The Frances Fitzgerald controversy. Are we heading for an election?

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

So it wasn't just one. Thank you for the correction.

P.S. and you forget the third, which I put as unlikely, but not impossible.

So leaving aside your "unlikely, but not impossible" in light of one of your now debunked "logical explanation" on the source of this email being this Disclosures Tribunal, perhaps you would be good enough to explain the logic behind your only other "logical explanation"?

That the source was An Garda Siochana ?

Loafing Oaf

munsterlegend wrote: »

Have to say it will be some climb down from FF if there is no resignation from Fitzgerald. They have issued a motion against her and are now backtracking. .

Are they? Is there any actual evidence of this?

Sephiral

blanch152 wrote: »

You are advocating that FF adopt a typical "cute hoor" approach.

How could any potential coalition partner trust them after that? How could FG rely on a future "confidence and supply" arrangement?

The current political situation sees both FF and FG advertising themselves and positioning themselves as future desirable coalition partners and that audience isn't just the public but other politicians.

If FF were to agree reforms but pull the plug anyway, that would be seen as untrustworthy with politicians even if it played well in the short-term with the public with no guarantee that the short-term welcome would last as long as the election date.

Varadkar is trying to force their hand by getting them to choose between Fitzgerald's head and institutional reform that is actually a good idea. I'm suggesting they reject the false choice given to them. The reforms to Justice and Policing should happen. Fitzgerald should be sacked. It is not one or the other.

We are heading towards an election no one wants. Whoever hold their nerve here wins. People know McCabe was stitched up and know it was Fitzgerald's justice dept and the guards who did it. People want to see meaningful reform. MM shouldn't fold here. It doesn't make sense politically for him or Fianna Fail. It doesn't make sense for the good of the country either. It's a bit mad, but FF are in the right here.

FrancieBrady

Sephiral wrote: »

Varadkar is trying to force their hand by getting them to choose between Fitzgerald's head and institutional reform that is actually a good idea. I'm suggesting they reject the false choice given to them. The reforms to Justice and Policing should happen. Fitzgerald should be sacked. It is not one or the other.

We are heading towards an election no one wants. Whoever hold their nerve here wins. People know McCabe was stitched up and know it was Fitzgerald's justice dept and the guards who did it. People want to see meaningful reform. MM shouldn't fold here. It doesn't make sense politically for him or Fianna Fail. It doesn't make sense for the good of the country either. It's a bit mad, but FF are in the right here.

In many ways it is shocking and highly insulting that FG have come up with this reform only in response to a threat to their power.

munsterlegend

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Sinn Fein also have a no confidence motion for Wednesday, right? FF will have to abstain from that....ouch.

Yeah a farce unless she leaves cabinet which she won't. Even Leo was trying to take heat off FF by saying oh it's sinn fein's fault all this election talk.

Martin and FF can dress it up whatever they want but you either do or don't have confidence. Just as well we're not sending them to brexit talks if this is how they fold.

munsterlegend

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Are they? Is there any actual evidence of this?

All the indications are there will be a fudge solution with no resignation. Usually these indications are accurate but it's not confirmed yet no.

Cork Boy 53

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/why-an-election-would-not-be-the-worst-thing-for-ireland-right-now-expert/ar-BBFMiDj?li=BBr5KbJ

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

So leaving aside your "unlikely, but not impossible" in light of one of your now debunked "logical explanation" on the source of this email being this Disclosures Tribunal, perhaps you would be good enough to explain the logic behind your only other "logical explanation"?

That the source was An Garda Siochana ?

I am not going to go down a rabbit hole with you on this one. I have offered three possibilities for how the email leaked. You have offered none.

Neither am I going around the houses explaining the logic and the implications behind each and every one. If one of them had a clear outstanding logic and references to back it up, it would be clear to everyone, but there are reasons for and reasons against each source.

We could all go around, as you are doing, picking holes in any of the three possibilities, that is the easy thing to do and makes one look clever. The more difficult task is actually picking a definitive one and explaining why it is the real one and also what are the implications.

