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

Odhinn

horseburger wrote: »

The observation made in the article by Miriam Lord gives an insight into why people may have been disinclined to detail their grievances "through the proper channels".

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

Her article includes the following text:

"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?"
"But what happened immediately afterwards struck me the most.
The main Oireachtas committee rooms are located in the basement level of the modern Leinster House 2000 annex. After meetings, people spill out into a spacious concourse area and usually congregate at the coat racks".

"On that day, members of the Garda delegation mingled with journalists and observers as they left the PAC session. A lot of them knew each other. There was the usual small talk around the coat racks, but there were mutterings about the commissioner’s evidence".
"I remarked to somebody that I wasn’t at all impressed by his attitude and evidence".
"I got back a tirade in the most colourful of language about Maurice McCabe and what an awful person he was and if I only knew the half of it I wouldn’t be so quick to criticise the commissioner. The “half of it” included insinuations about inappropriate sexual contact with a minor. This didn’t come as news – the rumours were already floating around".

"I looked around at the uniformed officers, the top layer of law enforcement in Ireland, and thought of the venomous denunciation of whistleblowers which had just happened at the committee.
And I thought about those words in the concourse, and the vehemence of their delivery".
"It didn’t tally with descriptions of McCabe I’d heard from politicians and colleagues. Cussed, dogged individual he might be, but there was never a question about his character".
"The words left a bad taste. There was something not right. I didn’t believe them".

Having been witness to similar, I can only say that's precisely the kind of approach that Martin Callinan used throughout his career. You can leave your office of a Friday afternoon with genuine friendly goodbyes to associates and friends, and come in on monday morning to the above - you've been called out as a deviant and a criminal by a senior Garda, with no arrest, no charges, no trial, no comeback, nothing. Unless his manner alienates somebody who hears it, you're on your own.

McMurphy

jack hackett wrote: »

All you might do is read the first line:

"Sergeant Maurice McCabe made a complaint about a colleague which led to the officer being disciplined."

I rest my case

So What

littelady

Water John wrote: »

I would like to note that 'Little Lady' did indeed use Maurice in her original post.
However 'Jack Hackett' changed Maurice to Morris when he reposted it.

This is the first time I have seen someone alter a previous post to their own ends.

I originally said Morris ! Then amended it !

Chips Lovell

Re-opening. Jack Hackett, do not post on this thread again.

Mr.Micro

jack hackett wrote: »

mccabe fell out with his mate, he knew his mate had let people off penalty points so he shopped him, dont be fooled by this mccabe, hes a wrong one

Naive. The McCabe thing was a catalyst, in that it has exposed the deep rooted culture of rot and corruption that exists in An Garda and DoJ and other outfits associated with the two. The implications for justice in Ireland past, present and the future is huge. It needs to be sorted.

flutered

markodaly wrote: »

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.

there is nothing i believe in the terms of the tribunal, to find her either guilty or not guilty of this, however i can be wrong

Water John

A Tribunal cannot find any person guilty or not guilty. That can only be done by a Court.
It searches for the truth and mainly tries to ensure changes, so that what happened doesn't reoccur. That is why the implementation of any Tribunals findings and recommendations is important.

James Brown

Water John wrote: »

A Tribunal cannot find any person guilty or not guilty. That can only be done by a Court.
It searches for the truth and mainly tries to ensure changes, so that what happened doesn't reoccur. That is why the implementation of any Tribunals findings and recommendations is important.

That's the alleged intent anyway.
All they seem to be good for is putting problems out to pasture.

Water John

Re Tribuanlsa; I think I have to content myself with the fact that most of the info is put in the public domain and I can do my own judgement. That the Parliament or public don't act on the info, is nothing I can control.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's the alleged intent anyway.
All they seem to be good for is putting problems out to pasture.

Tribunals are basically fact finding missions, these facts can then be used to pursue criminal charges.

