Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

James Brown · 11-03-2021 04:26PM

markodaly wrote: »

OK, so you are saying nothing really, but throwing out some loose accusations that you run away from when confronted.

Is that not your forte?

markodaly wrote: »

Not murder and kill Unionists, a good start.

markodaly · 11-03-2021 04:27PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

So it doesnt exonerate her for misleading the Dail. If it does then post a link to where the Collins Report says as such. hint: it doesnt

No report ever considered Fitzgerald misleading the Dail because no report ever had it contained within its terms of reference, they simply could not make judgement on matters that were not contained in the terms of reference.

Fitzgerald lied about her knowledge of a legal strategy to discredit Maurice McCabe and she misled the Dail She claimed she never saw the email about this strategy to attack Maurice McCabe yet then it turned out later that she had seen the email and had actually replied to it. In the meantime she also told Varadkar version 1 of her story and he too misled the Dail based on that false information.

Be it by incompetence or corruption she misled the Dail and that is what she voluntarily resigned for, no one put a gun to her head. No tribunal or report has ever exonerated her for misleading the Dail and nor will they ever either. To claim otherwise is just outright lies.

The Charleton Tribunal has fully accepted the evidence of former tánaiste and minister for justice Frances Fitzgerald about her knowledge of, and responses to, an alleged Garda strategy to undermine the reputation of Garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe.

The Tribunal report gives a clear exoneration to Ms Fitzgerald, who was forced to resign from the Government in November 2017 as a result of the political controversy surrounding her role.

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

No, she didn't lie, as per the findings of the tribunal.
If you think she did, go find the passage in the report where it is stated.

James Brown · 11-03-2021 04:31PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Judgement for past mortal sins seems an ill advised choice of contest.

I have no interest in this particular case, though Fine Gael has had a record of poor show with whistleblowers (Alan Shatter springs to mind). In the case of Fitzgerald the Collins Report exonerated her.

As explained numerous times, she wasn't exonerated for misleading the Dail or causing Varadkar to mislead the Dail.

James Brown · 11-03-2021 04:32PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

That Sinn Fein supporters don't specifically care about the local services GP agreement (but let's be honest, nobody does)

That these 'issues' are transparent excuses for attacks by one party on another. All it needs now is for someone to bring up printer costs.. maybe shoehorn it into the other 'issue' of the Sinn Fein foreign fundraiser advert.. two tangents for the price of one.

Francis Fitzgerald was exonerated by the Collins report.

Did you forget yourself? It's tradition to at least pretend it's related to the thread topic before having a go at shinners.

James Brown · 11-03-2021 04:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The problem with slurs like the ones against Fitzgerald is that the exoneration comes much later and the volume of media around it is much much smaller. This allows for continued accusations of wrongdoing despite the exoneration.

This will also happen with the current Village issue. The Gardai will eventually conclude that there is no case to offer, yet we will have the same people time and again referring to Leo the Leak.

She mislead the Dail and cannot be exonerated. It happened.

He leaked and therefore shall be rightly known as one who leaks.

Neither of these people are criminals, that we know of.

markodaly · 11-03-2021 04:45PM

James Brown wrote: »

Neither of these people are criminals, that we know of.

I genuinely laughed at that bit. :pac:

Doesitmatter21 · 11-03-2021 04:55PM

markodaly wrote: »

I genuinely laughed at that bit. :pac:

Its true we do not know if the Leak is a criminal yet, the gardai have not concluded their investigation

James Brown · 11-03-2021 04:56PM

markodaly wrote: »

I genuinely laughed at that bit. :pac:

Good man.
Just trying not to commit as we won't know until the Garda conclude their investigation

Muahahaha · 11-03-2021 05:01PM

markodaly wrote: »

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

No, she didn't lie, as per the findings of the tribunal.
If you think she did, go find the passage in the report where it is stated.

Yes she did lie, she was asked if she had knowledge of a legal strategy to discredit Maurice McCabe and she said she did not. Then it turned out she did have knowledge of it and this was proved by her responding to an email that contained details of that very strategy. She lied and misled the Dail in doing so, pure and simple. The Dail record had to be corrected on no less than 5 occasions because of the frequncy of which Fitzgerald misled it.

