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

Tell me how

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Who knows what my opinion will be after the tribunal or yours

I do not expect the tribunal to uncover anything close to the truth. These emails had not even been submitted to the tribunal as they should have been.

The result of the tribunal will be 100 pages of "things could have been done better but ultimately nothing illegal was uncovered and we should learn from this with new policies going forward".

Maurice McCabe would be nearly entitled to go Jason Bourne on them at this point.

blanch152

George Sunsnow wrote: »

I don’t agree.
What she should have done is at the heart of what she has done wrong ever since
She allowed unaccountable civil servants to guide her and ultimately in partnership with her own bad judgement guide her instead of coming to the Dáil with this advice where she would be quickly told what to do with it
We won’t know for decades whether she brought it to cabinet

The advice that she could and do nothing about it was correct. The Gardai and the Garda Commissioner, like any person accused of anything in a court or appearing before a Tribunal, are fully entitled to present any evidence they wish to that court or Tribunal in their defence. If they believe, and it is their belief that counts in the exercise of their defence, that there are questions about the motivation of the accuser, then they are entitled to present that evidence. It would be very very wrong for a Minister to interfere in those rights or to prevent those rights being exercised.

Should the Minister have pre-empted the Tribunal and made a judgement on the exercising of rights by the Gardai and Garda Commissioner? No, absolutely not, that was for the Tribunal to do.

Should the Minister have gone to the Dail, in an attempt to put pressure (by mob rule) on the Gardai and the Garda Commissioner to stop exercising their rights? Again, absolutely not.

Therefore, when you hear Varadkar and Fitzgerald saying that she will be vindicated, that is what they are referring to. I am fairly certain that will be the case as a Tribunal could hardly accept a Minister being allowed to control what and how evidence is presented by third parties to the Tribunal.

So, what it all comes down to is her forgetting emails. Nothing more than that. She didn't lie to the Dail, as some on here have repeatedly accused her of.

bladespin

blanch152 wrote: »

So, what it all comes down to is her forgetting emails. Nothing more than that. She didn't lie to the Dail, as some on here have repeatedly accused her of.

Emmm, she did you know, whether it was a genuine error or something much more sinister we may or may not find out but she definitely made false statements to the Dail.

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

So, what it all comes down to is her forgetting emails. Nothing more than that. She didn't lie to the Dail, as some on here have repeatedly accused her of.

Fine. You can believe that, it is your right as much as it is those of us who believe she did lie.
Unless you are actually Francis Fitzgerald, you cannot say you know definitively that she did not lie.

seamus

bladespin wrote: »

Emmm, she did you know, whether it was a genuine error or something much more sinister we may or may not find out but she definitely made false statements to the Dail.

Yeah, that's not what he said though.

A lie is a false statement that you know to be false.

If it's a genuine error, it's not a lie.

George Sunsnow

blanch152 wrote: »

The advice that she could and do nothing about it was correct. The Gardai and the Garda Commissioner, like any person accused of anything in a court or appearing before a Tribunal, are fully entitled to present any evidence they wish to that court or Tribunal in their defence. If they believe, and it is their belief that counts in the exercise of their defence, that there are questions about the motivation of the accuser, then they are entitled to present that evidence. It would be very very wrong for a Minister to interfere in those rights or to prevent those rights being exercised.

Should the Minister have pre-empted the Tribunal and made a judgement on the exercising of rights by the Gardai and Garda Commissioner? No, absolutely not, that was for the Tribunal to do.

Should the Minister have gone to the Dail, in an attempt to put pressure (by mob rule) on the Gardai and the Garda Commissioner to stop exercising their rights? Again, absolutely not.

Therefore, when you hear Varadkar and Fitzgerald saying that she will be vindicated, that is what they are referring to. I am fairly certain that will be the case as a Tribunal could hardly accept a Minister being allowed to control what and how evidence is presented by third parties to the Tribunal.

So, what it all comes down to is her forgetting emails. Nothing more than that. She didn't lie to the Dail, as some on here have repeatedly accused her of.

With all due respect ,would all this have happened if she brought what she was told to the Dáil?
Of course there is the element that it was supposedly told in confidence but ffs Alan Shatter ultimately got away with revealing Garda information on prime time outside the Dáil

If the twitter farms are reading could you ask your bosses to pose that question to the Taoiseach at the next QttT - Was there anything stopping her telling the Dáil and taking directions from there

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

So, what it all comes down to is her forgetting emails. Nothing more than that. She didn't lie to the Dail, as some on here have repeatedly accused her of.

Forgot about the emails that just happened to contain pretty pertinent info.