Water John

Incorrect. they may be the basis for a criminal investigation being undertaken, but the Gardai must seperately assemble, their own book of evidence.

mickdw

Tribunals may be intended to work in that way however this week we have seen the proof that they are in fact used by government, by controlling the documents that the tribunal sees to cover up all sorts of scandalous behaviour with a nice report from a senior justice to cover everyone's ass.
As for pursuing criminal charges, I will believe that when I see it.

mickdw

Tribunals may be intended to work in that way however this week we have seen the proof that they are in fact used by government, by controlling the documents that the tribunal sees to cover up all sorts of scandalous behaviour with a nice report from a senior justice to cover everyone's ass.
As for pursuing criminal charges, I will believe that when I see it.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Tribunals are basically fact finding missions, these facts can then be used to pursue criminal charges.

Not in practise. They are the place political scandals go to die a slow costly death.

Look at Fine gael, has anything of note changed in 'the way we do business'? Have we seen 'an end to cronyism'? If we want to rid ourselves of cronyism and corruption we need FF/FG out of government for a generation so all their pals can retire and die off.
However good or bad any other crowd may be, they likely won't have the same networks in place.

George Sunsnow

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not in practise. They are the place political scandals go to die a slow costly death.

Look at Fine gael, has anything of note changed in 'the way we do business'? Have we seen 'an end to cronyism'? If we want to rid ourselves of cronyism and corruption we need FF/FG out of government for a generation so all their pals can retire and die off.
However good or bad any other crowd may be, they likely won't have the same networks in place.

How do you propose convincing the majority to vote in that way?

James Brown

George Sunsnow wrote: »

How do you propose convincing the majority to vote in that way?

You're asking me how to change the votes of a large number of people? Is this a version of, if you don't have a solution, keep your head down? Has us where we are.

Like other cancers, I'm afraid a cure isn't always readily available.
The hope would be as FF/FG are shown to be what they are time and again, over time people will educate themselves and move away from the facade of 'stable' government and the school of 'better the devil you know'.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not in practise. They are the place political scandals go to die a slow costly death.

Look at Fine gael, has anything of note changed in 'the way we do business'? Have we seen 'an end to cronyism'? If we want to rid ourselves of cronyism and corruption we need FF/FG out of government for a generation so all their pals can retire and die off.
However good or bad any other crowd may be, they likely won't have the same networks in place.

It was ever thus though wasn't it. We come at it from the wrong end, we talk about changing structures from the Dail down in order to better society but that is never likely to work because it would require most people to be aware of the need to put society above personal interests in all cases.

By the time people are either in or considering the Dail they have most often been firmly inculcated in to the practices involved.

Children are growing up observing the behaviors of those around them in this respect, the same as everything else. Ideally we would try to educate children in the benefits of good governance, community spirit and so on so that when they get to their twenties and thirties, those are the traits they possess. But here's the kicker, that is what we say we do anyway yet we end up with "political" behaviors and practices with wave after wave of participants.

We haven't yet found a way to marry socialism with capitalism which ultimately benefits everyone in society. the system we have, does seem to benefit most, but are we willing to change it to ensure everyone is treated exactly equally? For those that say we should, unfortunately, I must refer you to animal farm.

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not in practise. They are the place political scandals go to die a slow costly death.

Look at Fine gael, has anything of note changed in 'the way we do business'? Have we seen 'an end to cronyism'? If we want to rid ourselves of cronyism and corruption we need FF/FG out of government for a generation so all their pals can retire and die off.
However good or bad any other crowd may be, they likely won't have the same networks in place.

Lets look at the choices Irish people have. At present there are 3 main political parties. FG, FF, SF after that you have a scattering of small parties Lab, AAA, PBP, Solidarity, Greens etc. and a cohort of independents.

So the choice for Irish people if you exclude FG and FF is to put in a government comprising of SF (about a generation away from the gun) who seem to want to be anti everything The hard left comprising of AAA, PBP etc who again are anti everything. The Greens and Labour who at present nobody will vote for and the independent who really are only worried about getting elected the next time.

The main thing about being in power is you have to govern. The biggest issue in this country is we have a disfunctional legal system(including the gardai and the DOJ), a disfunctional health system run to the benefit of those who work in it, a publicly owned transport system that is similar to the health system as well as education and most other government departments.

