FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

markodaly wrote: »

The Charleton Report totally exonerated her.

Now, you accept those facts, like a normal rational person or you can go down the Donald Trump or Gemma o'Doherty route of dismissing facts and going down the road of 'alternative facts' like a conspiracy theorist.

Why did she resign Mark?...you were asked a simple question.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why did Frances Fitzgerald resign Mark?

The Charleton Report totally exonerated her.

Now, you accept those facts, like a normal rational person or you can go down the Donald Trump or Gemma o'Doherty route of dismissing facts and going down the road of 'alternative facts' like a conspiracy theorist.

Muahahaha

Bowie wrote: »

No you misunderstood. I'm sure she did nothing criminal and would be likely exonerated if charged with shooting J.R., but 'exonerated' gives the false and wrong impression she did nothing wrong at all. She made a pigs ear of her job and a fool of LV. Its laid out in the link provided.
Its the refusal to acknowledge the fact she did wrong, thats the issue,.

She definitely made a mug out of Leo by sending him into the Dail to tell lies. Leo is an even bigger mug for backing her. Simon Harris the same, he said that Francis was his "political mammy" :rolleyes:

Fitzgerald was the Minister of Justice who appointed Noirin o'Sullivan. Despite lots of commentators in the media and opposition politicans like Wallace and Daly pointing out that the Gardai needed a fresh break from the Callinan regime that o'Sullivan had been promoted through Fitzgerald still appointed oSullivan. Fitzgerald was adequately warned with big red flags waving all over but despite that she appointed oSullivan and hence hitched her wagon to o'Sullivans performance as Garda Commissioner, which we all know was dire. oSullivan also ran rings around Fitzgerald and made her look like an idiot on more than one occasion.

The leadership of AGS eventually got changed with Drew Harris but it should have happened directly after Callinan. Unfortunately Franics Fitzgerald is a bit of a slow learner, she couldnt even spot what every man and his dog had already spotted.

Thats not the kind of leadership or judgement that will be acceptable to Ursula von der Leyen. The last thing Ursula needs right now is more even Fine Gael incompetence weakening her own position. Shes had enough grief with Hogan so Calamity Fitzgerald will not be welcome in her cabinet.

blanch152 wrote: »

I think you are right, that is why certain posters are proclaiming to accept the Charleton report but then argue against it findings by referring back to something that occurred before the report. It is a good name for that tactic.

No you misunderstood. I'm sure she did nothing criminal and would be likely exonerated if charged with shooting J.R., but 'exonerated' gives the false and wrong impression she did nothing wrong at all. She made a pigs ear of her job and a fool of LV. Its laid out in the link provided.
Its the refusal to acknowledge the fact she did wrong, thats the issue,.

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think a few posters on here need to go back and read the terms of reference of the Charleton Report, its up on the tribunal website for all to see.

Then they need to come back and show us a link from the terms of reference where it says Judge Charleton was allowed to adjudicate on Francis Fitzgeralds performance in the Dail.

I await the links lads and in the mean time enjoy your fools errand

I don't think even FG would have the arrogance to go through with Frances, Mairead and Simon were pushed to the fore pronto after social media lit up and Ursula Von Der Leyen started getting messaged. Another fairly speedy Black and Tans row back from that one.

Muahahaha

I think a few posters on here need to go back and read the terms of reference of the Charleton Report, its up on the tribunal website for all to see.

Then they need to come back and show us a link from the terms of reference where it says Judge Charleton was allowed to adjudicate on Francis Fitzgeralds performance in the Dail.

I await the links lads and in the mean time enjoy your fools errand

Bowie wrote: »

It's the aul ' Chewbacca defense

I think you are right, that is why certain posters are proclaiming to accept the Charleton report but then argue against it findings by referring back to something that occurred before the report. It is a good name for that tactic.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why did Frances Fitzgerald resign Mark?

It's the aul ' Chewbacca defense

In a jury trial, a Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation.