Take the possibility that Justice are the source. The first question is how come Justice officials leaked an email to Alan Kelly some weeks or months ago yet couldn't find it early last week when he was asking questions about it? Maybe they didn't leak it is the obvious answer. The other possible answer, is that some official leaked it to Alan Kelly but didn't bother to offer it up to the Minister when Kelly started asking questions. That says something about the Department all right, but it also exonerates the Minister in this particular case, as it was the officials who were hiding things from her. Given that, why are Kelly and the rest of the opposition looking for her head on a platter, given that is their source.

It doesn't make sense, unless the opposition are cynically exploiting something they actually know isn't the Minister's fault. It isn't even Flanagan's fault as he was only told about the existence of the email and not its content around 10 days ago. There will be serious questions for Justice officials to answer if they are Kelly's mole but cannot give their own Minister the same information.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that Flanagan and Fitzgerald have been sitting on this information for weeks and months too. However, there will be a record of this, and Varadkar would have sacked them if that was the case.

James Brown

It's pretty sad; thankfully Wallace, Clare Daly etc. raised the penalty points controversy. The party faithful occupied themselves with Wallace, Daly etc. instead of the issue.
Now it's escalated and FF are calling out Fitzgerald, (who should resign, but hey, this is Ireland) and we've the party faithful occupied with talk of point scoring and Sinn Fein etc. It's all some political conspiracy so even though we are dealing with facts, they shouldn't be entertained.
Everything in politics can be sold as point scoring. Nobody is buying the concept that information should be dismissed because the messenger isn't Jesus Christ or has a political axe to grind. Fine Gael should grow up and deal with the issues. This is one of the major flaws with them. More interest in 'I know you are, but what am I?' than dealing with things of national importance or taking criticism where due.

How much respect would Fitzgerald get, if she resigned and took the country back from the brink of an election/the FF/FG defacto coalition falling apart? But no, hang on tooth and nail to front it out.

Chips Lovell

I think it's still in the balance. There certainly seems to be desperate efforts underway to find a fudge.

SF don't seem too keen on an election either. Bad timing for them.

It's funny how it goes. Martin caught them out by calling their bluff but now Varadkar has called his. His wobbling could save them an election at an inopportune moment.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a fine of 300,000 for with holding information pertinent to a tribunal.
Will anyone in the DOJ get fined?

That type of case would be very difficult to prove. In a particular situation, we may know that information has been withheld, but to prove a crime, you need to prove that a single person was responsible and that it was a deliberate action to withhold the information. Very difficult to do.

There are a number of crimes like that on the statue book that are notoriously hard to prove. Perjury is another one, you may know that someone has lied by telling two different stories, but unless you have independent evidence, you cannot prove that the one told under oath was a lie.

tobsey

Sephiral wrote: »

Varadkar is trying to force their hand by getting them to choose between Fitzgerald's head and institutional reform that is actually a good idea. I'm suggesting they reject the false choice given to them. The reforms to Justice and Policing should happen. Fitzgerald should be sacked. It is not one or the other.

We are heading towards an election no one wants. Whoever hold their nerve here wins. People know McCabe was stitched up and know it was Fitzgerald's justice dept and the guards who did it. People want to see meaningful reform. MM shouldn't fold here. It doesn't make sense politically for him or Fianna Fail. It doesn't make sense for the good of the country either. It's a bit mad, but FF are in the right here.

That is absolutely not what happened in this case. Counsel for the Gardai were preparing to challenge McCabes intentions about releasing the information that resulted in the inquiry. They were going to argue that one reason he may have for making the allegations was that he was falsely accused in the past. This strategy was never even used in the end. Fitzgerald was made aware of this plan in a poorly worded email, which she claims to have either disregarded or simply forgotten about. It doesn't seem implausable that she did forget about it.

McCabe was certainly stitched up by the upper management in the Gardai, but Fitzgerald should not be implicated in that because she glossed over an email. Especially when she had no authority to act on the contents of the email. She had no power to instruct the Gardai or their counsel on how to proceed with their defence in the inquiry.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That type of case would be very difficult to prove. In a particular situation, we may know that information has been withheld, but to prove a crime, you need to prove that a single person was responsible and that it was a deliberate action to withhold the information. Very difficult to do.

