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

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Shatter could have been sued by Shatter if what he said was untrue or slanderous.

He could have sued himself? How does one do this?

blanch152

Safehands wrote: »

Big difference between a court case and a tribunal.

The tribunal cleared Shatter as well. Here are the findings:

"13.178 The minister’s request for a report from the commissioner arising out of the complaint in January 2012 was entirely reasonable and appropriate. In seeking that report the minister was not asking the commissioner to investigate himself.

13.179 In deciding that no further step was warranted at that time the minister and his officials took into account all relevant factors and the decision taken was quite appropriate.

13.181 Neither the department nor the minister can be faulted for failing to take further action on a request for an inquiry under section 42 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, as amended, in circumstances where Sergeant McCabe continued to assert a claim of confidentiality over relevant correspondence and enclosures."


You may be confusing the Tribunal Report with the non-statutory Guerin Report which had its finding quashed in court by Shatter.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

He could have sued himself? How does one do this?

typo corrected

horseburger

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.

Would a number of emails on the particular issue, really have been forgotten? The details show that they were sent for the attention of the Minister.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/3_Publication_of_material_27_November_2017.pdf/Files/3_Publication_of_material_27_November_2017.pdf

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

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

So the place to highlight such behaviour was the Dail and not a TV show. Totally agree with that. Shatter was not interested in highlighting bad behaviour, at the time Wallace was a thorn in the side of government. The info from the Garda was to be used to discredit Wallace over his whistleblowing about the penalty points fiasco.

JohnBoy26

Jaysus is there any point replying to blanch152, it's like going around in circles all day long. Fine gael can do no wrong no matter what.

McMurphy

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.

Ahem.... I think you might have missed this.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

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.

So, once again i ask, was the failure to disclose the most pertinent emails of all, the ones Frances also forgot about, just one big goddam unfortunate coincidence?

I mean, after all - following the TUSLA scandal. We (the presumably gullible and held in contempt) electorate are being asked to believe that.

Of all the people in all the world, Maurice McCabe just happened to have a file about him in TUSLA, and of all the pieces of text in all of TUSLAs databases, one of a serious allegations of sexual abuse, just happened to be cut from a random file, and accidentally fell into Maurice McCabes file?

I for one am thoroughly convinced that what happened was a random and unbelievable coincidence of unfortunate events.

Hitman3000

JohnBoy26 wrote:

Jaysus is there any point replying to blanch152, it's like going around in circles all day long. Fine gael can do no wrong no matter what.

Outside of Boards and other sites the wider population believes Fitzergerald had to go. Even a poll carried out by the Journal and CB live was placing the blame squarely at the feet of FG if an election was called. 33% in fact as opposed to 28% blaming FF and 13% blaming SF. It goes against the narrative pushed by the defenders of FG that people would have blamed FF for an election.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Ahem.... I think you might have missed this.



So, once again i ask, was the failure to disclose the most pertinent emails of all, the ones Frances also forgot about, just one big goddam unfortunate coincidence?

I mean, after all - following the TUSLA scandal. We (the presumably gullible and held in contempt) electorate are being asked to believe that.

Of all the people in all the world, Maurice McCabe just happened to have a file about him in TUSLA, and of all the pieces of text in all of TUSLAs databases, one of a serious allegations of sexual abuse, just happened to be cut from a random file, and accidentally fell into Maurice McCabes file?

I for one am thoroughly convinced that what happened was a random and unbelievable coincidence of unfortunate events.

If that is the issue, then it is Flanagan who should go, (or the Secretary General, Justice) not Fitzgerald, as they were records of the Department of Justice for which she didn't have responsibility any more, and shouldn't have had access.

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

If that is the issue, then it is Flanagan who should go, (or the Secretary General, Justice) not Fitzgerald, as they were records of the Department of Justice for which she didn't have responsibility any more, and shouldn't have had access.

Was she not Minister at the time the emails were sent, and for whom the emails were sent, for her attention?

johnnyskeleton

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.