All politicians want to excerise power this was Labour problem in 2011 instead of letting FG get an overall majority it over promised to exert power. If it had it would be the governingparty now. At present we have a governmet that is unable to govern because it is beholden to the opposition.

The main problem with your suppostion is that we would have to let SF and the hard left into government and the overall majority of people are of the opinion that this would be a crazy solution. The problem that most politicians face is when they enter power they are saddled with a administration section in government that it has little control over and is often reluctant to allow true reform to take place.

Tell me how

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The main thing about being in power is you have to govern. The biggest issue in this country is we have a disfunctional legal system(including the gardai and the DOJ), a disfunctional health system run to the benefit of those who work in it, a publicly owned transport system that is similar to the health system as well as education and most other government departments.

When we complain about the state of things we already have, we need to ask ourselves, how bad is it really? There is an awful lot right about our justice system, our health system, transport and education.

I completely agree that there is room for improvement but we need to recognize the society/country we live in is better, in a lot of ways, to the majority of what the people on the planet are experiencing.

There will always be complaints, if there was a permanent bed in a hospital for every person in the country, there would be some that wouldn't be happy with the colour of the sheets.

I would love to see people in Dail Eireann who sometimes, from the opposition bench would say "You know what the government is doing quite well in that area at the moment." I'd believe them more then when they give out about something.

We are so used to the opposition complaining eternally to what whoever in government is doing, that we stop listening. That is how I find myself with respect to the the PBP, AAA and SF for the most part.

This is the case irrespective of who is in power, the opposition focus more on being negative. What we have now where FF are keeping their powder dry is an anomaly from the norm.

bladespin

Tell me how wrote: »

When we complain about the state of things we already have, we need to ask ourselves, how bad is it really? There is an awful lot right about our justice system, our health system, transport and education.

The heavy negative will always win out, it's in our DNA.

The problem is that despite what you may see a lot of good work tarnished by some small negatives, more and more are starting to understand the huge waste that is happening in various departments and frighteningly the conspiracies in others.

Tell me how

bladespin wrote: »

The problem is that despite what you may see a lot of good work tarnished by some small negatives, more and more are starting to understand the huge waste that is happening in various departments and frighteningly the conspiracies in others.

Agree. But these wastes and conspiracies are often carried out by us, the public, the people who work in and use these departments. We want everyone else to behave admirably and ethically but what we ourselves are doing is really not all that bad.

Can any government minister change that? Every body advocate from Iarnrod Eireann, to the IMO, the teachers unions, Gardai representatives etc, talk about how the way people treat them needs to change but they themselves do not need to change at all.

I have more sympathy for some bodies/groups than others but I hate the constant practice of complain, complain complain. And yet I can also understand it in that they feel if they don't shout, they won't be heard.

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Lets look at the choices Irish people have. At present there are 3 main political parties. FG, FF, SF after that you have a scattering of small parties Lab, AAA, PBP, Solidarity, Greens etc. and a cohort of independents.

So the choice for Irish people if you exclude FG and FF is to put in a government comprising of SF (about a generation away from the gun) who seem to want to be anti everything The hard left comprising of AAA, PBP etc who again are anti everything. The Greens and Labour who at present nobody will vote for and the independent who really are only worried about getting elected the next time.

The main thing about being in power is you have to govern. The biggest issue in this country is we have a disfunctional legal system(including the gardai and the DOJ), a disfunctional health system run to the benefit of those who work in it, a publicly owned transport system that is similar to the health system as well as education and most other government departments.

All politicians want to excerise power this was Labour problem in 2011 instead of letting FG get an overall majority it over promised to exert power. If it had it would be the governingparty now. At present we have a governmet that is unable to govern because it is beholden to the opposition.

The main problem with your suppostion is that we would have to let SF and the hard left into government and the overall majority of people are of the opinion that this would be a crazy solution. The problem that most politicians face is when they enter power they are saddled with a administration section in government that it has little control over and is often reluctant to allow true reform to take place.