There are a number of crimes like that on the statue book that are notoriously hard to prove. Perjury is another one, you may know that someone has lied by telling two different stories, but unless you have independent evidence, you cannot prove that the one told under oath was a lie.

The DOJ like all other parties to the tribunal received a request for all pertinent information to be submitted. It clearly wasn't.
I think you should maybe have a look at the word 'accountability'.
If my business doesn't file a tax return, I 'the boss' gets done, not the secretary, not the guy running the machines, not the cleaner, the boss is ultimately accountable.

Maybe if we started with that notion, that the Boss in government departments, in government ministries is the ultimate person responsible then we would get competence.

But of course we won't.

quad_red

When exactly is the FF Motion due to be debated?

The SF is in private members business on Wednesday but no mention of the FF one.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/thisweek/business-2017/document50.htm

Geuze

I am sick of hearing about email this and who got it, who didn't, etc.

These issues should be sorted out in 24 hrs, not 24 months.

Straight, fast answers, not tribunals, commissions, all a waste of time and money.

Simple, fast, truth.

The substantive issues for a GE are healthcare / housing / cost of living / jobs, etc.

Loafing Oaf

munsterlegend wrote: »

All the indications are there will be a fudge solution with no resignation. Usually these indications are accurate but it's not confirmed yet no.

Well I don't see any signs of a FF climbdown in the latest media reports but maybe you're better at reading the 'indications' than me...

FrancieBrady

quad_red wrote: »

When exactly is the FF Motion due to be debated?

The SF is in private members business on Wednesday but no mention of the FF one.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/thisweek/business-2017/document50.htm

It's down for tomorrow sometime I think

munsterlegend

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well I don't see any signs of a FF climbdown in the latest media reports but maybe you're better at reading the 'indications' than me...

Well listening to radio 1 at lunchtime it seems very much on the cards there will be some compromise and Fitzgerald staying in the cabinet. Of course nothing is certain and I did say if in my original comment.

However reading between the lines and what is being leaked as being discussed it looks like Fitzgerald will not be resigning.

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

Well listening to radio 1 at lunchtime it seems very much on the cards there will be some compromise and Fitzgerald staying in the cabinet. Of course nothing is certain and I did say if in my original comment.

However reading between the lines and what is being leaked as being discussed it looks like Fitzgerald will not be resigning.

Yes, the journos close to this seem to be saying Leo has a very weak MM on the run.

Hitman3000

tobsey wrote:

McCabe was certainly stitched up by the upper management in the Gardai, but Fitzgerald should not be implicated in that because she glossed over an email. Especially when she had no authority to act on the contents of the email. She had no power to instruct the Gardai or their counsel on how to proceed with their defence in the inquiry.

She was aware of the strategy the Commissioner was employing. She had a duty to defend whistleblowers such as McCabe but failed to do so. No has suggested she should have instructed the Garda or their legal counsel although this is a line repeated ad nauseam by FG and a cohort of supporters.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

She was aware of the strategy the Commissioner was employing. She had a duty to defend whistleblowers such as McCabe but failed to do so. No has suggested she should have instructed the Garda or their legal counsel although this is a line repeated ad nauseam by FG and a cohort of supporters.

So should she have done what other MoJs have done over the years - ring up a member of the Garda Siochana and have a word in their ear to get something done?

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

That is absolutely not what happened in this case. Counsel for the Gardai were preparing to challenge McCabes intentions about releasing the information that resulted in the inquiry. They were going to argue that one reason he may have for making the allegations was that he was falsely accused in the past. This strategy was never even used in the end. Fitzgerald was made aware of this plan in a poorly worded email, which she claims to have either disregarded or simply forgotten about. It doesn't seem implausable that she did forget about it.

McCabe was certainly stitched up by the upper management in the Gardai, but Fitzgerald should not be implicated in that because she glossed over an email. Especially when she had no authority to act on the contents of the email. She had no power to instruct the Gardai or their counsel on how to proceed with their defence in the inquiry.

