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

Edward M

robbiezero wrote: »

But neither of those replies answer my question. All I am wondering is where the poster got the information that FF knew that the guards were going to attack his credibility with a bunch of lies at O'Higgins.

I presume you mean FG, or Fitzgerald.
At the time of the email she wouldn't. But she could have made it her business to find out. She was the minister for justice at the time.
If you take her account she couldn't even remember seeing the email firstly, subsequently other emails turned up, even testimony of conversations in her department on it.
I know people argue she could do nothing legally to stop it even if she knew their strategy, but that has to be wrong.
If a state organisation is above being answerable to the minister in charge of it then we really are in trouble I'd say.
If she was in control of her brief she should have been aware of it all, anything less is incompetence.

Tell me how

Using FF as abbreviation for both Francis Fitzgerald and Fianna Fáil is not helping anyone discuss this.

It's common to use it for the political party, surely just using Francis, if shorthand is required for the former Tanaiste would help.

robbiezero

Edward M wrote: »

I presume you mean FG, or Fitzgerald.
At the time of the email she wouldn't. But she could have made it her business to find out. She was the minister for justice at the time.
If you take her account she couldn't even remember seeing the email firstly, subsequently other emails turned up, even testimony of conversations in her department on it.
I know people argue she could do nothing legally to stop it even if she knew their strategy, but that has to be wrong.
If a state organisation is above being answerable to the minister in charge of it then we really are in trouble I'd say.
If she was in control of her brief she should have been aware of it all, anything less is incompetence.

I cannot see any way in which she could have found out that the legal strategy in question was going to be based on a tissue of lies.
The guards were hardly going to admit that.

Seth Brundle

robbiezero wrote: »

But neither of those replies answer my question. All I am wondering is where the poster got the information that Frances F knew that the guards were going to attack his credibility with a bunch of lies at O'Higgins.

OK then, why would she not have known?
Was she kept in the dark on ongoing matters by the Garda Commissioner (who she met the following day and if was interested could have asked what the "serious criminal" case against McCabe was) or her colleagues in the Dept?
There should already have been suspicions when claims against McCabe were made. By this point McCabe had made several allegations of malpractice within the force that were shown to be credible. The dossier he created was pretty much dismissed by the Gardai (through the "investigation" by Assistant commissioner John O’Mahoney). However, when McCabe presented this to Micheal Martin who gave it to Enda Kenny who had Senior counsel Sean Guerin look into it (in 2014) it was obvious that the Gardai had misled everyone.
It was at this time that Fitzer was moved to the Dept of Justice
She obviously didn't give a crap about McCabe's claims and the only logical conclusion that can be made from her actions is that she must have been aware of the tactics of the gardai.

McMurphy

robbiezero wrote: »

I cannot see any way in which she could have found out that the legal strategy in question was going to be based on a tissue of lies.
The guards were hardly going to admit that.

Lies/Truth.

What is it people don't get about being made aware of a strategy to undermine someone, while publicly supporting him when in the public eye that's confusing them?

Frances Fitzgerald was the minister for Justice. Some people need to take off their blinkers.

FrancieBrady

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Lies/Truth.

What is it people don't get about being made aware of a strategy to undermine someone, while publicly supporting him when in the public eye that's confusing them?

Frances Fitzgerald was the minister for Justice. Some people need to take off their blinkers.

I don't think the poster understands that failure 'to be on top of your brief' is the problem here.

The ex Minister has posited the defence that she was 'legally procluded' from being on top of her brief. She claimed that she 'got legal advice' on the matter from the AG, but the AG has denied this.
It will be the work of the Tribunal to find out. and it will also investigate if it was a defensive lie, and the Minister did, in fact, know what was going on.

The above is not the reason why the Tániste is out of office though.

robbiezero

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think the poster understands that failure 'to be on top of your brief' is the problem here.

The ex Minister has posited the defence that she was 'legally procluded' from being on top of her brief. She claimed that she 'got legal advice' on the matter from the AG, but the AG has denied this.
It will be the work of the Tribunal to find out. and it will also investigate if it was a defensive lie, and the Minister did, in fact, know what was going on.

