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

Nettle Soup

tobsey wrote: »

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.

Given she met O'Sullivan the next day, I am utterly convinced that she asked and was told.

The 2 lying Gardai at the time were very senior. Noeen knew as well.

Sierra Oscar

Attorney General's office 'did not provide legal advice' to Tánaiste

The Attorney General's office did not provide Tánaiste Frances Fitzgerald with legal advice in 2015 when it contacted her then department about a legal dispute relating to the treatment of Sgt Maurice McCabe at the O'Higgins Commission, RTÉ News has learned.

Doesn't that essentially completely undermine the Tánaiste? Her supporters were saying she could not intervene as she was told it would be illegal. That has now been shown to have been a load of rubbish.

Surely she has to resign? Like, what is her actual defence now? Can anyone enlighten me?

McMurphy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Attorney General's office 'did not provide legal advice' to Tiste



Doesn't that essentially completely undermine the Tiste? Her supporters were saying she could not intervene as she was told it would be illegal. That has now been shown to have been a load of rubbish.

Surely she has to resign? Like, what is her actual defence now? Can anyone enlighten me?

Just seen that myself.

Leo will have an even harder time now trying to justify backing her to the hilt now. It had been argued on hwere for a few days running that she has said it would be illegal, but no one could explain what would have been illegal.

She will have to be sacrificed.

Hitman3000

Sierra Oscar wrote:

Doesn't that essentially completely undermine the Tánaiste? Her supporters were saying she could not intervene as she was told it would be illegal. That has now been shown to have been a load of rubbish.

She claims she got advice from the AG she has now been contradicted by it being said she was not given advice. Someone is telling porkies and it isn't hard to work out who it is.

Sierra Oscar

The files from the Department of Justice trawl ordered by the Taoiseach were meant to be released at 2.30pm today according to Ivan Yates on Newstalk. They still haven't been released, journalists reckon there something explosive in them.

DominoDub

Leo has his get out of Jail Free Card now.

Billgirlylegs

Maurice McCabe saying what he liked ?
I know timelines are getting confused, but this takes the biscuit.

Frances Fitzgerald and all the Fianna Gailers seem to have a different email set up to me.
I have on occasion not read or not seen or forgotten emails.
If something gets "controversial" I can search my inbox and find stuff from ages back.
I would have thought that words or phrases like O Sullivan / McCabe / Tribunal / Guerin or all the other awkward words would have pulled this one up for Frances.

Incompetent.
Lying.
Either or both.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Nothing to do with any rabbit holes.

You make quite a few suppositions and predictions around here that you appear to believe should be taken seriously, which is fine by me, I just treat those for what they are, conjecture, and as such ignore them.

When you start posting on what you term logic, (reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity,) I fell that is a different matter, and as such, what you term as logic is open to question considering your post replying to an earlier post of mine.

Your post #789.
"I am going to have to spell this out for you, I think.

How did Alan Kelly know about it? The only logical answer is because the gardai had told the the Tribunal about the contact with the DoJ. Kelly got that, either from the Gardai or the Tribunal."

Your Tribunal "logical answer" has already been debunked, and as your only other "logical answer" was the Gardai, I feel it is reasonable to question where that logic came from.

If you want to withdraw that and admit it was simply supposition on your part, that is fine by me.
In fact I cannot see it as anything other than supposition as there has been nothing to even vaguely to suggest the Gardai, no more than this Disclosures Tribunal, had any knowledge of this email.

tobsey

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Attorney General's office 'did not provide legal advice' to Tánaiste



Doesn't that essentially completely undermine the Tánaiste? Her supporters were saying she could not intervene as she was told it would be illegal. That has now been shown to have been a load of rubbish.

Surely she has to resign? Like, what is her actual defence now? Can anyone enlighten me?

It just says the information she received wasn't regarded as being legal advice:

RTE News wrote:

Responding to a series of questions from RTÉ, the Department of Justice said that "the AG's Office was providing information in the telephone call in question, not legal advice, however, as the email states both the senior official from the AG's office and the senior official in the Department of Justice were of the view that 'neither the Attorney nor the Minister has a function related to the evidence a party to a Commission of Investigation may adduce'".