The unbelievable coincidence that the same critically important emails just happened to be withheld (presumably by accident) is the fly in your ointment.

bladespin

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, that's not what he said though.

A lie is a false statement that you know to be false.

If it's a genuine error, it's not a lie.

Said she would not resign too.

She also denied all knowledge of the email, there's no way she could have completely forgotten, the email, or the others, gave specific dates on when she first found out too, that were more than a little off, very obviously covering her tracks and got called on it.

George Sunsnow

bladespin wrote: »

Said she would not resign too.

She also denied all knowledge of the email, there's no way she could have completely forgotten, the email, or the others, gave specific dates on when she first found out too, that were more than a little off, very obviously covering her tracks and got called on it.

So if I say yesterday I’m not going to Gorey yet today decide I am,I’m a liar?
Jaysis...

Edward M

George Sunsnow wrote: »

So if I say yesterday I’m not going to Gorey yet today decide I am,I’m a liar?
Jaysis...

Would you resign if you done nothing wrong?
I'd say FG would have toughed it out if there was nothing wrong!

Tell me how

George Sunsnow wrote: »

So if I say yesterday I’m not going to Gorey yet today decide I am,I’m a liar?
Jaysis...

That's not an equal comparison in it's simplicity.

If you said yesterday you are not going in to Gorey but it comes out today you had already booked a taxi to take you in, then yes, you'd have been lying.

blanch152

bladespin wrote: »

Said she would not resign too.

She also denied all knowledge of the email, there's no way she could have completely forgotten, the email, or the others, gave specific dates on when she first found out too, that were more than a little off, very obviously covering her tracks and got called on it.

Well, having worked in an environment where I could get several hundred emails a day, many of them extremely important to the sender, I can tell you that I have forgotten more than a few of them and even if someone produced three emails sent to me about a subject, I might not remember even hearing about it.

blanch152

Tell me how wrote: »

That's not an equal comparison in it's simplicity.

If you said yesterday you are not going in to Gorey but it comes out today you had already booked a taxi to take you in, then yes, you'd have been lying.

That isn't it either.

If you said yesterday you are not going to Gorey today, but it comes out that a taxi was booked on your behalf two years ago for you to go to Gorey today, then you wouldn't be lying, you just wouldn't have remembered.

George Sunsnow

Tell me how wrote: »

That's not an equal comparison in it's simplicity.

If you said yesterday you are not going in to Gorey but it comes out today you had already booked a taxi to take you in, then yes, you'd have been lying.

But what if I had changed my mind and forgot to cancel the taxi but when it turned up decided to go in anyway,still a liar ?

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't it either.

If you said yesterday you are not going to Gorey today, but it comes out that a taxi was booked on your behalf two years ago for you to go to Gorey today, then you wouldn't be lying, you just wouldn't have remembered.

You'd very likely have remembered if there was such furrore about booking the taxi and several in your close circle had been informed about the taxi being booked and you had acknowledged you had been told about the taxi being booked and the day after the taxi was booked, you met the boss of the taxi company and in recent weeks everyone was asking about the taxi and you had several opportunities to refresh your memory before discussing it publicly.

Nettle Soup

http://www.thejournal.ie/department-of-justice-frances-fitzgerald-email-3719821-Nov2017/?src=ilaw

Among the revelations in tonight’s trove of documents is an email from Fitzgerald’s private secretary which says that she had “noted” the email which highlighted a row between the legal team for the then-Garda Commissioner Nórirín O’Sullivan and lawyers for Garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe during the O’Higgins Commission of Investigation.

I don't think she forgot all the emails.

bladespin

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, having worked in an environment where I could get several hundred emails a day, many of them extremely important to the sender, I can tell you that I have forgotten more than a few of them and even if someone produced three emails sent to me about a subject, I might not remember even hearing about it.

Well firstly if it's your job to remember then you should, more importantly if the reputation of the state could depend on it then you better not forget one.

If that's what's required and you're not up to it (I wouldn't be) then admit it and resign.

FrancieBrady

Those who have a problem with her resignation need to take it up with Leo and The Cabinet.

It was their position that changed after the result of the trawl and ahead of the motions of confidence.
The Taouseach adamantly stated that he wouldn't accept or seek her resignation.
That position changed after the trawl.
For all we know, Frances may have offered to resign earlier and wasn't allowed.

Did he prempt the tribunal or decide she had misled the Dail.

It's one or the other frankly.

Safehands

blanch152 wrote: »

The advice that she could and do nothing about it was correct. The Gardai and the Garda Commissioner, like any person accused of anything in a court or appearing before a Tribunal, are fully entitled to present any evidence they wish to that court or Tribunal in their defence. If they believe, and it is their belief that counts in the exercise of their defence, that there are questions about the motivation of the accuser, then they are entitled to present that evidence. It would be very very wrong for a Minister to interfere in those rights or to prevent those rights being exercised.