She lied and was then caught out in her lie by her own email. Theres no getting away from that and for that she rightfully resigned.

Nobotty · 11-03-2021 05:05PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yes she did lie, she was asked if she had knowledge of a legal strategy to discredit Maurice McCabe and she said she did not. Then it turned out she did have knowledge of it and this was proved by her responding to an email that contained details of that very strategy. She lied and misled the Dail in doing so, pure and simple. The Dail record had to be corrected on no less than 5 occasions because of the frequncy of which Fitzgerald misled it.

She lied and was then caught out in her lie by her own email. Theres no getting away from that and for that she rightfully resigned.

Where did she respond and what did she say?
Auto read and automatic reply/acknowledgement does not equate to knowledge

RandomName2 · 11-03-2021 05:19PM

James Brown wrote: »

Did you forget yourself? It's tradition to at least pretend it's related to the thread topic before having a go at shinners.

But nobody is interested in the GP agreement. They never have been.

People here have been talking about Francis Fitzgerald for the last few pages. Not a topic of much interest to me.

I wonder who kicked off the discussion and why.

Okay, I think I can guess, but let me check.

McMurphy wrote: »

There's bigger issues in the country, but what does that mean in reality?

The country can only deal with one issue at a time is it?

Are they bigger than the then Taoiseach of the country, leaking confidential information to his pal, and lying about it in the Dail, and now, care of FOI documents, he's gotten Simon Harris dragged into it?

Can you remember why Frances Fitzgerald resigned?

Well, that's hardly surprising. A tangent introduced by McMurphy for a chance to be obnoxiously condescending

McMurphy wrote: »

Lol, the last time you went through this you eventually had to slink off with your tail between your legs.

Where, in the independent report, was she, Frances Fitzgerald, exonerated for misleading the Dail and her then Taoiseach mark?

Here, I'll even link you to it. http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/Third_Interim_Report_121254.pdf

You went off to fetch that part last time you went through this pantomime, and you never did comeback.

Why oh why would you voluntarily embarrass yourself again over something you know well is going to end up with you and egg on face?

Martin and McDonald refuse to apologise to Fitzgerald

And that started a long winded something about FG by Sinn Fein posters.

I think the point was that if you mislead the Dail you resign? Well resignation is really at the discretion of the party and government leadership. That has always been the case. Legality clearly is not an interest in the scope of this matter.

So I suppose the really far reach by the Sinn Fein posters is that if Varadkar misled the Dail, that he should tender his resignation to Varadkar?

Again, if you are interested in the Maurice McCabe affair for its own sake then there are more interesting angles, but I guess nobody here is interested in Maurice McCabe for himself, or what he did.

Muahahaha · 11-03-2021 05:20PM

Nobotty wrote: »

Where did she respond and what did she say?
Auto read and automatic reply/acknowledgement does not equate to knowledge

Email to Fitzgerald- outlines legal strategy of trying to discredit Maurice McCabe at the oHiggins Commission
Reply from Fitzgerald- "Noted"
Fast forward 3 years and when asked about her knowledge of the legal strategy to be deployed against McCabe Fitzgerald said she had no knowledge. RTEs Katie Hannon has a source from within the Dept of Justice to say that she did had knowledge of the stratgey to discredit McCabe all along despute her saying she didnt. The email received and responded to by Fitzgerald was her literally being the author of her own downfall.

Its as black and white of a lie as you're going to get. She was asked a question about what she knew and when she knew it and her response was simply not the truth and this was subsequently verified by her own email response. She later got caught out in her lie, therefore she had to resign.

At no point does any inquiry, report or Tribunal exonerate her for any of her above activities of misleading the Dail and to claim otherwise is just a lie in itself.

James Brown · 11-03-2021 05:32PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

But nobody is interested in the GP agreement. They never have been.

People here have been talking about Francis Fitzgerald for the last few pages. Not a topic of much interest to me.

I wonder who kicked off the discussion and why.