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.

Mod note:

Ok we have those two points. One person says she could have forgotten, the other says thats not credible. Now, lets move on.

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Jaysus is there any point replying to blanch152, it's like going around in circles all day long. Fine gael can do no wrong no matter what.

Mod note:

Play the ball not the man. Im going to have to start banning people from the forum if they keep personalising the debate

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

If that is the issue, then it is Flanagan who should go, (or the Secretary General, Justice) not Fitzgerald, as they were records of the Department of Justice for which she didn't have responsibility any more, and shouldn't have had access.

I agree Flanagan should go too but not instead.

And I still believe Charlie is far from out of the woods on this one. Leo too.

Edit. Forgot the main point of my post, that being the amazing coincidences....

The Tanaiste accidentally forgot several very very important emails sent to her (and 7 or 8 of her officials) that contained very important information relating to Maurice McCabe, and which she ultimately resigned for.

Few years later, Frances no longer in Justice, but the same emails that she just happened to forget ever reading (bearing in mind their importance) just happened to be the exact same emails that the DOJ (under an entirely different minister, but from the same political party) unfortunately (no doubt by accident) just happened to be held back from the Charleton Tribunal?

Imagine Vincent Brown asking you this....

Do you really believe that these two important details are random unconnected incidents?

Vincent would then smirk and ask again....

C'mon.....:):

Hitman3000

Rick Shaw wrote:

And I still believe Charlie is far from out of the woods on this one. Leo too.

Alan Kelly seems determined to get Flanagans head it's almost like he has a vendetta against FG.

Mr.Micro

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I agree Flanagan should go too but not instead.

And I still believe Charlie is far from out of the woods on this one. Leo too.

Leo has shown he is weak and out of touch. He not leadership quality IMO.

The issue of McCabe has huge significance for justice in Ireland. A Government justice department and a police force that do not act with integrity and honesty, let alone justly is bad news for everyone in Ireland.

McMurphy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Alan Kelly seems determined to get Flanagans head it's almost like he has a vendetta against FG.

In my opinion, that would more than likely be due to another FG implemented disaster - Irish Water. Which cost the Labour party 80% of their seats. (37 down to 7) Kelly was handed the poisoned chalice, ran with it, and got in by the skin of his teeth in 2016.

In contrast Phil Hogan got shunted to Brussels. Go figure.

Anyway that's for another thread.


Kelly hinted fairly strongly that he had very very important questions about things that he said he had evidence for , and they needed answered (If I remember right, he said 20 or so but open to correction on that)

Flanagans premature attack on Kelly was unexpected - followed by the later email revelation - followed by Frances Fitzgerald resignation - followed by Flanagans humble pie apologies last night (for which Kelly said he found them unimportant if I recall correctly)

Kelly's keeping his powder dry on this one, and I think Charlie's worried, and I believe deservedly so.

Nettle Soup

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Alan Kelly seems determined to get Flanagans head it's almost like he has a vendetta against FG.

Fine Gael scapegoated Kelly and Labour with the Irish Water superquango and Labour are very very bitter about it.
They got destroyed as a party in the 2016 election for their stance on Irish Water while FG distanced themselves as the election got closer (Trickle Hogan got the big salary EU job).

James Brown

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Leo has shown he is weak and out of touch. He not leadership quality IMO.

The issue of McCabe has huge significance for justice in Ireland. A Government justice department and a police force that do not act with integrity and honesty, let alone justly is bad news for everyone in Ireland.

I don't believe he's weak at all. He's been true to form and put ego first. People who admire the 'let them eat cake' school of politics will still think he's the bees knees. He doesn't do much, but when he does it's with conceit.
I'd say he's delighted 'Taoiseach' is on his C.V. and he'll get bored and move on if it becomes too much like work. He'd prefer to be left to make smart remarks and buy socks.