You are mistaking the Fine Gael fudge/narrative for the actual issue; she 'glossed over an email' is the issue, however 'poorly worded' it may have been. The email pertained to a Garda investigation having a bias against the complainant, McCabe. I'm not sure if ministers pass notes, but Shatter knew some background from McCabe's side, as he saw it anyway. (FYI: he was falsely accused in the past because he had become a whistle blower prior to that).
The idea that she got the email and either forgot about it or dismissed it as nothing is the issue here. This is what we know. Any talk of her and implication in a smear campaign is being pushed by Fine Gael to paint her as a victim.

Jimmyireland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, the journos close to this seem to be saying Leo has a very weak MM on the run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktkM2GtaSMk

Micheal Martin right now

munsterlegend

Jimmyireland wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktkM2GtaSMk

Micheal Martin right now

Change the York to Cork.

I wonder will any fudge be announced today or tomorrow?

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

So should she have done what other MoJs have done over the years - ring up a member of the Garda Siochana and have a word in their ear to get something done?

Any examples and whom?

Sephiral

It really strains credibility to believe that ANYTHING to do with Maurice McCabe would pass by the notice of the Minister of Justice by 2015. It is impossible to actually prove, but it is a reasonable belief that there was widespread implicit support for a rancid campaign to discredit a whistleblower. Does anyone seriously believe that Fitzgerald was not at least partially aware of this?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are mistaking the Fine Gael fudge/narrative for the actual issue; she 'glossed over an email' is the issue, however 'poorly worded' it may have been. The email pertained to a Garda investigation having a bias against the complainant, McCabe. I'm not sure if ministers pass notes, but Shatter knew some background from McCabe's side, as he saw it anyway. (FYI: he was falsely accused in the past because he had become a whistle blower prior to that).
The idea that she got the email and either forgot about it or dismissed it as nothing is the issue here. This is what we know. Any talk of her and implication in a smear campaign is being pushed by Fine Gael to paint her as a victim.

Again, I ask, what should she have done?

tobsey

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are mistaking the Fine Gael fudge/narrative for the actual issue; she 'glossed over an email' is the issue, however 'poorly worded' it may have been. The email pertained to a Garda investigation having a bias against the complainant, McCabe. I'm not sure if ministers pass notes, but Shatter knew some background from McCabe's side, as he saw it anyway. (FYI: he was falsely accused in the past because he had become a whistle blower prior to that).
The idea that she got the email and either forgot about it or dismissed it as nothing is the issue here. This is what we know. Any talk of her and implication in a smear campaign is being pushed by Fine Gael to paint her as a victim.

No, not having that at all. McCabe had already been completely vindacated of those accusations. McCabe also had his own counsel, Michael McDowell, defending him against the Garda Counsel's claim that McCabe may have been motivated by that previous false allegation. Fitzgerald had no part to play in how that inquiry should have proceeded. She shouldn't have instructed the Commissioner or her counsel on how to proceed.

The only thing she should have done is better remembered that she had been made aware of the strategy in 2015, rather than saying she only found out about it in 2016.

James Brown

Sephiral wrote: »

It really strains credibility to believe that ANYTHING to do with Maurice McCabe would pass by the notice of the Minister of Justice by 2015. It is impossible to actually prove, but it is a reasonable belief that there was widespread implicit support for a rancid campaign to discredit a whistleblower. Does anyone seriously believe that Fitzgerald was not at least partially aware of this?

She was most certainly aware. Shatter, could have been, if he took a look into it to any degree.

Hitman3000

tobsey wrote:

No, not having that at all. McCabe had already been completely vindacated of those accusations. McCabe also had his own counsel, Michael McDowell, defending him against the Garda Counsel's claim that McCabe may have been motivated by that previous false allegation. Fitzgerald had no part to play in how that inquiry should have proceeded. She shouldn't have instructed the Commissioner or her counsel on how to proceed.