With all due respect, that's a cop out. That's the thinking puts FF or FG over the top of the other.
There is no severe left or FF/FG. PBP/AAA are practically non existent. The idea that it's FF/FG or communism is scaremongering. People, for the most part like the market/capitalist approach. It's the fixed game, crony policies and waste of tax payer monies they don't like.
I would suggest, if one honest non-crony party, who pursued their manifesto to the best of their ability, got in, the country would be less cynical and all the better for it.
Personally I feel we can chip away at their power base by trying indies and others as we go. Let them prove themselves and FF/FG have less of a grip.

What's kind of amusing is we put up with generations of crony government who's policies, in the most part, are designed to favour a few. The working man/woman is an after thought. A cash cow. Thrown a few bones to keep them quiet. And the big bogeyman is a party or parties coming in to try reverse that.

You can be mindful of the working poor and still let people make money, rather than lean heavily on the tax payer to increase private profits. there's a middle ground.

Completely agree about labour, seems to be their big problem.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With all due respect, that's a cop out. that's the thinking puts FF or FG over the top of the other.
There is no severe left or FF/FG. PBP/AAA are practically non existent. The idea that it's FF/FG or communism is scaremongering. People, for the most part like the market/capitalist approach. It's the fixed game, crony policies and waste of tax payer monies they don't like.
I would suggest, if one honest non-crony party, who pursued their manifesto to the best of their ability, the country would be less cynical and all the better for it.

I don't think it's a cop out, I'd have the same reservations as the post you are replying to.
I've considered, listened and watched all the alternatives to FF and FG.
If their policies were implemented and used for the running of the country then I feel the economy would collapse again, and worse still a continuation after that would ensure there was no recovery.
If they get in to power, then to successfully run the country their policies would have to change, realism would see to that, them not being able to carry out their promises would then make them liars, basically no better than what they are replacing.
I think its just a vicious circle personally.

tayto lover

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With all due respect, that's a cop out. That's the thinking puts FF or FG over the top of the other.
There is no severe left or FF/FG. PBP/AAA are practically non existent. The idea that it's FF/FG or communism is scaremongering. People, for the most part like the market/capitalist approach. It's the fixed game, crony policies and waste of tax payer monies they don't like.
I would suggest, if one honest non-crony party, who pursued their manifesto to the best of their ability, got in, the country would be less cynical and all the better for it.
Personally I feel we can chip away at their power base by trying indies and others as we go. Let them prove themselves and FF/FG have less of a grip.

No such animal exists in this country.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

I don't think it's a cop out, I'd have the same reservations as the post you are replying to.
I've considered, listened and watched all the alternatives to FF and FG.
If their policies were implemented and used for the running of the country then I feel the economy would collapse again, and worse still a continuation after that would ensure there was no recovery.
If they get in to power, then to successfully run the country their policies would have to change, realism would see to that, them not being able to carry out their promises would then make them liars, basically no better than what they are replacing.
I think its just a vicious circle personally.

So you'll vote for a crony party? I'd rather give an unknown a chance in office or yourself. How many crony deals have you done that wasted tax payer monies? Fess up!

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you'll vote for a crony party? I'd rather give an unknown a chance in office or yourself. How many crony deals have you done that wasted tax payer monies? Fess up!

Lol, I haven't done any, just a stiff in overalls and boots.
Its a realistic point though.
Taking the big two out, who do you think we should trust?

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Lol, I haven't done any, just a stiff in overalls and boots.
Its a realistic point though.
Taking the big two out, who do you think we should trust?

I've been hitting the indies, SD and to a lesser extent Sinn Fein. Not a great 'thrawl' of options but I've written off the self harm of voting FF/FG. As i said, chipping away at FF/FG will either learn them or rid us of them over time. Let the healing begin!

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I've been hitting the indies, SD and to a lesser extent Sinn Fein. Not a great 'thrawl' of options but I've written off the self harm of voting FF/FG. As i said, chipping away at FF/FG will either learn them or rid us of them over time. Let the healing begin!