Should the Minister have pre-empted the Tribunal and made a judgement on the exercising of rights by the Gardai and Garda Commissioner? No, absolutely not, that was for the Tribunal to do.

Should the Minister have gone to the Dail, in an attempt to put pressure (by mob rule) on the Gardai and the Garda Commissioner to stop exercising their rights? Again, absolutely not.

Therefore, when you hear Varadkar and Fitzgerald saying that she will be vindicated, that is what they are referring to. I am fairly certain that will be the case as a Tribunal could hardly accept a Minister being allowed to control what and how evidence is presented by third parties to the Tribunal.

So, what it all comes down to is her forgetting emails. Nothing more than that. She didn't lie to the Dail, as some on here have repeatedly accused her of.

She is their boss. If she knew they were going to libel somebody in a horrendous way, are we seriously saying that she should sit on her hands and say or do nothing about it?
If she forgets such a vital E mail, which we know she read, she should resign because this country cannot afford to have a top minister who suffers from such serious bouts of memory loss. She's not physically fit to be a minister.

James Brown

Fitzgerald merely covered her Aras. Varadkar covered for her. He was willing to let the government fall to protect a tissue of 'forgetfulness' and keeping revelations from the Dail. That's what any reasonable Fine Gael member will recall.
Martin tried to score some points, kinda sorta did, but nothing to write home about. That was Varadkar's main concern, saving face.
The sooner we're shut of FF/FG the better for the country.

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, having worked in an environment where I could get several hundred emails a day, many of them extremely important to the sender, I can tell you that I have forgotten more than a few of them and even if someone produced three emails sent to me about a subject, I might not remember even hearing about it.

That's pretty poor.
What if you're the Minister for Justice and the email is about a case of national importance that at the time, had caused your predecessor to resign and said you forgot about the email, and that's why you didn't action it, also you got legal advice not to action it, but since forgot anyway. Later found out you had indeed discussed the contents and when asked again why you took no action, stood by simply not remembering? That's in the very least incompetence. And at that high a level, completely unacceptable.

Then we've Flanagan, who be the holy, didn't see the significance damn it, but he could fry an egg, if he had an egg by god...Sally O'Brien etc. More to come for sure.

tayto lover

Who in their right minds would want to be going to Gorey anyway, there's nothing in it?

geeneyj2

So this has finished for now. Michael Martin did pretty well out of it but I don't think Leo is damaged goods yet . He may do well in the Brexit talks...

Tell me how

geeneyj2 wrote:

So this has finished for now. Michael Martin did pretty well out of it but I don't think Leo is damaged goods yet . He may do well in the Brexit talks...

I hope so. I'm fine with him and Simon Coveney playing a leading role in Brexit discussions on our behalf.

bladespin

geeneyj2 wrote: »

So this has finished for now. Michael Martin did pretty well out of it but I don't think Leo is damaged goods yet . He may do well in the Brexit talks...

Honestly think Leo's the most damaged out of all of this, very poor performance overall.

Safehands

geeneyj2 wrote: »

So this has finished for now. Michael Martin did pretty well out of it but I don't think Leo is damaged goods yet . He may do well in the Brexit talks...

Should it be finished? We have high ranking Gardai willing to libel people at the drop of a hat for exposing wrongdoings in the force. I know, anecdotally, of similar instances. So should this all be just forgotten about because she resigned?
The department of justice is rotten.
Is that the type of country you want?

geeneyj2

I think today he may be but he's fortunate that Brexit has so immediately taken the focus away. The tribunal kickoff may be tricky...
abitleftandabitlost.com/posts/martin-won-leo-lost-but-he-can-reclaim-some-face-with-brexit-talks-before-the-inevitable-spring-election

Tell me how

bladespin wrote:

Honestly think Leo's the most damaged out of all of this, very poor performance overall.

I think (thought) Leo was smart. If he let this play out the way it did without having more information which we don't yet know about it beggars belief for his long term prospects.

pilly

Safehands wrote: »

Should it be finished? We have high ranking Gardai willing to libel people at the drop of a hat for exposing wrongdoings in the force. I know, anecdotally, of similar instances. So should this all be just forgotten about because she resigned?
The department of justice is rotten.
Is that the type of country you want?

That's what the tribunal is for.