Nettle Soup

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Kelly's keeping his powder dry on this one, and I think Charlie's worried, and I believe deservedly so.

Charlie abused his position by refusing to answer fairly simple questions (about the smear emails) for several weeks hoping Kelly would give up.
Charlie's responses were arrogant and bordered on rude.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kelly wanted to twist the knife now.

Jaysus when I think about it all, the Dail is such a mess, the political system is a dysfunctional mess. Gardaí are a corrupt force. DoJ is a shambles.
There is zero accountability, just greed for power and money.
Who can fix this? I despair. :mad:

James Brown

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Charlie abused his position by refusing to answer fairly simple questions (about the smear emails) for several weeks hoping Kelly would give up.
Charlie's responses were arrogant and bordered on rude.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kelly wanted to twist the knife now.

Jaysus when I think about it all, the Dail is such a mess, the political system is a dysfunctional mess. Gardaí are a corrupt force. DoJ is a shambles.
There is zero accountability, just greed for power and money.
Who can fix this? I despair. :mad:

Any party that can exceed or match FF/FG in the polls will do the country great service just by existing. FF/FG may cop on and run a straight game, at least for a time. Way too many vested interests. It's not so much about politics, more about the nod and a wink. If a fresh party got in they wouldn't be as beholden. Imagine the panic within the Garda if PBP, SF or [insert party] got in? There'd be plenty of late night shredding.

Nettle Soup

Great article here by O'Toole

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-did-the-department-of-justice-engage-in-a-deliberate-act-of-subversion-1.3308241?mode=amp#.Wh1daAASlY0.twitter

We have to assume withholding of the emails from Charleton was deliberate

By then, the tribunal had already made an order requiring the department to hand over all relevant records. But, just in case there might be the slightest doubt, Peter Charleton publicly stated that “if any person has a phone, computer, electronic records or paper records, relevant to the terms of reference”, they must hand them over to him by March 13th.

There are good reasons to doubt that the withholding of these documents was accidental. These are digital records – a simple search of the email archive using the term “McCabe” would surely find them. The phrase “Sergeant McCabe” appears in the opening lines of each of the email chains.

If a “fresh trawl” could find the emails last week, what kind of trawl can have missed them in February?

But in any case, it is highly implausible that the only documents missed in the trawl in February happen to be the ones that are most relevant to the tribunal’s task of investigating contacts between the Garda and members of the Government on the alleged smearing of Maurice McCabe. According to Simon Coveney and other ministers, the department handed over fewer than 300 documents to the tribunal. This is by no means a massive cache – the explanation that the explosive emails were needles lost in a giant haystack simply doesn’t wash.

The suspicion of deliberation is, moreover, enhanced by subsequent events: the refusal to answer Alan Kelly’s questions in the Dáil, Frances Fitzgerald’s now discredited claim to have had no knowledge of the Garda strategy to attack McCabe, Charlie Flanagan’s extraordinary reluctance to tell his own Taoiseach that he was misleading the Dáil when he insisted that Fitzgerald knew nothing of the whole affair until it eventually became public.

Anyone who “by act or omission, obstructs or hinders the tribunal in the performance of its functions, or fails, neglects or refuses to comply with the provisions of an order made by the tribunal” is guilty of a criminal offence.

Can Charleton recommend criminal proceedings if he finds key information was withheld deliberately?

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

Was she not Minister at the time the emails were sent, and for whom the emails were sent, for her attention?

Yes, but she wouldn't have access to them after she left the Department of Justice.

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but she wouldn't have access to them after she left the Department of Justice.

Isn't the issue that she didn't act of the information she received, at the time the details were sent, for her attention?

here is an item by Katie Hannon, discussing the issue, and the chronology of events.

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

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1126/922937-garda-tribunal/

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but she wouldn't have access to them after she left the Department of Justice.