The above is not the reason why the Tániste is out of office though.

Yes I understand that.
But for me there is a significant difference between
1) knowing that the Gardai were going to challenge the motivation and credibility of the witness at the commission (as such to take an aggressive stance)
and
2) knowing they were going to take the above legal strategy based on lies i.e. that she knew the Garda angle on the Mullingar meeting was lies and that Supt Colm Rooneys contention that he bore a grudge over the response from the DPP to his case was nonsense.

In the case of #1 - you can and have validly argued that it shows she was not on top of her brief, but if #2 is the case, that would be an appalling vista and I have not seen any evidence that #2 is the case.

FrancieBrady

robbiezero wrote: »

Yes I understand that.
But for me there is a significant difference between
1) knowing that the Gardai were going to challenge the motivation and credibility of the witness at the commission (as such to take an aggressive stance)
and
2) knowing they were going to take the above legal strategy based on lies i.e. that she knew the Garda angle on the Mullingar meeting was lies and that Supt Colm Rooneys contention that he bore a grudge over the response from the DPP to his case was nonsense.

In the case of #1 - you can and have validly argued that it shows she was not on top of her brief, but if #2 is the case, that would be an appalling vista and I have not seen any evidence that #2 is the case.

#2 is for the Tribunal to decide on. We can't, and shouldn't.

If you are looking for my opinion, the very least a competent Minister should have done is ask 'How are you going challenge...etc etc'.

George Sunsnow

Can the tribunal make a finding that the minister should have informed the Dáil about the first email and recommend at the time that the Dáil do something about it?
That wouldn’t take long to print and bind,about a days evidence and millions saved

bladespin

George Sunsnow wrote: »

That wouldn’t take long to print and bind,about a days evidence and millions saved

Completely missing the point of a tribunal there

No seriously, this is exactly what should happen but...

Nettle Soup

kbannon wrote: »

FG just don't get it...
"Former tanaiste Frances Fitzgerald received a standing ovation from Fine Gael colleagues in Leinster House tonight"
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/standing-ovation-for-frances-fitzgerald-as-she-returns-to-leinster-house-36365455.html

Very surprised by that. Very. I doubt that would have happened under Enda's watch but then again we may not have seen the "email trawl" under Enda.
Leo Leo Leo...you have confused the hell out of me in recent days.

Water John

Its simple. Frances Fitzgerald's ambition to rehabilitate her political career has been Leo's blessing. This has relieved him from attack within FG. If she had walked off into the sunset, all FG ire would now be directed at Leo.
Quite possibly all this was worked out or understood late Sun night, between them.
The silly dupes were left go in front of the media Mon morning. But such brazen defence of the Party tends to get rewarded later. Noel Rock will be silently punished for refusing at the fence. Coveney for going on television to defend the indefensible will now be rewarded as Tanaiste.

Dyr

I think its more that Francis has something on Leo, either he needs her onside for support in the party or she's knows where the bodies are buried.

FrancieBrady

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Very surprised by that. Very. I doubt that would have happened under Enda's watch but then again we may not have seen the "email trawl" under Enda.
Leo Leo Leo...you have confused the hell out of me in recent days.

I wouldn't be too upset about it. It is the political equivalent of sticking your tongue out.
All parties would engage in it. Means very little.

Water John

Just remembering Bertie's trawl. Did he not send Dermot Ahern up every tree in North Dublin, and couldn't find anything on Ray Burke.
Just for the laugh.

Edward M

robbiezero wrote: »

Yes I understand that.
But for me there is a significant difference between
1) knowing that the Gardai were going to challenge the motivation and credibility of the witness at the commission (as such to take an aggressive stance)
and
2) knowing they were going to take the above legal strategy based on lies i.e. that she knew the Garda angle on the Mullingar meeting was lies and that Supt Colm Rooneys contention that he bore a grudge over the response from the DPP to his case was nonsense.

In the case of #1 - you can and have validly argued that it shows she was not on top of her brief, but if #2 is the case, that would be an appalling vista and I have not seen any evidence that #2 is the case.