Okay, I think I can guess, but let me check.

Well, that's hardly surprising. A tangent introduced by McMurphy for a chance to be obnoxiously condescending

And that started a long winded something about FG by Sinn Fein posters.

I think the point was that if you mislead the Dail you resign? Well resignation is really at the discretion of the party and government leadership. That has always been the case. Legality clearly is not an interest in the scope of this matter.

So I suppose the really far reach by the Sinn Fein posters is that if Varadkar misled the Dail, that he should tender his resignation to Varadkar?

Again, if you are interested in the Maurice McCabe affair for its own sake then there are more interesting angles, but I guess nobody here is interested in Maurice McCabe for himself, or what he did.

The details of the contents of the document are not related to the fact they were confidential and Varadkar leaked it to a pal.

It's quite obvious the FG lobby use SF to hide behind.
You are assuming, honestly or not, that anyone critical of Varadkar or FG is a biased shinner. This is very convenient I imagine but it ignores the issues raised it doesn't excuse or justify them.
Also you assume people don't care about McCabe because Fitzgerald is being discussed. McCabe is not a FG TD who mislead the Dail. So why would he come up?
If people think the public only consists of FG supporters and biased shinners, it might explain the tone deafness.

blanch152 · 11-03-2021 05:39PM

Nobotty wrote: »

Where did she respond and what did she say?
Auto read and automatic reply/acknowledgement does not equate to knowledge

The maintenance of the pretence that Fitzgerald lied to the Dail requires a preposterous belief that a Minister personally reads and responds to every email that they receive.

That is simply not a tenable belief.

Nobotty · 11-03-2021 05:59PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Email to Fitzgerald- outlines legal strategy of trying to discredit Maurice McCabe at the oHiggins Commission
Reply from Fitzgerald- "Noted"
Fast forward 3 years and when asked about her knowledge of the legal strategy to be deployed against McCabe Fitzgerald said she had no knowledge. RTEs Katie Hannon has a source from within the Dept of Justice to say that she did had knowledge of the stratgey to discredit McCabe all along despute her saying she didnt. The email received and responded to by Fitzgerald was her literally being the author of her own downfall.

Its as black and white of a lie as you're going to get. She was asked a question about what she knew and when she knew it and her response was simply not the truth and this was subsequently verified by her own email response. She later got caught out in her lie, therefore she had to resign.

At no point does any inquiry, report or Tribunal exonerate her for any of her above activities of misleading the Dail and to claim otherwise is just a lie in itself.

Would you remember one email out of 100's from 3 years ago that you or perhaps your PA replies noted to if it wasnt your job to drill into the day to day rigeur?
At the end of the day all that information was put in front of the tribunal and there was a reasonable deliberation made
Your opinions are perfectly valudly held but they dont carry the weight of a tribunals findings
A lie has to be deliberately thought out in my opinion
You'd want to be very stupid to genuinely know of something,where theres a verifiable trail and pretend it isnt there
No one clever enough to land in high office is that stupid IMO
I believe thats why theres less criticism in that tribunal than someone of your view would expect

Muahahaha · 11-03-2021 06:00PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The maintenance of the pretence that Fitzgerald lied to the Dail requires a preposterous belief that a Minister personally reads and responds to every email that they receive.

That is simply not a tenable belief.

Strawman argument thay nobody made anyway. Fitzgerald never denied seeing the email herself and nor did she deny responding to the email herself either.

If you're trying to claim that Fitzgerald didnt see or didnt respond to the email herself well thats quite the silly hill to die on when even Fitzgerald herself didnt take this position.

And just to add to those claiming she was exonerated by the Collins Report for midleading the Dail, no-where in the terms of reference was this even allowed to be investigated dont mind reported upon. Yet posters on here are holding up the Collins Report as some sort of exoneration for Fitzgerald misleading the Dail when it was nothing of the sort. It was an investigation into why Fitzgeralds department did not provide important emails to the Disclosures Tribunal when there had been a legal discovery order for same, nothing more, nothing less and certainly nothing to do with investigating her misleading the Dail.