The indies? More Healy-Raes anyone? A bucket more of them would be great for the Dail.

If the SDs could get some decent policy coherence they might be worth voting for, to date I am not seeing it.

However, your lesser extent Sinn Fein exposes a question. Do you continue to have a belief that their paramilitary past poses a block to their participation in government? Or is your clear reluctance to vote SF linked to some other dastardly deal of theirs?

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I've been hitting the indies, SD and to a lesser extent Sinn Fein. Not a great 'thrawl' of options but I've written off the self harm of voting FF/FG. As i said, chipping away at FF/FG will either learn them or rid us of them over time. Let the healing begin!

That's more or less what I said.

bladespin

blanch152 wrote:

The indies? More Healy-Raes anyone? A bucket more of them would be great for the Dail.

It really would, open the floor to opinion instead of a party line, liking your thinking there.

Dinarius

Leo been called in by Marian this morning to explain himself.

RTÉ Radio 1 at 11:00.

D.

markodaly

mickdw wrote: »

Tribunals may be intended to work in that way however this week we have seen the proof that they are in fact used by government, by controlling the documents that the tribunal sees to cover up all sorts of scandalous behaviour with a nice report from a senior justice to cover everyone's ass.
As for pursuing criminal charges, I will believe that when I see it.

If you have proof that the government itself was behind the withholding of those emails to the Tribunal, the I am sure everyone would love to see it. Otherwise, its just an baseless accusation.

People have been sent to jail before based on facts uncovered by tribunals. Ray Burke for example, an ex Foreign Affairs and Justice minister was sent to jail due to the facts uncovered by the Flood Tribunal.

So, its not exactly something new.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

If you have proof that the government itself was behind the withholding of those emails to the Tribunal, the I am sure everyone would love to see it. Otherwise, its just an baseless accusation.

People have been sent to jail before based on facts uncovered by tribunals. Ray Burke for example, an ex Foreign Affairs and Justice minister was sent to jail due to the facts uncovered by the Flood Tribunal.

So, its not exactly something new.

Things will never change in government if 'forgetting' is an excuse.
The public, The DOJ, the media, the backbenchers, the independents and the cabinet all knew the explosive nature of those emails the minute they were released (Because her support changed on foot of them being released).

But the 'spin' is still asking us to believe that a minister forgetting or overlooking them and that the current Minister did not see the significance of them is credible .

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Things will never change in government if 'forgetting' is an excuse.
The public, The DOJ, the media, the backbenchers, the independents and the cabinet all knew the explosive nature of those emails the minute they were released (Because her support changed on foot of them being released).

But the 'spin' is still asking us to believe that a minister forgetting or overlooking them and that the current Minister did not see the significance of them is credible .

Frankie, this was discussed to death about 30 pages back, the conversation has moved on.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Frankie, this was discussed to death about 30 pages back, the conversation has moved on.

what?

We do have proof the 'government' withheld the emails. The DOJ is part of and the responsibility of the government is it not?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

what?

We do have proof the 'government' withheld the emails. The DOJ is part of and the responsibility of the government is it not?

The government is the Executive, the cabinet itself, not the department each of them preside over. Therefore the government did not withhold emails. Unless you have proof of this?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

The government is the Executive, the cabinet itself, not the department each of them preside over. Therefore the government did not withhold emails. Unless you have proof of this?

Is the government responsible for the activity of their various Dept's or not?

Why appoint Ministers?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is the government responsible for the activity of their various Dept's or not?

Why appoint Ministers?

We appoint Minsters because its a requirement of the Constitution. They form the executive part of the government.

The government is not responsible for every Tom, Dick and Harry that works in the Civil Service. Do you expect ministers to be personally responsible for the actions of every single employee in the Civil Service. Do you want them to all their hands while they carry out their daily tasks? I presume this is a no.

Therefore you need to see it in clear terms. A minister might only be there for a number of months, the civil service form part of the permanent government. What has transpired now is the fact that the current management of the DOJ is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be reformed.