Why are posters repeatedly saying 'she shouldn't have instructed the Commissioner or counsel on how to behave' where and whom suggested she should have? Although no one seems to know or answer why she allowed Leo to mislead the Dail on several occasions.

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

No, not having that at all. McCabe had already been completely vindacated of those accusations. McCabe also had his own counsel, Michael McDowell, defending him against the Garda Counsel's claim that McCabe may have been motivated by that previous false allegation. Fitzgerald had no part to play in how that inquiry should have proceeded. She shouldn't have instructed the Commissioner or her counsel on how to proceed.

The only thing she should have done is better remembered that she had been made aware of the strategy in 2015, rather than saying she only found out about it in 2016.

McCabe has not been completely vindicated.
You're making the same error; Fitzgerald's error was either forgetting the email or dismissing it. As regards any action she could have taken, that's a different discussion and not why she should be resigning/sacked. If she wanted to do something but her hands where tied, you'd have somewhat of a point, (but then that questions the point of her position at all). We sorely need accountability in this country.

tobsey

Sephiral wrote: »

It really strains credibility to believe that ANYTHING to do with Maurice McCabe would pass by the notice of the Minister of Justice by 2015.

That is reasonable to assume alright.

Sephiral wrote: »

It is impossible to actually prove, but it is a reasonable belief that there was widespread implicit support for a rancid campaign to discredit a whistleblower. Does anyone seriously believe that Fitzgerald was not at least partially aware of this?

Define widespread in this case? There is nothing to suggest that Fitzgerald as Minister did anything to even remotely damage McCabe or his credibility. She was specifically told she could not act in relation to the email, or the strategy that the Gardai were using. She said recently that she was made aware of it in 2016. She should have said she was actually made aware of it in 2015. In either case, the strategy wasn't even used at the time, and if it had been, Fitzgerald still couldn't have done anything to stop it.

Perhaps if the strategy had been used, Fitzgerald could have come out publicly to denounce it, and to support McCabe. However because these events never even happened, she didn't have a need or opportunity to do so.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Why are posters repeatedly saying 'she shouldn't have instructed the Commissioner or counsel on how to behave' where and whom suggested she should have? Although no one seems to know or answer why she allowed Leo to mislead the Dail on several occasions.

Apart from committing one of at least several hundred emails she gets a day permanently to her memory, what was she supposed to do and what exactly is she accused of not doing, other than failing to remember an email?

If she was supposed to do something about the email, what was it? And what was the legal basis for doing it?

We are actually getting to the nub of the matter here, as Varadkar has repeatedly said that she did nothing wrong, and not a single poster on here has ever explained what she should have done about the email.

tobsey

Matt Barrett wrote: »

McCabe has not been completely vindicated.
You're making the same error; Fitzgerald's error was either forgetting the email or dismissing it. As regards any action she could have taken, that's a different discussion and not why she should be resigning/sacked. If she wanted to do something but her hands where tied, you'd have somewhat of a point, (but then that questions the point of her position at all). We sorely need accountability in this country.

Accountablity for what? What is so wrong about forgetting an email? What is so wrong with dismissing one, especially when you have no action to take?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

McCabe has not been completely vindicated.
You're making the same error; Fitzgerald's error was either forgetting the email or dismissing it. As regards any action she could have taken, that's a different discussion and not why she should be resigning/sacked. If she wanted to do something but her hands where tied, you'd have somewhat of a point, (but then that questions the point of her position at all). We sorely need accountability in this country.

But as tobsey said, she was told in the email she could do nothing, the proposed course of action was dropped so there was nothing she could do anyway, so other than remembering the one email alerting her to a potential event that never happened which also told her she could do nothing about it, what was she supposed to do?

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Apart from committing one of at least several hundred emails she gets a day permanently to her memory, what was she supposed to do and what exactly is she accused of not doing, other than failing to remember an email?

Ah stop the McCabe saga cost her predecessor his position, a Commissioner his and a senior civil servant his. Are you seriously trying to suggest that she would not attach any importance to an email about McCabe. Clutching at straws springs to mind. Maybe the die-hard FG supporters believe your scenario, the vast majority however know it holds zero credibility.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

We are actually getting to the nub of the matter here, as Varadkar has repeatedly said that she did nothing wrong, and not a single poster on here has ever explained what she should have done about the email.