What good would it have done after she was minister? Why would she want them, she'd forgot all about them...allegedly? She wouldn't have known to ask :rolleyes:
Thankfully she (miss) remembered the non-legal advice though

It must be like Laurel and Hardy meets the Keystone cops over in the FG cabinet. Very reminiscent of Bertie's days. Well done Fine Gael.

Seth Brundle

Bloody hell, Leo wants her back...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-wants-frances-fitzgerald-to-return-to-top-level-politics-1.3309998?mode=amp

Nettle Soup

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Imagine Vincent Brown asking you this....

Do you really believe that these two important details are random unconnected incidents?

Vincent would then smirk and ask again....

C'mon.....:):

Oh we so need VinnieB back on the airwaves for this fiasco! He would be brilliant. I would pay to see him interview a few FG TDs.

Is he completely retired?

Nettle Soup

kbannon wrote: »

Bloody hell, Leo wants her back...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-wants-frances-fitzgerald-to-return-to-top-level-politics-1.3309998?mode=amp

Wow he must be really hurting. He needs to just suck it up and move on.

She will not be vindicated for misleading the Dáil and withholding information from a tribunal unless he finds a time machine.

eagle eye

How are these people allowed to stay in government after this?
We have important issues to be dealt with but we are always going to have important issues to deal with.
This thing of it not being the right tome for an election is ridiculous. I'd be quite certain that a large majority of the electorate do not trust FG anymore and therefore we should be having a General election.

McMurphy

kbannon wrote: »

Bloody hell, Leo wants her back...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-wants-frances-fitzgerald-to-return-to-top-level-politics-1.3309998?mode=amp

That's not surprising, Leo never wanted her to go

Don't forget he knew about her emails that appeared to coach her on how to answer specific questions about important things she claims to have forgotten last Friday, said nothing all weekend - even headed off to the ruggers (great photo opp) not a care in the world while his TDs and Ministers defended the Tanaiste to the hilt.

Even at the 11th hr he was adamant he wouldn't seek nor accept her resignation.

Leo put himself and his compadre before the country and the party.

Leo is as good as gone in my eyes.

FrancieBrady

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Wow he must be really hurting. He needs to just suck it up and move on.

She will not be vindicated for misleading the Dáil and withholding information from a tribunal unless he finds a time machine.

That is for the benefit of the many disgruntled FG faithful. It's what you would expect as the FG spin machine tries to deflect away from the real reason she came unstuck.

Any expert analysis of what went on that I have heard seems to think she won't be vindicated by the tribunal and as you say she was 2nd in command in the government when she mislead the Dail and lost the support of the Cabinet and the Taoiseach.

I personally would have preferred the house to get the chance to debate the motion of no confidence as those motions addressed the primary issue.

Stheno

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is for the benefit of the many disgruntled FG faithful. It's what you would expect as the FG spin machine tries to deflect away from the real reason she came unstuck.

Any expert analysis of what went on that I have heard seems to think she won't be vindicated by the tribunal and as you say she was 2nd in command in the government when she mislead the Dail and lost the support of the Cabinet and the Taoiseach.

I don't think Leo's remarks yesterday indicate she lost his support, what did he say that you can link to show she did?

FrancieBrady

Stheno wrote: »

I don't think Leo's remarks yesterday indicate she lost his support, what did he say that you can link to show she did?

He said he would not accept her resignation - after the release of the trawl, he did accept it.

Stheno

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He said he would not accept her resignation - after the release of the trawl, he did accept it.

Yes but he didn't say she had lost his support so what you are saying is not factually correct. Do you know what he said publicly in the fail yesterday?

FrancieBrady

Stheno wrote: »

Yes but he didn't say she had lost his support so what you are saying is not factually correct. Do you know what he said publicly in the fail yesterday?

IMO Effectively he withdrew his support, I didn't say he 'said' it Steno.
We don't know if she had tried to resign or not before that.

Stheno

FrancieBrady wrote: »

IMO Effectively he withdrew his support, I didn't say he 'said' it Steno.
We don't know if she had tried to resign or not before that.