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, the Donald Trump view of 'Alternative Facts' comes back.
I thought we were making progress from the last post.
So, basically the truth is whatever you make it, or whatever political angle you want to cast?

The Charleton Report exonerates Fitzgerald, but you refuse to accept that.
In other words, you are going all post-truth Trump on us, refusing to accept the basic facts as we know it.

You cant have it both ways.

Why did Frances Fitzgerald resign Mark?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Carleton report did not deal with why she resigned. From that tangle of her own making she cannot be exonerated...it is an historical FACT that she had to resign because the Dáil had been misled.

No amount of subsequent lying about it and depending on a word in a report that didn't deal with it will work Mark.

Ah, the Donald Trump view of 'Alternative Facts' comes back.
I thought we were making progress from the last post.
So, basically the truth is whatever you make it, or whatever political angle you want to cast?

The Charleton Report exonerates Fitzgerald, but you refuse to accept that.
In other words, you are going all post-truth Trump on us, refusing to accept the basic facts as we know it.

You cant have it both ways.

markodaly wrote: »

Good, so you accept the fact then that the Charleton Report exonerated Fitzgerald.

The Carleton report did not deal with why she resigned. From that tangle of her own making she cannot be exonerated...it is an historical FACT that she had to resign because the Dáil had been misled.

No amount of subsequent lying about it and depending on a word in a report that didn't deal with it will work Mark.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I don't have any issue with it and I never mentioned it.

Good, so you accept the fact then that the Charleton Report exonerated Fitzgerald.

markodaly wrote: »

Opinion piece vs A tribunal report writen by a judge?

Yes, we should all go with the opinion piece

You love the 'Alternative Facts' Francie! But is shows the mindset, when facts are presented against you case, you either ignore them, or dismiss them as irrelvant.
The post-truth world of Donald Trump right here displayed on this very thread!

Please point out any incorrect statements in the piece.

She had to resign because she misrepresented the extent of her knowledge about what went on in 2015, she was slow in answering legitimate questions, her briefing to the Taoiseach saw him mislead the Dáil, and her department failed to discover important documents to the Disclosures Tribunal.

That's at best gross incompetence.

We don't need a poor candidate. Looks like Coveney wants it, that'll leave FG on dodgy ground numbers wise. Was hoping he'd run for leader again. Bring some credibility to the party.

markodaly wrote: »

Do you believe the Charleton report Francie?
Do you take issue with its findings?
If so, which findings and why?
Are you suggesting wrongdoing in the summation of the report?
If so, what wrongdoing?

No I don't have any issue with it and I never mentioned it.

Now - do you accept why Frances Fitzgerald resigned? Was the Dail misled? Yes or no?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What relevance has it to the conversation?

.

Do you mean what does the Charleton Report has to do with the conversation?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was the Dàil misled mark? Was that the reason she had to go?
Did she make an almighty mess of the wh9le thing and do those who may be considering her for a position need to know about that?
We do not, repeat, NOT need to send another FGer who thinks they have the smarts to lie and get away with it.

Do you believe the Charleton report Francie?
Do you take issue with its findings?
If so, which findings and why?
Are you suggesting wrongdoing in the summation of the report?
If so, what wrongdoing?

blanch152 wrote: »

Answer a question with a question.

Again, do you accept the Charleton Report or not?

What relevance has it to the conversation?

Did Frances Fitzgerald mislead and did she make a complete mess of it and end up having to resign?

I await an answer to this.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was the Dàil misled mark? Was that the reason she had to go?
Did she make an almighty mess of the wh9le thing and do those who may be considering her for a position need to know about that?
We do not, repeat, NOT need to send another FGer who thinks they have the smarts to lie and get away with it.

Answer a question with a question.

Again, do you accept the Charleton Report or not?

markodaly wrote: »

Do you believe the Charleton report Francie?
Do you take issue with its findings?
If so, which findings and why?
Are you suggesting wrongdoing in the summation of the report?
If so, what wrongdoing?