Here are the Terms of Reference, I invite anyone to tell me where Michael Collines SC was allowed to make rulings on Fitzgerald misleading the Dail. Hint- he wasnt because it was never in the Terms of Reference
https://assets.gov.ie/2187/231018175906-8004df2051354faab25c2b37a50f0181.pdf

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE
2.1. The Terms of Reference for the Review are as follows:
1. Michael Collins S.C. is appointed to conduct an independent review and
undertake a thorough examination of the practices and procedures employed by
the Department of Justice and Equality in regard to its obligations to provide
documents to the Disclosures Tribunal.
2. The review shall involve consideration of a written document, to be prepared by
the Department by 21 December 2017, setting out and explaining the actions
taken in response to requests by the Disclosures Tribunal for documents, with
particular reference to any orders made or directions issued by the Tribunal
requiring the production of documents. The review will also encompass an
examination of all relevant documents and records held by the Department
together with any additional material obtained from any interviews with
Department officials and other relevant persons, as considered appropriate by
the Reviewer. Specifically the reviewer will examine why the emails of 15 May
2015, 25 May 2015 and 4 July 2015 were not sent to the Tribunal until November
2017.
3. The Reviewer shall be given all necessary cooperation by the Department,
including access to documents, records and other relevant materials.
4. At the conclusion of the review, the Reviewer shall submit a written report to the
Taoiseach which will set out the facts as found, together with such observations
or comments as are considered necessary, in relation to the following matters:
(a) The actions taken by the Department in response to all requests for
documents directed to the Department, whether formal or informal;
(b) the processes and protocols within the department which gave rise to those
actions, including processes relating to:
i. the receipt of requests for documents,
ii. the assignment and communication of responsibility for responding to
such requests,
4
iii. the supervision and management of those responsible for responding
to such requests, including any decisions or discussions taken about
the material that was to be sent to the Tribunal,
iv. the search process is used to locate relevant documentation, and
v. the provision of documents to the Tribunal;
(c) The communication of information to and from senior management and with
the Minister at the Department concerning the Department’s response to
requests for documentation made by the Tribunal including a review of any
relevant notes or minutes of any interactions.
5. In the report the reviewer may identify any concerns arising from the above with
regard to:
(a) practices and procedures operated by the Department in relation to the
storage, identification and retrieval of documents,
(b) management and supervision processes relating to interactions, including the
sending of documentation, with the Tribunal in the Department,
(c) communication of information within the Department,
(d) communication of information between the Department and the Tribunal,
(e) whether, taking account of the recent additional trawl, insofar as its practical,
the department has now carried out an appropriately comprehensive search
and retrieval to identify any relevant material for the Tribunal.
The Reviewer may also advise on what further measures, if any, might be taken
to address those concerns.
6. The Reviewer shall use his best endeavours to submit a final report to the
Taoiseach on or before 19 January 2018 or at the earliest possible date
thereafter

So anyone claiming that the Collins report exonerates Fitzgerald for misleading the Dail is also outright lying because the Terms of Reference never allowed him to do so in the first place. And who set the Terms of Reference? None other than Leo Varadkar and his Department. Its very easy not to uncover wrong doing when you literally write Terms of Reference that prohibit that wrong doing from being investigated in the first place. Collins was never allowed to investigate her misleading the Dail therefore it logically follows that he also cannot exonerate her for it.

Despite these clear facts some posters here want to tell us that black is not black at all but actually white.

golfball37 · 11-03-2021 06:11PM

If Frances Fitzgerald ignored or didn’t remember an email about the strategy employed in the biggest justice scandal of the decade, as minister for justice no less, then she’s not fit to be sweeping up in the corridors of the Dail.

If she did nothing wrong then she’s the worst person I’ve ever seen hold any office for that alone. It would be akin to Donnelly ignoring stuff about the covid vaccine.

James Brown · 11-03-2021 06:23PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The maintenance of the pretence that Fitzgerald lied to the Dail requires a preposterous belief that a Minister personally reads and responds to every email that they receive.

That is simply not a tenable belief.