Now you are just outright obfuscating in your previous post you said "she lost the support of the Taoiseach"

Here is what he said yesterday in the Fail

“It is with deep regret that I have accepted her resignation. It is my strong view that a good woman is leaving office without getting a full and fair hearing. In the past few days a drip-drip of information may have made certain things seem greater than they are. There was a feeding frenzy, and it became impossible for her to get a fair hearing based on the full facts. I hope that will change in the period ahead,” the Taoiseach said.

Can you point out how that supports either of your two statements, firstly that she had lost his confidence, and when you couldn't back that up that he withdrew his support?

McMurphy

Lost the support of the Taoiseach/didn't lose the support of the Taoiseach isn't what FG TDs and Ministers should be focusing on.

To me Leo's bumbling and uncertainty as the FG leader and Taoiseach become clear whenever he come into possession of the damming emails, sat on them all weekend knowing they would eventually be disclosed in the media anyway (after the trawl) while his cabinet and colleagues were sent out to defend Fitzgerald to the hilt.

Even after they got released via the media on Monday evening, he continued to proclaim that he would refuse to accept her resignation, and he kept this front yesterday too. (Hours before he ultimately did accept her resignation)

Leo had a road to Damascus a few hours later by actually accepting the resignation he said he wouldn't accept.

Knowing now, what Leo knew all weekend. I call that bad judgement and bad leadership.

Even Enda wouldn't have made that big of a haimes of things.

FrancieBrady

Stheno wrote: »

Now you are just outright obfuscating in your previous post you said "she lost the support of the Taoiseach"

Here is what he said yesterday in the Fail



Can you point out how that supports either of your two statements, firstly that she had lost his confidence, and when you couldn't back that up that he withdrew his support?

He had previously said, when asked if he was going to sack her or ask for her to resign, that he would not invite her resignation nor would he accept it.

What is that if not 'support' for her?
Can you describe what it is in one word?


He accepted her resignation when he said he wouldn't. What does that infer?

I am not sure why you are being pedantic about it.

His statement was nonsense spin and PR btw. The info 'dripped' because she saw to it that it did, she mislead the Dail on several counts (that is what the trawl indicated) and she will get a fair hearing at the tribunal.

Stheno

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Lost the support of the Taoiseach/didn't lose the support of the Taoiseach isn't what FG TDs and Ministers should be focusing on.

To me Leo's bumbling and uncertainty as the FG leader and Taoiseach came when he came into possession of the damming emails, sat on them all weekend knowing they would eventually be disclosed in the media while his cabinet and colleagues were sent out to defend Fitzgerald to the hilt.

Even after they got released via the media he continued to proclaim that he would refuse to accept her resignation. (Hours before he did)

Leo had a road to Damascus a few hours after he said it.

Knowing now, what Leo knew all weekend. I call that bad leadership.

Even Enda wouldn't have made that big of a haimes of things.

I simply have a problem with the poster of whom I asked the question being "misleading" in his answers/assertions.

Could Leo have handled it better and agreed whatever deal was done and backed away as he should have sooner? Yes for whatever reason he chose not too, but nothing he said reflects a loss of confidence in or withdrawal of support for Fitzgerald.

I find it disingenuous when posters try to infer this was the case.

She had to go as is usually the case in these situations tuations


Doesn't really matter either way as I don't see this govt lasting the three budget term of the confidence and supply agreement, despite what FF said on the tonight show last night

McMurphy

Stheno wrote: »

I simply have a problem with the poster of whom I asked the question being "misleading" in his answers/assertions.

Could Leo have handled it better and agreed whatever deal was done and backed away as he should have sooner? Yes for whatever reason he chose not too, but nothing he said reflects a loss of confidence in or withdrawal of support for Fitzgerald.

I find it disingenuous when posters try to infer this was the case.