She was certainly given information by the AG at the time, whether to call it Legal Advice or not is semantics.

Hitman3000

DominoDub wrote:

Leo has his get out of Jail Free Card now.

Think it's MM that has got the out of jail card. He can proceed now with the confidence vote if she doesn't walk. Voters now know she has to go with this latest revelation.

Odhinn

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Maurice McCabe saying what he liked ?
I know timelines are getting confused, but this takes the biscuit.

Frances Fitzgerald and all the Fianna Gailers seem to have a different email set up to me.
I have on occasion not read or not seen or forgotten emails.
If something gets "controversial" I can search my inbox and find stuff from ages back.
I would have thought that words or phrases like O Sullivan / McCabe / Tribunal / Guerin or all the other awkward words would have pulled this one up for Frances.

Incompetent.
Lying.
Either or both.

The general thrust

'Garda whistleblower everyone says is a saint is a wrong one'
'inquiry is over he's still a saint'

begs the question, 'well noirin, what happened there?'.

That was in the scenario where she claimed she could say nothing due to legal advice, mind you. Thats out the window now too.

Hitman3000

tobsey wrote:

She was certainly given information by the AG at the time, whether to call it Legal Advice or not is semantics.

She has claimed in her defense she got legal advice that she could not act. It's not semantics. What she said is quite clear.

McMurphy

tobsey wrote: »

It just says the information she received wasn't regarded as being legal advice:


She was certainly given information by the AG at the time, whether to call it Legal Advice or not is semantics.

So essentially another "FYI" email and not legal advice as she has been proclaiming?

Credibility has long gone.

Sierra Oscar

The Tánaiste is expected to resign this evening according to Ivan Yates.

Soulsun

Lads ladies will there be an election in Dec?

Loafing Oaf

Soulsun wrote: »

Lads ladies will there be an election in Dec?

9/4 chance according to the omniscient Patrick Power...

Hitman3000

Soulsun wrote:

Lads ladies will there be an election in Dec?

Waiting on Leo to say, it's his decision.

jobbridge4life

tobsey wrote: »

She was certainly given information by the AG at the time, whether to call it Legal Advice or not is semantics.

It certainly isn't. Legal advices are a distinct thing, they are not just the comments of someone from the AGO. A large part of the defence of Fitzgerald has been that she received legal advice that the she should do nothing. This is patently false. 1. She did not seek or receive contemporaneous legal advices on this matter, the email she was forwarded was categorically not legal advice. 2. The email itself did not say the Minister should or could do nothing, let alone that it would have been 'illegal'.

devnull

Interesting to see what appears to be a slow bleed of information from RTE.

Billgirlylegs

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So essentially another "FYI" email and not legal advice as she has been proclaiming?

Credibility has long gone.

Amazing that she picked up and read this email.

FrancieBrady

devnull wrote: »

Interesting to see what appears to be a slow bleed of information from RTE.

Radio seems to be way behind the web.

Sierra Oscar

devnull wrote: »

Interesting to see what appears to be a slow bleed of information from RTE.

All eyes will turn to the 6.1 News and Claire Byrne Live at 10.35pm.

Important to keep in mind that Katie Hannon blew this whole story wide open last Monday night on Claire Byrne Live when she revealed the email. I wonder will she be on again tonight?

devnull

Thing is that the bleed has been slow, rather than one big bang as we've seen a few revelations over the past few days in relation to this matter.

Have the other media sources been reporting revelations of their own or just RTE?

Beechwoodspark

If -as is looking increasingly likely-Martin backs down from this, will it damage him much?

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

That is reasonable to assume alright.


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.

tobsey wrote: »

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?

She had been made aware, said she wasn't. Said she aware of it in 2016 but must have forgot, but was aware in 2015. Said she received legal advice not to get involved with the information she forgot getting, now turns out it wasn't legal advice. On the email she forgot about.
If you are given the serious position of Minister for Justice and you allegedly forget about an email pertaining to a case of corruption/whistleblowing within An Garda Siochana, which is a known, ongoing saga of national importance, yes, damn right you should resign or be sacked.