No it does not.
It states she responded to it and later stated on record, that she wasn't aware of it. A mistake or a lie.

golfball37 wrote: »

If Frances Fitzgerald ignored or didn’t remember an email about the strategy employed in the biggest justice scandal of the decade, as minister for justice no less, then she’s not fit to be sweeping up in the corridors of the Dail.

If she did nothing wrong then she’s the worst person I’ve ever seen hold any office for that alone. It would be akin to Donnelly ignoring stuff about the covid vaccine.

Exactly. Either way she was unfit.

nordiestar · 11-03-2021 08:37PM

Tokyo wrote: »

Mod: Banned for a week for repeated uncivil behaviour.

Mod: Ranting about moderation snipped - Threadbanned

Bubbaclaus · 11-03-2021 09:05PM

Certainly an interesting first post in 9 years, but not sure what the relevance is to the topic of the thread

James Brown · 11-03-2021 09:36PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Certainly an interesting first post in 9 years, but not sure what the relevance is to the topic of the thread

Yet you posted anyway.
I've raised a similar point, but in feedback. It got closed.

Bubbaclaus · 11-03-2021 09:42PM

James Brown wrote: »

Yet you posted anyway.
I've raised a similar point, but in feedback. It got closed.

Not sure why you felt the need to tell me, but fair enough. I'm not going to get dragged in to discussing moderation.

James Brown · 11-03-2021 10:06PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Not sure why you felt the need to tell me, but fair enough. I'm not going to get dragged in to discussing moderation.

Ditto. Feedback is the place.

Muahahaha · 11-03-2021 10:35PM

Nobotty wrote: »

Would you remember one email out of 100's from 3 years ago that you or perhaps your PA replies noted to if it wasnt your job to drill into the day to day rigeur

Now its plainly clear to me that you are commenting on something you dont actually know the details of. Fitzgerald wasnt doorstepped over this question about the email, nor was she asked it under pressure during a radio interview and just answered incorrectly by accident.

It was Alan Kelly who asked her the question about her knowledge of the strategy to attack Maurice McCabe at the Higgins Commission via a parliamentary question, ie he submitted a letter with the question upon it long in advance of her answer which she then gave to mislead the Dail. Both she, her 100k a year tea of special advisor and her team of senior civil servants all had ample time to deliver the answer in a truthful fashion. Fitzgerald herself could have googled the answer in her own email in under five seconds and delivered the truthful answer. But she did not, she instead misled the Dail which is a resigning matter as Denis Naughten also found out when he too had to resign for misleading the Dail for giving answers to parliamentary questions that were not truthful.

At the end of the day all that information was put in front of the tribunal and there was a reasonable deliberation made
Your opinions are perfectly valudly held but they dont carry the weight of a tribunals findings

Again there was no information put before the Tribunal on Fitzgerald misleading the Dail. Here are the Terms of Refernce of the Charleton Tribunal, you wont find anything in there that says Judge Charleton was ever allowed to investigate or make comment upon her misleading the Dail.
https://www.disclosuretribunal.ie/terms-of-reference/
Fitzgerald misleading the Dail was a political matter that was outside the scope of his investigation. The tribunal did include an investigation in what exactly the Department of Justice and Fitzgerald were doing by not supplying emails under the discovery process but at no point did it ever stray into Dail matters because that was clearly outside the Terms of Reference which the Judge was bound by.

So any claim on here that Fitzgerald was exonerated for misleading the Dail by either the Charleton Tribunal or the Collins Report is nothing more than a deliberate lie and a big bottle of smoke. Neither investigation was ever even allowed to investigate it in the first place, dont mind comment upon it, dont mind exonerate her for it.

RandomName2 · 11-03-2021 10:48PM

James Brown wrote: »

The details of the contents of the document are not related to the fact they were confidential and Varadkar leaked it to a pal.

No, strictly speaking that isn't true.

There are different levels of confidentially. If boards.ie leaked the email addresses of its users online that would be confidential information. This would not be on the same level as something like medical records.