James Brown

geeneyj2 wrote: »

I think today he may be but he's fortunate that Brexit has so immediately taken the focus away. The tribunal kickoff may be tricky...
abitleftandabitlost.com/posts/martin-won-leo-lost-but-he-can-reclaim-some-face-with-brexit-talks-before-the-inevitable-spring-election

He's been using Brexit for cover for many months. It's fortunate, Brexit is. It gives him an excuse for ignoring other things.

Second rough sleeper dies in recent days in Dublin
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2017/1129/923628-homeless/

His style of politics is duck and spin. Like Fitzgerald's disgrace being a mere point scoring exercise by the opposition, Brexit keeps him up at night 'distracted', from doing his job to be frank.

Supposedly Varadkar will be following through on promises to get to the bottom of the whole email/trawl saga. Follow through will be a first mind.

bladespin

Tell me how wrote: »

I think (thought) Leo was smart. If he let this play out the way it did without having more information which we don't yet know about it beggars belief for his long term prospects.

I don't know, he's either a woeful leader or a terrible politician.
There are a couple of possible scenarios, either he's let Frances make a fool of him completely or MM's properly 'owned' him, both from the looks of it but neither is good (for Leo).

FrancieBrady

bladespin wrote: »

I don't know, he's either a woeful leader or a terrible politician.
There are a couple of possible scenarios, either he's let Frances make a fool of him completely or MM's properly 'owned' him, both from the looks of it but neither is good (for Leo).

What we saw last week was essentially one party fallling out with itself. FFFG.
It was all settled in secret and privately. Not great for democracy but because an election was totally the wrong thing, acceptable this time.

hatrickpatrick

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Secretary General of the Department of Justice has resigned effective immediately.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/935567154585489408

From everything I've heard about this guy, he went out of his way to make life difficult for all of the different Garda oversight bodies (Inspectorate, GSOC, Authority etc), essentially one of those "the purpose of oversight is not to prevent wrongdoing, but to protect the state from controversy and avoid boat-rocking" types.

His departure can only mean good things for the future of justice in this country.

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote:

His departure can only mean good things for the future of justice in this country.

Is it significant that he went Monday, 3 months earlier than already announced?

jack hackett

That Morris McCabe has a heck of a lot to answer for, he has taken down 2 commissioners, 2 justice ministers and two tribunals at a cost to you and I the tax payer <snip - unsubstantiated allegations>

johnnyskeleton

jack hackett wrote: »

That Morris McCabe has a heck of a lot to answer for, he has taken down 2 commissioners, 2 justice ministers and two tribunals at a cost to you and I the tax payer <snip - unsubstantiated allegations>

Mod note:

Welcome to the Politics forum. Please read the charter before posting again.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

Would you resign if you done nothing wrong?
I'd say FG would have toughed it out if there was nothing wrong!

Like they did for Alan Shatter?

Nope - politics is a rough business, and people get shafted for the good of the country to avoid an election.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Like they did for Alan Shatter?

Nope - politics is a rough business, and people get shafted for the good of the country to avoid an election.

Fitzgerald has a fat pension in her future and Varadkar can continue ignoring issues of national importance. The only people shafted was the public. Which, can be amended should Varadkar break the habit of a political lifetime and follow through on his bluster about getting to the bottom of it.

jack hackett

FF are pushing for a spring election, this was the first shot across the bows, this is the last chance saloon for Michael Martin to become Taoiseach, he knows Leo is in a very weak position, propped up by FF and his own grass roots didnt want him as leader, he wasnt voted in as Taoiseach by the people and therefore has no mandate anyway. Leo is all show and no substance, he has a watery track record as a minister. Nobody in their right mind wanted a Christmas election and Martin knew that and therefore knew Leo couldnt call his bluff and all that could happen was that Fitzgerald would have to go which she ultimately did.

I can see a spring election called off the back of another FG minister having to resign and FF will get in with the highest count propped up by Labour and a few former FF independents such as Boxer Moran, the Healy Raes etc and the same old thing will happen over again and 5 years from now we will all be bust again...

Safehands

pilly wrote: »

That's what the tribunal is for.

So we are told.
The tribunal will take months or years and it will be toothless. So, it will establish wrongdoing, but what will result? Nothing!
Meanwhile the same carry-on will be happening and people will be watching and will say: "Leave that to the tribunal"!

Zubeneschamali

jack hackett wrote: »

this is the last chance saloon for Michael Martin to become Taoiseach

From your lips to Gods ears, will someone finally put a stake through his feckin career, please.

blanch152

Nettle Soup wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/department-of-justice-frances-fitzgerald-email-3719821-Nov2017/?src=ilaw



I don't think she forgot all the emails.

Again, that doesn't prove anything. Minister gets email. Minister says to Private Secretary I saw email. Private Secretary tells someone Minister noted email. Two years later Minister has forgotten email.