To listen to Fine Gael she's being sold as someone who got an email she forgot about at some point and people are out to smear her.

Hitman3000

Beechwoodspark wrote:

If -as is looking increasingly likely-Martin backs down from this, will it damage him much?

It's looking increasingly likely it's Leo that is going to be damaged, by Fitzgeralds behaviour.

charlie14

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Attorney General's office 'did not provide legal advice' to Tánaiste



Doesn't that essentially completely undermine the Tánaiste? Her supporters were saying she could not intervene as she was told it would be illegal. That has now been shown to have been a load of rubbish.

Surely she has to resign? Like, what is her actual defence now? Can anyone enlighten me?

The part in this whole legal advice she was supposed to have received, (and was the main plank, indeed the only plank, argument for her doing nothing), I could not get is, if she had, wouldn`t that have been known by those that received that email.
So what was one of them doing discussing it on the phone with O`Sullivan.

flaneur

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.

At least you can vote from out. Unlike the "permanent government"

jobbridge4life

flaneur wrote: »

At least you can vote from out. Unlike the "permanent government"

When have we ever had a Government that wasn't composed of either FF or FG... voting them out... right

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

It just says the information she received wasn't regarded as being legal advice:


She was certainly given information by the AG at the time, whether to call it Legal Advice or not is semantics.

No, one is legal advice to be followed lest you run afoul of the law. The other is advice with as much legal weight as advice like you might get off your granny. The legal was being used as a defense for doing nothing. So it's more than semantics.

Straw clutching.

flaneur

jobbridge4life wrote: »

When have we ever had a Government that wasn't composed of either FF or FG... voting them out... right

Well, it is an option ... People voting for them anyway is not the system's fault.

Hitman3000

flaneur wrote:

At least you can vote from out. Unlike the "permanent government"

The politicians have the power to make the 'permanent government' accountable. They however choose not too.

Fann Linn

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

All eyes will turn to the 6.1 News and Claire Byrne Live at 10.35pm.

Important to keep in mind that Katie Hannon blew this whole story wide open last Monday night on Claire Byrne Live when she revealed the email. I wonder will she be on again tonight?

Will be interesting to see the FFailers squirm and back away from their calls on Fitzgerald to walk.

James Brown

I half hope Martin backs down. It'll show FF up and FG are already a write off by backing Fitzgerald and O'Sullivan.

kala85

What time is the vote or motion of no confidence on tomorrow at.

Water John

Pity to see blind party allegencies. What the majority want, I would think is, the DOJ and Gardai reformed once and for all.

charlie14

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, one is legal advice to be followed lest you run afoul of the law. The other is advice with as much legal weight as advice like you might get off your granny. The legal was being used as a defense for doing nothing. So it's more than semantics.

Straw clutching.

The very least Fizgerald should be sacked for is incompetence.

If you are a Minister for Justice that doesn`t know what is and what is not legal advice then that really is utter incompetence.

jimmycrackcorm

Matt Barrett wrote:

Varadkar and Co. should apologise to him publicly for the way the system and Fitzgerald failed him. Although that would require integrity.

Varadkar publicly objected to Callinan calling him disgusting if you recall from 2014. He certainly has supported him.

FrancieBrady wrote:

The tribunal that is only getting full disclosure of the information the DOJ has precisely because of this political crisis?

Hitman3000 wrote:

Information has been shown to have been withheld from from the Tribunal. So to my mind the Tribunal is a waste of time..

The tribunal is the only opportunity to get the truth. What we are witnessing is the malaise and subterfuge we knew about in the Gardai extends up to the DOJ to the point that officials there have been trying to obscure information from both minister and the tribunal.

Hitman3000

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The tribunal is the only opportunity to get the truth. What we are witnessing is the malaise and subterfuge we knew about in the Gardai extends up to the DOJ to the point that officials there have been trying to obscure information from both minister and the tribunal.

It has already been shown that information has been withheld from the Disclosures Tribunal. So you'll have to forgive when I say it's a waste if time and it's usefulness for FG to hide behind has passed.