That's the thing she did Nothing! Except allow her leader mislead the Dail on several occasions.

tobsey

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Ah stop the McCabe saga cost her predecessor his position, a Commissioner his and a senior civil servant his. Are you seriously trying to suggest that she would not attach any importance to an email about McCabe. Clutching at straws springs to mind. Maybe the die-hard FG supporters believe your scenario, the vast majority however know it holds zero credibility.

What importance could or should she have attributed to that email? What should she have done at the time? The answer is nothing.

This has been stirred up into a scandal now because Varadkar stated in error that she heard about it in 2016, when in fact the email was sent in 2015. What's the big deal?

She couldn't have acted on it.
What it contained didn't end up happening.
It was two and a half years ago.

Nettle Soup

She could have acted on the email. She couldn't instruct the legal counsel directly but she could have rang Noreen, a public servant, and told her she did not agree with the smear given they were both supporting McCabe in public. That point was made by FF on the radio yesterday.

tobsey

Nettle Soup wrote: »

She could have acted on the email. She couldn't instruct the legal counsel directly but she could have rang Noreen, a public servant, and told her she did not agree with the smear given they were both supporting McCabe in public. That point was made by FF on the radio yesterday.

Maybe she could have. Do you think she should lose her job over it or that it should bring down the government?

Specifically that she didn't have a chat with O'Sullivan to say she didn't like the idea. Is that enough to cause all this nonsense?

Hitman3000

tobsey wrote:

She couldn't have acted on it. What it contained didn't end up happening. It was two and a half years ago.

She knew of the strategy the Commissioner had sought to use but continued to give full confidence in the Commissioner while still claiming to support whistleblowers. An old expression springs to mind 'To hunt with the Hounds and run with the Fox'.

flaneur

If this crisis causes serious reform and transparency, it'll have been a great thing.

I don't trust the vested interests here at all. I would actually trust the politicians more than the Garda top brass or the civil service, and that's really saying something. I think they're being played, just like on Yes, Minister.

I want to know *exactly* what happened here, without the party politics because I'm seriously losing trust in the organs of justice.

A game of musical chairs just gets one minister out of the way and another newbie into the hot seat.

Rinse and repeat.

Nettle Soup

tobsey wrote: »

Maybe she could have. Do you think she should lose her job over it or that it should bring down the government?

Specifically that she didn't have a chat with O'Sullivan to say she didn't like the idea. Is that enough to cause all this nonsense?

Yes!!! It was the bloody least she could have done after all they did and were planning to do to McCabe.

He would have been ruined my the smear if he hadn't taped the meeting.

Don't you see that?

Her inaction condoned the smear. The public support was a sham.

...and then she forgot about the email...

Hitman3000

tobsey wrote:

Maybe she could have. Do you think she should lose her job over it or that it should bring down the government?

Of course she should lose her job. A complete display of incompetence. As an aside I know if I made my boss look like an idiot I could expect a move. The collapsing of the supply and confidence agreement will bring down the government. Two ways to stop it happening Fitzgerald does the honourable ( I know) thing and resign or FF pulls their motion of no confidence but the sticky part is SF's is still going ahead and Labour have said they will vote against Fitzgerald in a confidence vote. So FF are in a corner of their own making but so is their buddies FG.

Mr.Micro

flaneur wrote: »

If this crisis causes serious reform and transparency, it'll have been a great thing.

I don't trust the vested interests here at all. I would actually trust the politicians more than the Garda top brass or the civil service, and that's really saying something. I think they're being played, just like on Yes, Minister.

I want to know *exactly* what happened here, without the party politics because I'm seriously losing trust in the organs of justice.

A game of musical chairs just gets one minister out of the way and another newbie into the hot seat.

I would not hold your breath re transparency and reform.

Politicians come and go. The rot in the DoJ and An Garda is permanent.