That is all very plausible.

blanch152

Safehands wrote: »

So we are told.
The tribunal will take months or years and it will be toothless. So, it will establish wrongdoing, but what will result? Nothing!
Meanwhile the same carry-on will be happening and people will be watching and will say: "Leave that to the tribunal"!

Except that Alan Shatter was similarly crucified by all and sundry yet has been vindicated in a series of court cases he has won since.

Not much comfort to him that his reputation has been saved if nobody realises it.

One of the problems with mob justice.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Not much comfort to him that his reputation has been saved if nobody realises it.

Alan Shatter used information he had received from a member of AGS in an attempt to discredit a political opponent on the Pat Kenny show. For that alone he was unfit to serve as MoJ.

Nettle Soup

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, that doesn't prove anything. Minister gets email. Minister says to Private Secretary I saw email. Private Secretary tells someone Minister noted email. Two years later Minister has forgotten email.

That is all very plausible.

EmailS.

Not 1 email - That was Tuesday.

Many emails. We learned this on Friday. I believe the latest count is 4 emails.

Please rewrite your statement above using the plural of email.

In my previous post, I show how the Tanaiste ‘noted’ one the emails.

And we haven't asked her yet about conversations and phonecalls....

I doubt even Fitzgerald would say not that she forgot - that ship sailed 5 days ago! But good luck to you turning back the tide.

I doubt one Fine Gael TD would still say she forgot...they changed the excuse to "couldn't act on them" after Friday.

So no, nothing you suggest is plausible.

blanch152

Nettle Soup wrote: »

EmailS.

Not 1 email - That was Tuesday.

Many emails. We learned this on Friday. I believe the latest count is 4 emails.

Please rewrite your statement above using the plural of email.

In my previous post, I show how the Tanaiste ‘noted’ one the emails.

And we haven't asked her yet about conversations and phonecalls....

I doubt even Fitzgerald would say not that she forgot - that ship sailed 5 days ago! But good luck to you turning back the tide.

You can take it my post works as "email" or "emails". Obviously not if she was getting 20 emails a day on the issue over a period of months, but 4 spearate emails over a period when she would have got several thousand emails, well yes, she could easily have forgotten them.

Safehands

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that Alan Shatter was similarly crucified by all and sundry yet has been vindicated in a series of court cases he has won since.

Not much comfort to him that his reputation has been saved if nobody realises it.

One of the problems with mob justice.

Big difference between a court case and a tribunal.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

You can take it my post works as "email" or "emails". Obviously not if she was getting 20 emails a day on the issue over a period of months, but 4 spearate emails over a period when she would have got several thousand emails, well yes, she could easily have forgotten them.

Given the subject matter, it's not believable that she forgot the thrust of them. And then there's the question of why she denied knowledge of garda strategy to the dail.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

You can take it my post works as "email" or "emails". Obviously not if she was getting 20 emails a day on the issue over a period of months, but 4 spearate emails over a period when she would have got several thousand emails, well yes, she could easily have forgotten them.

I find it incredible to think that we are expected to believe that FF would not attach any significant import to emails relating to Maurice McCabe considering the careers of a politician, a Commissioner , a senior civil servant a confidential recipient were all negatively impacted by the McCabe saga up to 2015. This repeated defense has been shown to have absolutely no credibility but yet is repeatedly trotted out.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Alan Shatter used information he had received from a member of AGS in an attempt to discredit a political opponent on the Pat Kenny show. For that alone he was unfit to serve as MoJ.

That may well be your opinion, but that doesn't mean you are correct. There was nothing illegal in what Alan Shatter did.

If whistleblowing criminal activity by a TD is not allowed, then Shatter was guilty of something. If Wallace had stood up in the Dail and stated that Shatter had been stopped driving by Gardai last year while using his mobile phone and that he was issued with a caution, you would have been cheerleading him on as a whistleblower. The public had the right to know

What is notable about that particular incident is that unlike Wallace, who hides behind Dail privilege to make his slanderous and libellous allegations, Shatter could have been sued by Wallace if what he said was untrue or slanderous. I haven't seen a record of Wallace starting such a court action, have you?

Tell me how

Hitman3000 wrote:

I find it incredible to think that we are expected to believe that FF would not attach any significant import to emails relating to Maurice McCabe considering the careers of a politician, a Commissioner , a senior civil servant a confidential recipient were all negatively impacted by the McCabe saga up to 2015. This repeated defense has been shown to have absolutely no credibility but yet is repeatedly trotted out.

It's very easy to believe if you are coming from a viewpoint that Francis Fitzgerald did not and cannot do any wrong.
There's none so blind as those that will not see.