Even allowing for the time gap, significantly later in the piece everyone knew what the garda were up to, it was public knowledge that a smear campaign was being waged on garda McCabe, the govt as a whole were still expressing full confidence in O'Sullivan, questions have to be asked about governmental attitudes here.
Surely on such an important matter there had to be a recollection of being informed of a defence being mounted by the garda at the enquiry.
How the hell could a minister not remember being informed of such?

Edward M

The independent alliance have kept their heads well down on this case too. I can only imagine their outrage if they were on the opposition benches with this going on.
A bunch of hypocrites I reckon.

AndyBoBandy

Simon Coveney announced as new Tánaiste, will he remain in Foreign Affairs?

Jawgap

Coveney as Tanaiste......

.....and interesting move and one no doubt that will provoke a bit of discussion.

I thought he was going to go for Humphreys for reasons of gender and geography, but obviously not.

Nettle Soup

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Simon Coveney announced as new Tánaiste, will be remain in Foreign Affairs?

That makes sense. He took one for the team on Monday night too.
I am thinking he still stay on in Foreign Affairs.

FrancieBrady

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Simon Coveney announced as new Tánaiste, will be remain in Foreign Affairs?

That official?

EDIT: Seeing it now.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1130/923875-new-tanaiste-to-be-announced-today/

Dyr

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Simon Coveney announced as new Tiste, will be remain in Foreign Affairs?

Very few politicians would give up that brief, a top gig and opens up a lot of opportunities on the post retirement gravy train.

Nettle Soup

What is the job spec?

Scan quickly through important emails, no actions necessary and forget as required.


Mary Lou getting digs in

Sinn Féin TD Mary Lou McDonald said that the Taoiseach now has a strong Cork flavour to his Government with Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed, Mr Coveney and "of course, Micheál Martin".

Seth Brundle

It would be daft to change the Min of Foreign Affairs in the middle of brexit negotiations.
He is a capable minister in that role also so I'd be afraid of who would take his place.

pilly

kbannon wrote: »

It would be daft to change the Min of Foreign Affairs in the middle of brexit negotiations.
He is a capable minister in that role also so I'd be afraid of who would take his place.

He can stay in that role though can't he?

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

It would be daft to change the Min of Foreign Affairs in the middle of brexit negotiations.
He is a capable minister in that role also so I'd be afraid of who would take his place.

Agreed.
Business, Enterprise and Innovation going to a border minister is not a bad move either.

AndyBoBandy

kbannon wrote: »

It would be daft to change the Min of Foreign Affairs in the middle of brexit negotiations.
He is a capable minister in that role also so I'd be afraid of who would take his place.

Thats exactly why I asked.

I don't think we have an equal or better minister in terms of Brexit negotiations.

touts

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Agreed.
Business, Enterprise and Innovation going to a border minister is not a bad move either.

Depends on the border minister. Not sure how well Heather Humphries will make the leap from token responsibilities like Arts, Culture, Gaeltacht, etc to now have to deal with serious issues in Business, Enterprise & Innovation.

FrancieBrady

touts wrote: »

Depends on the border minister. Not sure how well Heather Humphries will make the leap from token responsibilities like Arts, Culture, Gaeltacht, etc to now have to deal with serious issues in Business, Enterprise & Innovation.

Agreed too. She will be in uncharted waters. But I think it will bolster confidence a small bit up here.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

If the tribunal finds that the DOJ deliberately withheld information from it and the Minster of the day, then does that make the minster guilty as well?

It seems many recognise the culture of secrecy within the DOJ and accept that it was they that are the root cause of this issue, yet some are happy to blame the Minster because they are the public face of the problem. Firing them doesn't make an iota of difference.

So, yes, if the Tribunal finds that the Minster did no wrong doing, then why deny a person a job?