She had to go as is usually the case in these situations tuations


Doesn't really matter either way as I don't see this govt lasting the three budget term of the confidence and supply agreement, despite what FF said on the tonight show last night

Yes but Leo knew this was ultimately going to be the case on Friday. Only Leo and Frances (for definite. Charlie Flanagan and the emails not being sent on to the tribunal is a different kettle of fish, and not wanting to speculate, I'll keep it to Frances and Leo for now) knew of the emails, their party colleagues and the cabinet didn't.

It became public knowledge on Monday evening. We have to assume this is when the cabinet and colleagues first become aware too.

Soon afterwards Leo accepted something he was adamant he wouldn't accept.

Wonder if anything happened at the cabinet meeting that made him change his mind?

Stheno

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Yes but Leo knew this was ultimately going to be the case on Friday. Only Leo and Frances (for definite. Charlie Flanagan and the emails not being sent on to the tribunal is a different kettle of fish, and not wanting to speculate, I'll keep it to Frances and Leo for now) knew of the emails, their party colleagues and the cabinet didn't.

It became public knowledge on Monday evening. We have to assume this is when the cabinet and colleagues first become aware too.

Soon afterwards Leo accepted something he was adamant he wouldn't accept.

Wonder if anything happened at the cabinet meeting that made him change his mind?

Yes Fitzgerald announced she was resigning when previously she had refused to do so

www.google.ie/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/analysis/baffling-defence-of-frances-fitzgerald-leaves-leo-varadkars-credibility-damaged-46

Personally I'd like to see an election early next year and end up with a majority govt. This current arrangement is a shambles

James Brown

Stheno wrote: »

Yes Fitzgerald announced she was resigning when previously she had refused to do so

So saying he wouldn't accept it was just something he said?
'Full confidence' is something FG seem to give out to some dubious characters if it's politically expedient. There's no integrity there, although they may believe the illusion is enough.

Tell me how

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Soon afterwards Leo accepted something he was adamant he wouldn't accept.

Wonder if anything happened at the cabinet meeting that made him change his mind?

i'm kindof with Stheno on this one.

How do we know that this is what happened? For all we know, Leo was late in to the cabinet meeting by which time all others present had turned on Francis, when he walked in, she immediately offered her resignation.

Stheno

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So saying he wouldn't accept it was just something he said?
'Full confidence' is something FG seem to give out to some dubious characters if it's politically expedient. There's no integrity there, although they may believe the illusion is enough.

That is where I believe Leo showed poor judgement.

By Monday it was blindingly obvious she would go.
Not as if Leo could stop her. Took him long enough to realise/accept it though

McMurphy

As an aside, did Charlie Flanagan ever give an explanation as to how the same important emails the former Tanaiste forgot she had noted , just happened to have somehow not been forwarded on to the tribunal?

I mean, Frances was gone from justice, yet coincidenceley the very same emails got misplaced/forgot about?

You'd have to wonder if anyone was in cahoots here. That's what needs to be established and soon.

McMurphy

Tell me how wrote: »

i'm kindof with Stheno on this one.

How do we know that this is what happened? For all we know, Leo was late in to the cabinet meeting by which time all others present had turned on Francis, when he walked in, she immediately offered her resignation.

So maybe she had lost the support of cabinet?

It's a fair assumption after all.

Stheno

Rick Shaw wrote: »

As an aside, did Charlie Flanagan ever give an explanation as to how the same important emails the former Tanaiste forgot she had noted , just happened to have somehow not been forwarded on to the tribunal?

I mean, Frances was gone from justice, yet coincidenceley the very same emails got misplaced/forgot about?

You'd have to wonder if anyone was in cahoots here. That's what needs to be established and soon.

Would Charlie have known about emails sent to Fitzgeralds doj account prior to him being MOJ, particularly as she Fitzgerald had "forgotte"about them? And what of the role of the DOJ? Its not often i agree with SF but MlMcd made a good point last night about seperating national security and justice

I guess we'll see what Alan Kelly next wants to know about and where that leads next week.