Nettle Soup

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1126/922943-email-tanaiste/

Inaction was inexcusable. It was deliberate.

The Taoiseach had apologised to him on the floor of the Dáil. The minister had met Sgt McCabe and his wife, and publicly stated that she "deeply regretted" what they had been put through at the hands of the State.

If some new information had now been uncovered that showed that he didn’t deserve their support, it would have had serious implications for Government policy.

Surely the Taoiseach and Cabinet colleagues would need to know if the man they had - belatedly - been publicly backing to the hilt turned out to be motivated by a grudge?

No further legal opinion was sought.
No other options of actions open to the minister were explored.
The minister met then commissioner Noirín O’Sullivan the day after she received it and did not mention it to her.

When the details of the commissioner’s legal strategy were leaked 12 months later, the Tánaiste gave no indication that she had been in any way aware of the garda commissioner’s approach.

At the time the minister expressed concern that the transcripts had been leaked and refused to be drawn on the appalling vista they revealed.
While others demanded to know the full story, the minister to whom the garda commissioner is accountable strongly defended her right to claim privilege over the instructions she had given to her legal team.
She continued to express full confidence in the commissioner.

Hitman3000

flaneur wrote:

I don't trust the vested interests here at all. I would actually trust the politicians more than the Garda top brass or the civil service, and that's really saying something. I think they're being played, just like on Yes, Minister.

So you would trust politicians? Do you remember Enda saying he wouldn't allow the Moriarty report to gather dust. That's the one that made findings of corruption against a notable friend of FG.

tobsey

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Yes!!! It was the bloody least she could have done after all they did and were planning to do to McCabe.

He would have been ruined my the smear if he hadn't taped the meeting.

Don't you see that?

Her inaction condoned the smear. The public support was a sham.

...and then she forgot about the email...

Do you think she had knowledge that two Gardai were going to take the stand and lie about McCabe saying he had a grudge?

The Minister was made aware that the strategy was to question McCabe's reasons for coming forward. If whistleblowers were never questioned about the contents they were disclosing it would be very dangerous. Whistleblower legislation has provided for protection for people disclosing information that is in the public interest. That does not mean that they get a free platform to say what they like. Anyone reading that email would think that McCabe would have an opportunity to answer as to whether he was motivated by malice, I think that's a reasonable question to ask.

What's absolutely not reasonable is for two senior officers to blatantly lie about conversations that happened.

There is no reason to suggest that the Minister knew that there was a smear campaign of falsehoods about to be launched at McCabe. The contents of the email only become so explosive in hindsight a year after it was sent.

Hitman3000

tobsey wrote:

There is no reason to suggest that the Minister knew that there was a smear campaign of falsehoods about to be launched at McCabe. The contents of the email only become so explosive in hindsight a year after it was sent.

Even after the attempted smear campaign became public knowledge Fitzgerald was still expressing full confidence in NOS. Sorry not buying the whataboutery.

McMurphy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you would trust politicians? Do you remember Enda saying he wouldn't allow the Moriarty report to gather dust. That's the one that made findings of corruption against a notable friend of FG.

Wouldn't surprise me if he was eventually revealed to be in the thick of this too.

He seemed to get very confused and flustered about who he spoke to about McCabe and the "copy and paste" scandal , even went into specific details about the conversation that never happened.

That's personalizing a little fib with personal details and specifics about fantasy conversation that took place in his mind.

Enda part 1

On radio, Mr Kenny had said: “Minister Zappone is doing a very good job, did tell me that she intended to meet with Sergeant McCabe in a private capacity and that's all I knew.
“I said to her well if you do have a meeting make sure that you have a thorough account of it and so when we had our meeting on Tuesday I wouldn't have been aware of any of the details of her discussions with..."

Part two.

However, Mr Kenny now says that conversation never happened and he “regrets” saying it. He added that conversations did take place between his officials and Ms Zappone’s office.

He further said Ms Zappone did not “indicate details” of it with him.

I'm obviously not suggesting Kenny had knowledge of what was going On, just that his lie was too far fetched to be merely a white one.