I know the Fine Gael PR spin/damage control is to pretend we are all talking about the DoJ and how bad and nefarious it is, but the downside of that narrative is it makes the government ministers who presided over it look like complete wastes of space.
Fitzgerald is being blamed for her own ineptitude or maybe the tribunal may find more sinister reasoning. Fine Gael keep spinning her being the victim or public face for a bigger problem, although she, current and former ministers are very much responsible, in this case, it's Fitzgerald's incompetence had her having to 'resign' not misplaced blame. Nobody is selling that story except Fine Gael and the rest of us aren't buying it.

But she did wrong. She incompetently allegedly forgot conversations and emails pertaining to a case of national importance. She had the Taoiseach give false information to the Dail. Both of them kept up the facade even on receiving further information to the contrary days earlier. Did they both forget?
That would severely curtail any idea of giving her an important position. I know in Fine Gael 'we look after our own' but this is running the country we're talking about not a part-time secretarial position at a relatives factory or a board position at a dubious tax payer funded quango. Try as they might, Fine Gael can't downplay the severity of Fitzgerald's inaction's, this isn't the homeless crisis after all...

Water John

It seems, for all political parties sometimes, defending the indefensible to satisfy extreme party loyalists, is more important than the opinion of the public.

James Brown

Stheno wrote: »

.......


No she doesn't, but how is Flanagan accountable for the failures of Fitzgerald and the DOJ if they obstructed his access to what they were doing/had done?

....

The story being sold by Fine Gael that the DoJ is suddenly a big bogey man is disgracefully transparent. Nobody kept emails from Fitzgerald, she 'noted them', did nothing about them and then she plumb forgot. And as for Flanagan? Well seems....

Indeed, it took a week for Mr Flanagan to inform the Taoiseach. Last night he said he had been so taken aback by Mr Waters telling him he was retiring that he “missed the significance of the email”. He did tell Mr Waters to send it to the tribunal.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/charlie-flanagan-under-pressure-over-mccabe-emails-1.3308916

So Fitzgerald forgot a number of times and upon discussing and seeing them, Flanagan didn't find it significant because Waters was resigning and talking about it.... As I said earlier, reminiscent and as believable as the Bertie days. Fine Gael can't even pretend to have any credibility at this stage.
Varadkar is just brazening it out until he gets offered an international slot.

Water John

Well, emails were withheld from by DOJ from a Tribunal of Inquiry, set up by Parliament. Don't think anyone has suggested that this was done on the instructions of any Minister.
Where blame lies, let it lie. Don't pick half a story, to suit your narrative. DOJ major blame also. They were up to their necks in it.

expectationlost

Water John wrote: »

Well, emails were withheld from by DOJ from a Tribunal of Inquiry, set up by Parliament. Don't think anyone has suggested that this was done on the instructions of any Minister.
Where blame lies, let it lie. Don't pick half a story, to suit your narrative. DOJ major blame also. They were up to their necks in it.

IT pointing out that the DOJ says these emails weren't required by the tribunal and they are being given now as 'voluntary disclosure... in relation to other matters' http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/2_Report_to_Dept%20_Taoiseach_27_November_2017.pdf/Files/2_Report_to_Dept%20_Taoiseach_27_November_2017.pdf
so DOJ saying they aren't relevant and were not demanded by the tribunal but MOJ also said they werent found and dismissed in the original feb 2016 trawl and the gov says TORs of reference don't need to be changed...

Doesn't make sense how these files weren't relevant if you read the emails and the Disclosure Tribunal terms of reference http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Statement_by_theDepartment%20_of_Justice_and_Equality http://disclosuretribunal.ie/en/dis/pages/terms_of_reference


the minister is the person in charge who sets the tone of how they operate

James Brown

Water John wrote: »

Well, emails were withheld from by DOJ from a Tribunal of Inquiry, set up by Parliament. Don't think anyone has suggested that this was done on the instructions of any Minister.
Where blame lies, let it lie. Don't pick half a story, to suit your narrative. DOJ major blame also. They were up to their necks in it.

Just to clarify, it's the emails the ministers saw that's at issue.