Despite not being a supporter I thought Kelly was very impressive and articulate on tv yesterday evening.

tomwaterford

Rick Shaw wrote: »

As an aside, did Charlie Flanagan ever give an explanation as to how the same important emails the former Tanaiste forgot she had noted , just happened to have somehow not been forwarded on to the tribunal?

I mean, Frances was gone from justice, yet coincidenceley the very same emails got misplaced/forgot about?

You'd have to wonder if anyone was in cahoots here. That's what needs to be established and soon.

I would hope he'll appear before this tribunal to explain it....if he's implicated in this.

Surly his career is finished?

Stheno

tomwaterford wrote: »

I would hope he'll appear before this tribunal to explain it....if he's implicated in this.

Surly his career is finished?

If its proven yes it is and he should be prosecuted as should Fitzgerald

If its found that senior officials in the DOH conspired to withhold evidence in the the interest of "national security" they should be prosecuted

Odhinn

Rick Shaw wrote: »

As an aside, did Charlie Flanagan ever give an explanation as to how the same important emails the former Tanaiste forgot she had noted , just happened to have somehow not been forwarded on to the tribunal?

I mean, Frances was gone from justice, yet coincidenceley the very same emails got misplaced/forgot about?

You'd have to wonder if anyone was in cahoots here. That's what needs to be established and soon.

I was shocked and, frankly horrified, that there were records in the Department of Justice that should have been provided to the Disclosures Tribunal. As Minister I have repeatedly emphasised the vital importance of full cooperation by the Department with the Tribunal. I have taken every opportunity to stress this within the Department and it is an understatement to say I am bitterly disappointed by the events of recent weeks.
It has been a major challenge at every step to obtain complete information in a timely manner, indeed, on a few occasions recently, information has been provided to me, to the Taoiseach, and then to this House, which has proven subsequently to be inaccurate. This is completely unacceptable and I wish to formally apologise to the Taoiseach, to you Ceann Comhairle and to the House.
The fact is, that in recent days it has been clear that information in the possession of journalists and members of the Opposition has not been forthcoming to me as Minister.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/read-justice-minister-charlie-flanagans-address-to-the-dail-on-email-scandal-in-full-816223.html

Seems to be blaming the civil servants. There seems to be more of it when he says

The proper practice for conveying important information to a Minister is through what’s called a “submission”. Since 14 June I have dealt with 341 submissions from senior officials in my Department. Each of these is carefully considered upon receipt – I know the information must be significant because of the manner in which it is conveyed. A clear lesson from this episode is that officials should not use emails to convey information which should properly be transmitted to the office in a formal “submission” document.

..which is presumably in relation to the first e-mail that Noel Waters mentioned to him while retiring.

markodaly

kbannon wrote: »

Bloody hell, Leo wants her back...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-wants-frances-fitzgerald-to-return-to-top-level-politics-1.3309998?mode=amp

Prober order as well. We live in a republic, where everyone is entitled to due process. If the Disclosures Tribunal clear her of any wrong doing, there should be nothing to stop Leo bringing her back into the Cabinet.

There are many other politicians out there from all sides who have done far far worse and are still around.

FrancieBrady

Stheno wrote: »

I simply have a problem with the poster of whom I asked the question being "misleading" in his answers/assertions.

Could Leo have handled it better and agreed whatever deal was done and backed away as he should have sooner? Yes for whatever reason he chose not too, but nothing he said reflects a loss of confidence in or withdrawal of support for Fitzgerald.

I find it disingenuous when posters try to infer this was the case.

She had to go as is usually the case in these situations tuations


Doesn't really matter either way as I don't see this govt lasting the three budget term of the confidence and supply agreement, despite what FF said on the tonight show last night

'Msleading'?
We clearly have different definitions of 'suppoirt'.

Try it in reverse, if Leo had not said he would not accept her resignation or that he would ask for it, how long would she have lasted?
Her position became untenable because he could no longer support her.