Was the Dàil misled mark? Was that the reason she had to go?
Did she make an almighty mess of the wh9le thing and do those who may be considering her for a position need to know about that?
We do not, repeat, NOT need to send another FGer who thinks they have the smarts to lie and get away with it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like Clifford...nobody is talking about the remit of the Carleton report.

Do you believe the Charleton report Francie?
Do you take issue with its findings?
If so, which findings and why?
Are you suggesting wrongdoing in the summation of the report?
If so, what wrongdoing?

blanch152 wrote: »

Double standards again.

Clifford can say what he likes about Frances Fitzgerald and it will be taken as gospel truth, but if Clifford was to turn around and say that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, he would be excorciated for convicting a man without a trial.

All Clifford has to do is to present compelling evidence for what he claims...same as anyone.

This has been done in relation to Frances Fitzgerald.
Carleton did not deal with the reasons for her resignation.

FG as Clifford says try to pretend otherwise

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like Clifford...nobody is talking about the remit of the Carleton report.

Double standards again.

Clifford can say what he likes about Frances Fitzgerald and it will be taken as gospel truth, but if Clifford was to turn around and say that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, he would be excorciated for convicting a man without a trial.

markodaly wrote: »

And.... what exactly are you doing?

Using an opinion piece as a way to dismiss the Charleton report and proclaim her guilty anyway, even though an independent judge with no political axe to grind exonerated Fitzgerald.

A journalist can write what it wants, but we have a court system to proclaim people guilty or not. In this instance, the Disclosures Tribunal was the closet thing we had to a court sitting.

Do you believe the Charleton report Francie?
Do you take issue with its findings?
If so, which findings and why?
Are you suggesting wrongdoing in the summation of the report?
If so, what wrongdoing?

Like Clifford...nobody is talking about the remit of the Carleton report.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The report didn't exonerate her for what Clifford outlines. You and mark are attempting to do exactly what Clifford accuses FG of doing. Latching on to a word and trying to claim it covers everything.
Touching loyalty but wholly wrong.

And.... what exactly are you doing?

Using an opinion piece as a way to dismiss the Charleton report and proclaim her guilty anyway, even though an independent judge with no political axe to grind exonerated Fitzgerald.

A journalist can write what it wants, but we have a court system to proclaim people guilty or not. In this instance, the Disclosures Tribunal was the closet thing we had to a court sitting.

Do you believe the Charleton report Francie?
Do you take issue with its findings?
If so, which findings and why?
Are you suggesting wrongdoing in the summation of the report?
If so, what wrongdoing?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-30876014.html

.

Opinion piece vs A tribunal report writen by a judge?

Yes, we should all go with the opinion piece

You love the 'Alternative Facts' Francie! But is shows the mindset, when facts are presented against you case, you either ignore them, or dismiss them as irrelvant.
The post-truth world of Donald Trump right here displayed on this very thread!

blanch152 wrote: »

The Frances Fitzgerald question was more than adequately addressed by others. The rest of your post is personal invective trying to get a response, not going there.

The report didn't exonerate her for what Clifford outlines. You and mark are attempting to do exactly what Clifford accuses FG of doing. Latching on to a word and trying to claim it covers everything.
Touching loyalty but wholly wrong.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Blanch couldn't refute the Frances Fitzgerald stuff..made an allegation that people were trying to smear her and promptly tried to change the subject.

The Greens don't like it when you criticise FG.

The Frances Fitzgerald question was more than adequately addressed by others. The rest of your post is personal invective trying to get a response, not going there.

markodaly wrote: »

I see you want to go down this rabbit hole again, it wont end well as last time you did that you had lots of egg on your face.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/frances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184

Bowie wrote: »

The numbers went down because we are in a pandemic. Nothing Murphy or FG did. TBF posing with a shovel with your sleeves rolled up wasn't going to achieve much.

Blanch couldn't refute the Frances Fitzgerald stuff..made an allegation that people were trying to smear her and promptly tried to change the subject.

The Greens don't like it when you criticise FG.