board the whole time. If you don't want to take Mr Martin at his word then we have to have some evidence of wrongdoing, or else we start drifting dangerously towards slander.

raymon

I didn't find that tv3 interview convincing at all .

Here is a quote

Martin: “But it wasn’t you see even the tribunal itself didn’t seem to be going into (pause) I don’t want to be going into this because it’s based on the report (pause) didn’t seem to be too clear about it (pause) never any indication in advance that that was going to be raised (pause) I certainly didn’t…(trails off)”

Sierra Oscar

If you don't, then so be it - but whether you like it or not he put forward an explanation which was accepted by Mahon. That remains the case unless you have some evidence to suggest otherwise.

You will never be convinced by him anyways, which is quite clear by your post history.

3ndahalfof6

Indeed, indeed, hoodwink them he said, let us be seen to be doing something, hoodwink he said, they will never know, they are fools, they listen to their grandparents.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

If you don't, then so be it - but whether you like it or not he put forward an explanation which was accepted by Mahon. That remains the case unless you have some evidence to suggest otherwise.

You will never be convinced by him anyways, which is quite clear by your post history.

Where does it say that Mahon accepted the explanation.?

I didn't see that in the report .

Mr.Micro

raymon wrote: »

Where does it say that Mahon accepted the explanation.?

I didn't see that in the report .

Mahon published the report and it was up to the powers that be to do something re the findings on those involved. Has anything been done re any of those found to be less than honest? Nothing I do believe, so whatever was published about Martin is just like the rest of the report.... gathering dust, used as a door stop or under a table leg. Martin has amnesia re his 11 years in office and has a brass neck to boot. The same man with his cabinet colleagues in the last Government was very happy to use Lowry to keep them in power.

antoobrien

raymon wrote: »

I didn't find that tv3 interview convincing at all

What you think is totally irrelevant - if he lied in the interview he is not under dail privilege and can be prosecuted.

The fact that he has been largely ignored by the press and other political parties makes this a non issue.

raymon

antoobrien wrote: »

What you think is totally irrelevant - if he lied in the interview he is not under dail privilege and can be prosecuted.

The fact that he has been largely ignored by the press and other political parties makes this a non issue.

I am confused by your reply.

You are saying that my opinion is irrelevant, unless the media or other parties are talking about it ?

Very bizarre

antoobrien

raymon wrote: »

I am confused by your reply.

You are saying that my opinion is irrelevant, unless the media or other parties are talking about it ?

Very bizarre

Your opinion or the interview is irrelevant for the reasons I have outlined and your opinon of MM is equally because you have no proof MM did anything wrong or you'd have brought it up already.

The fact that nobody gives a flying f*** about these cheques when they should be like sharks with blood in the water is a clue to just how wrong headed you are.

But then this is just another thread to attack FF based on a false premise.

Should he not be calling for the Mahon tribunal to be reopened so that he can explain how a donation from developer Owen o Callaghan ended up in Martin's wife's account.

Don't get me wrong , Lowry should be held to account , but Martin is not the man who should be shouting about this one .

Yes Martin is the on that should be calling for this
a) he did nothing wrong as has been shown (your agenda aside) and
b) the leader of FF has to do this if for no other reason than to show the party is changing.

If he or FF didn't you'd be on here claiming that it's wrong that he said nothing.

Back to bed.

raymon

antoobrien wrote: »

Your opinion or the interview is irrelevant for the reasons I have outlined and your opinon of MM is equally because you have no proof MM did anything wrong or you'd have brought it up already.

The fact that nobody gives a flying f*** about these cheques when they should be like sharks with blood in the water is a clue to just how wrong headed you are.

But then this is just another thread to attack FF based on a false premise.



Yes Martin is the on that should be calling for this
a) he did nothing wrong as has been shown (your agenda aside) and
b) the leader of FF has to do this if for no other reason than to show the party is changing.

If he or FF didn't you'd be on here claiming that it's wrong that he said nothing.

Back to bed.

What false premise?