Begs the question though; the DoJ aren't some aimless administrative mechanism of happenstance.
We know in the least the current and past Ministers overseeing the department were incompetent to varying degrees. This is also the defacto narrative being sold by Fine Gael currently.
So if bumbling ministers are not accountable for their own Laurel and Hardy-isms, who is responsible for the DoJ? If we are to believe the DoJ is corrupt or has some purpose or aim, an agenda, who sets it? What is it's agenda? To cover for Fitzgerald's failings, is Fine Gael suggesting we get out the tin foil hats? Is the DoJ a rogue body acting alone within the state? Are they run by Spectre?
A possible scenario, just spit balling here, no evidence, making this up, is that the Garda/DoJ suit themselves and governments have been complicit. So McCabe coming along was an irritant and they tried to silence/deal with him. In that fictitious scenario, successive/current ministers probably wouldn't want to get involved, feign ignorance if pushed on it, it's not like anyone seriously joins politics for the public good, so why rock the boat? This is all fantasy of course. But wouldn't it be great if say, some democratically elected people were put in office to take account of such things rather than shirking responsibility?

The Fine Gael government trying to disassociate itself with the Department of Justice is absurd and all because 'they look after their own' and Fitzgerald certainly is one. Shows us where the country stands in the pecking order with these people. If a social crisis or government department becomes annoying..'It was like that when I got here'.
Is anyone still taking Fine Gael or Fianna Fail seriously?

Mick Wallace, the bowsey! The whole thing is farcical.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The Fine Gael government trying to disassociate itself with the Department of Justice is absurd and all because 'they look after their own' and Fitzgerald certainly is one. Shows us where the country stands in the pecking order with these people. If a social crisis or government department becomes annoying..'It was like that when I got here'.
Is anyone still taking Fine Gael or Fianna Fail seriously?

Mick Wallace, the bowsey! The whole thing is farcical.

Just on this Matt, what, who or where are the alternatives?
Even judging independents after this is difficult given the IA are in this govt.
Realistically policy wise I can't see who else I could vote for other than FF or FG, maybe Labour or SF if they come a bit more central.
I know full well before the next election I will probably have to decide on first preference between the big two with adding in something to keep them moderated.
That's the brutal fact as I see it, but its great to let them know they can't get away with pulling their strokes or cover their tracks anymore for their mistakes.
I think they might be beginning to get that message and hope they will learn there is no hiding place anymore and no matter who they think they are, we the voters demand open and truthful govt.

littelady

Do you think Maurice wishes he never opened his mouth. If he could go back in time before he whistle blowed.

jack hackett

Good move having Covney as Tainiste, he really should be Taoiseach but having him as Tainiste will strengthen his position in Europe and he has the support of the grass roots.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Just on this Matt, what, who or where are the alternatives?
Even judging independents after this is difficult given the IA are in this govt.
Realistically policy wise I can't see who else I could vote for other than FF or FG, maybe Labour or SF if they come a bit more central.
I know full well before the next election I will probably have to decide on first preference between the big two with adding in something to keep them moderated.
That's the brutal fact as I see it, but its great to let them know they can't get away with pulling their strokes or cover their tracks anymore for their mistakes.
I think they might be beginning to get that message and hope they will learn there is no hiding place anymore and no matter who they think they are, we the voters demand open and truthful govt.

It does always seem to come back to 'whatabout'. Fair enough, but can FF/FG take responsibility, be held to account for five minutes? Not getting at you, speaking generally.
People seem to be selfish. That's unfortunate. FF/FG offer stable incompetence and cronyism. They both sell the fear of the unknown. The idea that they'll learn from their previous 'inappropriateness' or bouts of 'forgetfulness' is a long lost cause I'm afraid. The have no conscience beyond their own front doors. Calling what they do 'mistakes' is naive I'm afraid.
As for not letting them away; nothing happened really. Fitzgerald will at worst get a fat pension and possibly get another high position from Varadkar because sticking it to Martin is more important than integrity and doing the right thing for the country. When voting, I would suggest closing your eyes and sticking a pin in the list and anytime you hit FF or FG, try again.
We will never have a viable third or fourth option if people put up with voting for the marginally better of two very rotten parties.

horseburger

jack hackett wrote: »

no, in my opinion hes the type who will always be a troublemaker, if it wasnt this it would be something else

How, in all seriousness, can you call him a troublemaker?