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Varadkar publicly objected to Callinan calling him disgusting if you recall from 2014. He certainly has supported him.





The tribunal is the only opportunity to get the truth. What we are witnessing is the malaise and subterfuge we knew about in the Gardai extends up to the DOJ to the point that officials there have been trying to obscure information from both minister and the tribunal.

This whole thing will hinge on the trawl of documents that have been found SINCE Alan Kelly asked his question.

Those documents would never have gotten to the tribunal had there not been motions of confidence and a crisis over them.

You cannot therefore have any faith in a tribunal to get at the truth until you sort out the politics and the participants to that tribunal.

Heads need to roll and penalties for lying imposed. Then hold your tribunal. It's a sham otherwise.

Fann Linn

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It has already been shown that information has been withheld from the Disclosures Tribunal. So you'll have to forgive when I say it's a waste if time and it's usefulness for FG to hide behind has passed.

And bearing in mind in this specific case that Fitzgerald had the info and did nothing with it, allegedly on 'legal advice', which we now know wasn't given.

Nettle Soup

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Attorney General's office 'did not provide legal advice' to Tánaiste



Doesn't that essentially completely undermine the Tánaiste? Her supporters were saying she could not intervene as she was told it would be illegal. That has now been shown to have been a load of rubbish.

Surely she has to resign? Like, what is her actual defence now? Can anyone enlighten me?

Yep. Only the blind loyal FG folks have said she was prevented legalled from doing anything - because the email originator suggested it.

Anything I heard over weekend dismissed that.

She purposefully did nothing. Complicit.

Forgot the email. Complicit.

Did not send email to Disclosures. Complicit.

James Brown

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Varadkar publicly objected to Callinan calling him disgusting if you recall from 2014. He certainly has supported him.





The tribunal is the only opportunity to get the truth. What we are witnessing is the malaise and subterfuge we knew about in the Gardai extends up to the DOJ to the point that officials there have been trying to obscure information from both minister and the tribunal.

He went on to support O'Sullivan when he was no longer the hurling from the ditch young firebrand :rolleyes:

Tribunals are great for diffusing a touchy political topic and forgetting about it at great cost to the tax payer. I'm all for the concept, but the buck must stop some where not be dissected at great expense and forgot or lost in the legal minutia.

blanch152

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.

Yes, FF were always very good at ringing the local Sergeant and asking them not to take action on something, sometimes even the local Superintendent. I am not surprised that they suggested that completely inappropriate action.

Water John

DOJ had its own counsel and they should have been advised to disassociate from any strategy that attacked McCabe's character and inform the Tribunal of such.

Nettle Soup

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, FF were always very good at ringing the local Sergeant and asking them not to take action on something, sometimes even the local Superintendent. I am not surprised that they suggested that completely inappropriate action.

You're behind the curve again. You missed this;

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/1127/923025-taoiseach-and-martin-to-meet-again/

blanch152

Nettle Soup wrote: »

You're behind the curve again. You missed this;

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/1127/923025-taoiseach-and-martin-to-meet-again/

No, I am not behind the curve.

What you are saying is that the Tanaise should have rung a senior Garda and interfered in the course of justice. That is wrong and is always wrong.

Tell me how

Water John wrote: »

DOJ had its own counsel and they should have been advised to disassociate from any strategy that attacked McCabe's character and inform the Tribunal of such.

That's why this is such a mess. It is becoming harder to look at this without the word collusion coming to mind.
I wonder how far is Maurice McCabe from suing the state for being complicit in the attacks on him. He can definitely claim life altering stress levels and damage to his good name.

Only, thing he'd be relying on a court of the state to vindicate him.

Fann Linn

Nettle Soup wrote: »

You're behind the curve again. You missed this;

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/1127/923025-taoiseach-and-martin-to-meet-again/

This time last year Enda was talking about meetings he allegedly had and this year Fitzgerald is on about alleged legal advice.
Something seriously amiss on the FG front bench.

Sierra Oscar

Still no sign of the files from the trawl which the Department of Justice committed to publishing by 2.30pm today.

EDIT: Looks like they're on their way.

https://twitter.com/SarahBardon/status/935217890969767937