Furthermore there is a less obvious path to corruption than say, the GP union having a financial interest in the contents, and paying for that information. The GP union was not in a position to bid on the contract, and was frozen out of its negotiation (and was basically bakrupt anyway). There is no financial angle. Varadkar clearly didn't do it for money.

What did he do it for? To keep in with the lads: to ingratiate himself with doctors that may have been (with good reason) angered about being left out in the cold. Is this legitimate? Hardly. Varadkar painted this as being in the public good, and it probably was, but that wasn't the primary motive, which was clearly winning personal support (for Fine Gael in general, but mainly himself).

James Brown wrote: »

It's quite obvious the FG lobby use SF to hide behind.

Not really. They are mainly concerned with SF being the most popular opposition party by a huge margin. If SD or Labour were at 20% instead of languishing in mid to low single digits a lot of their attacks would be directed that way instead.

James Brown wrote: »

You are assuming, honestly or not, that anyone critical of Varadkar or FG is a biased shinner. This is very convenient I imagine but it ignores the issues raised it doesn't excuse or justify them.

Granted I haven't been in this thread long, but your reply here is the closest to actually talking about the issues at all.

If it were only talking about the issues at hand I would see this thread only being several pages long, not 453.

James Brown wrote: »

Also you assume people don't care about McCabe because Fitzgerald is being discussed. McCabe is not a FG TD who mislead the Dail. So why would he come up?

FFG is a tangent in the first place.

RandomName2 · 11-03-2021 11:05PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Again there was no information put before the Tribunal on Fitzgerald misleading the Dail. Here are the Terms of Refernce of the Charleton Tribunal, you wont find anything in there that says Judge Charleton was ever allowed to investigate or make comment upon her misleading the Dail.
https://www.disclosuretribunal.ie/terms-of-reference/

I am not familiar with what she specifically said in the Dail, nor will I be examining it here as it has nothing to do with the GP agreement that this thread is about.

However the Charleton report sates as fact that FFG acted appropriately in general, and responded correctly to evidence presented to her concerning Maurice McCabe.

Now perhaps her statements in the Dail were entirely unrelated to McCabe, and were instead on an entirely different matter, so therefore saying that she acted appropriately and reasonably in relation to the McCabe case would not, as such, cover what she said and did in the Dail. I find this doubtful however, and must wonder why the Sinn Fein people here continue to sieve through acres of mud hoping to find the barest nugget from this affair.

Whether Fine Gael acted correctly in relation to McCabe is a different issue from FFG herself, but presumably treating Fine Gael as a whole is not convenient to whatever weak point is.. frankly not even being made.

golfball37 · 11-03-2021 11:27PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, strictly speaking that isn't true.

There are different levels of confidentially. If boards.ie leaked the email addresses of its users online that would be confidential information. This would not be on the same level as something like medical records.

Furthermore there is a less obvious path to corruption than say, the GP union having a financial interest in the contents, and paying for that information. The GP union was not in a position to bid on the contract, and was frozen out of its negotiation (and was basically bakrupt anyway). There is no financial angle. Varadkar clearly didn't do it for money.

What did he do it for? To keep in with the lads: to ingratiate himself with doctors that may have been (with good reason) angered about being left out in the cold. Is this legitimate? Hardly. Varadkar painted this as being in the public good, and it probably was, but that wasn't the primary motive, which was clearly winning personal support (for Fine Gael in general, but mainly himself).

Not really. They are mainly concerned with SF being the most popular opposition party by a huge margin. If SD or Labour were at 20% instead of languishing in mid to low single digits a lot of their attacks would be directed that way instead.

Granted I haven't been in this thread long, but your reply here is the closest to actually talking about the issues at all.

If it were only talking about the issues at hand I would see this thread only being several pages long, not 453.

FFG is a tangent in the first place.

There’s legislation and rules around cabinet confidentiality, no comparison to other instances you’ve listed. If Varadkar had the presiding ministers approval then he was within his rights to share the document. The relevant minister was Harris, hence why the Gardai interviewed him. If he told Gardai he was aware in advance of Leo sharing then there is no case to answer

James Brown · 11-03-2021 11:35PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, strictly speaking that isn't true.