He was highlighting inaction by other gardaí.

horseburger

pilly wrote: »

I can't believe jack isn't banned given the slanderous accusations posted already the other day.

An axe to grind I suspect.

here is a timeline of events that shows that Maurice McCabe wasn't just causing trouble for the sake of it, as suggested by the poster above, jack hackett.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/explained-a-timeline-of-the-maurice-mccabe-controversy-36348068.html

Mr.Micro

jack hackett wrote: »

Good move having Covney as Tainiste, he really should be Taoiseach but having him as Tainiste will strengthen his position in Europe and he has the support of the grass roots.

Mr. Dull. The farmers will be very happy, if no one else. FF will be quaking in their boots with such a dynamic duo leading FG and the Government, not.

Nettle Soup

littelady wrote: »

Do you think Morris wishes he never opened his mouth. If he could go back in time before he whistle blowed.

It's Maurice McCabe.

And there was a Morris Tribunal in investigate Garda corruption in 1990s.

To answer your question. The man has been to hell and back. The state have abused him in many different ways. I doubt he regrets making his complaints. He is an honourable man.

James Brown

Nettle Soup wrote: »

It's Maurice McCabe.

And there was a Morris Tribunal in investigate Garda corruption in 1990s.

To answer your question. The man has been to hell and back. The state have abused him in many different ways. I doubt he regrets making his complaints. He is an honourable man.

If only we'd a few politicians like him.

horseburger

littelady wrote: »

Why did he not put his grivencess in a letter and not sign it.

To whom should he have sent the letter?

This item by Miriam Lord, written in February 2014, gives insight into why people might have been disinclined to detail their grievances to Garda authorities.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/miriam-lord-callinan-s-show-of-disgust-rings-hollow-1.2971514

Her article includes this observation:

“Isn’t it extraordinary that it’s just two people that are making huge allegations?” Callinan airily remarked. “Why isn’t it dozens? Hundreds?”
Unlike most others in the committee room, he was blissfully unaware that his overbearing performance was providing a very big pointer to the reason why".

"I covered that meeting and was, along with a number of colleagues who attended, taken aback by the arrogant and dismissive nature of the witness’s testimony. Many of the politicians who participated were similarly struck by his imperious approach. Who would be a whistleblower in that sort of regime?".

jack hackett

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Mr. Dull. The farmers will be very happy, if no one else. FF will be quaking in their boots with such a dynamic duo leading FG and the Government, not.

And FG are quaking in their boots with such a dynamic duo leading FF, Michael Martin and Cowan light, I think not...

horseburger

jack hackett wrote: »

Having looked at the facts of what happened I can clearly see that he is a troublemaker

I'm pretty sure he wasn't the one causing trouble, when one considers this detail included in the timeline on the Irish Independent website:

"May 2016:
Days after the O’Higgins report is formally published further leaks reveal that Ms O’Sullivan’s legal team had a strategy of attacking Sgt McCabe’s motivation and integrity during the inquiry. As controversy engulfs the Government, the Commissioner issues a statement saying she never regarded Sgt McCabe as malicious. She points to the 2008 meeting at which it is claimed Sgt McCabe had expressed a grudge towards a senior officer. Sgt McCabe produces his recording to disprove this claim".

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/explained-a-timeline-of-the-maurice-mccabe-controversy-36348068.html

James Brown

It's interesting there's no thread or much talk about Coveney taking over from Fitzgerald. I think people generally see it all as a farce with Varadkar playing musical chairs with his minions. I suppose if ministers aren't accountable for anything it doesn't matter who it is.

jack hackett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's interesting there's no thread or much talk about Coveney taking over from Fitzgerald. I think people generally see it all as a farce with Varadkar playing musical chairs with his minions. I suppose if ministers aren't accountable for anything it doesn't matter who it is.

At the back of it all, all it is is FF lining up for a spring election, whilst I welcome the announcement of Covney as Tainiste, he may not be in the job for very long come election time

Water John

Having a fellow officer disciplined, is the ultimate sin, Jack.