There are different levels of confidentially. If boards.ie leaked the email addresses of its users online that would be confidential information. This would not be on the same level as something like medical records.

Furthermore there is a less obvious path to corruption than say, the GP union having a financial interest in the contents, and paying for that information. The GP union was not in a position to bid on the contract, and was frozen out of its negotiation (and was basically bakrupt anyway). There is no financial angle. Varadkar clearly didn't do it for money.

What did he do it for? To keep in with the lads: to ingratiate himself with doctors that may have been (with good reason) angered about being left out in the cold. Is this legitimate? Hardly. Varadkar painted this as being in the public good, and it probably was, but that wasn't the primary motive, which was clearly winning personal support (for Fine Gael in general, but mainly himself).

Not really. They are mainly concerned with SF being the most popular opposition party by a huge margin. If SD or Labour were at 20% instead of languishing in mid to low single digits a lot of their attacks would be directed that way instead.

Granted I haven't been in this thread long, but your reply here is the closest to actually talking about the issues at all.

If it were only talking about the issues at hand I would see this thread only being several pages long, not 453.

FFG is a tangent in the first place.

Strictly speaking or casually picking fluff out of your bellybutton and speaking, it's true.
Confidential means it's not for consumption by any Tom, Dick or Harry. The seriousness does not mean it's only a little bit confidential. The fall out or results can be minor or serious.
IMO, LV was trying to garner support from his pal's membership by doing them a solid and passing this confidential document. I base this opinion on the back and forth as published.
I do not believe the 'public good' line. I think he lied to try cover his arse.
Basically he damaged the trust for any future negotiations.

The thread is extended every time somebody, like yourself, comes in to dispute or fudge the bare facts and add their own tuppence ha'penny on why Varadkar did nothing wrong. Which is cool, but to suggest it's shinners stirring is disputed by the thread content if you read back.

It's not about McCabe I would say Fitzgerald was raised because she mislead the Dail and was resigned. What Varadkar did was in the least as bad.

Muahahaha · 11-03-2021 11:59PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I am not familiar with what she specifically said in the Dail, nor will I be examining it here as it has nothing to do with the GP agreement that this thread is about.

However the Charleton report sates as fact that FFG acted appropriately in general, and responded correctly to evidence presented to her concerning Maurice McCabe.

Thats not in dispute and its precisely what the Charleton Tribunal report found

Now perhaps her statements in the Dail were entirely unrelated to McCabe, and were instead on an entirely different matter, so therefore saying that she acted appropriately and reasonably in relation to the McCabe case would not, as such, cover what she said and did in the Dail. I find this doubtful however, and must wonder why the Sinn Fein people here continue to sieve through acres of mud hoping to find the barest nugget from this affair.

Im not sure what you find doubtful, its literally what happened. There are two issues at play
1. Her and her department not providing emails to the Charleton Tribunal as legally required under the discovery process of that Tribunal
2. Her misleading the Dail on her knowledge of a legal strategy by Noirin oSullivan and AGS to attack Maurice McCabe at the Higgins Commission. She said she had no knowledge of it but it turned out that Alan Kelly and RTEs Katie Hannon found out that she did.

Charleton ruled on 1. above but he did not and nor could he ever rule on 2. above because it was simply never in the Terms of Reference.

Its plain and simple, she misled the Dail and nobody has ever exonerated her for it, despite the claims of some posters on here They were asked to link to where Charleton exonerated her for misleading the Dail and they couldnt do it for a simple reason- he never did. Yet the lies that she was fully exonerated by the Charleton Tribunal Report (and now the Colllins report too) keep getting posted here ad nauseum.

markodaly · 12-03-2021 12:14AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

So anyone claiming that the Collins report exonerates Fitzgerald for misleading the Dail is also outright lying.

Best write to Justice Charlton, RTE and the Irish Times so, as they are 'outright lying'.

The Tribunal report gives a clear exoneration to Ms Fitzgerald, who was forced to resign from the Government in November 2017 as a result of the political controversy surrounding her role.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/frances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ffrances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184

Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

Comments