So, if an email in the DOJ goes missing, that is the fault of the DOJ and those within it, not the minster of the day.

Again, unless you have proof that the government i.e. the executive hid these emails deliberately then you are wrong in your assumption.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

We appoint Minsters because its a requirement of the Constitution. They form the executive part of the government.

The government is not responsible for every Tom, Dick and Harry that works in the Civil Service. Do you expect ministers to be personally responsible for the actions of every single employee in the Civil Service. Do you want them to all their hands while they carry out their daily tasks? I presume this is a no.

Therefore you need to see it in clear terms. A minister might only be there for a number of months, the civil service form part of the permanent government. What has transpired now is the fact that the current management of the DOJ is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be reformed.

So, if an email in the DOJ goes missing, that is the fault of the DOJ and those within it, not the minster of the day.

Again, unless you have proof that the government i.e. the executive hid these emails deliberately then you are wrong in your assumption.

If you allow the Minister to wash his/her hands off the responsibility for his/her dept. then of course it is always going to 'be somebody else's fault'.

Thankfully the opposition parties do not see it that way and a Minister was made properly accountable and lost the confidence of the Dail. And her own cabinet if you are willing to see the reality through the bluster and spin.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you allow the Minister to wash his/her hands off the responsibility for his/her dept. then of course it is always going to 'be somebody else's fault'.

Thankfully the opposition parties do not see it that way and a Minister was made properly accountable and lost the confidence of the Dail. And her own cabinet if you are willing to see the reality through the bluster and spin.

So you concede that the government did not deliberately hide these emails. At least we agree on that.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So you concede that the government did not deliberately hide these emails. At least we agree on that.

We simply don't know Mark.

That doesn't absolve anybody.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We simply don't know Mark.

That doesn't absolve anybody.

Yes, you are right, we do not know, so I am not sure why you had numerous post this morning claiming that we do.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, you are right, we do not know, so I am not sure why you had numerous post this morning claiming that we do.

We don know if it was 'deliberate'.
We certainly know they were hidden from the view of the tribunal either by incompetence or forgetfulness or something more sinister.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We don know if it was 'deliberate'.
We certainly know they were hidden from the view of the tribunal either by incompetence or forgetfulness or something more sinister.

That is not what you said:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

what?

We do have proof the 'government' withheld the emails. The DOJ is part of and the responsibility of the government is it not?

The use of the word "withheld" means a deliberate action. You are being disingenuous in denying the meaning of what you already posted.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is not what you said:



The use of the word "withheld" means a deliberate action. You are being disingenuous in denying the meaning of what you already posted.

??? So can 'hidden' be a deliberate action.

McMurphy

Did Leo finally admit in public today that Frances was aware of the garda strategy against McCabe, just not the detail

Considering she (alongside NOS) publicly supported McCabe, surely that could have been a resigning matter on its own?

Later , when the true nature of what was going on with the Gards v McCabe became public knowledge, and yet Frances still proclaimed full confidence in the Garda commissioner , knowing now what she knew then, she should have been sacked never mind resigned.

FrancieBrady

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Did Leo finally admit in public today that Frances was aware of the garda strategy against McCabe, just not the detail

Considering she (alongside NOS) publicly supported McCabe, surely that could have been a resigning matter on its own?

Later , when the true nature of what was going on with the Gards v McCabe became public knowledge, and yet Frances still proclaimed full confidence in the Garda commissioner , knowing now what she knew then, she should have been sacked never mind resigned.

A better interviewer would have crucified Leo today on Marion. He managed to tie himself in knots that Marion wasn't willing to tighten.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A better interviewer would have crucified Leo today on Marion. He managed to tie himself in knots that Marion wasn't willing to tighten.

Didn't actually hear the interview Francie, (the joys of kids) just see him being shredded over on Katie Hannon, and Hugh O'Connells Twitter.

They're asking some interesting questions. Must listen back to the interview.

bladespin

markodaly wrote:

So you concede that the government did not deliberately hide these emails. At least we agree on that.

Doubt the govt knew much anout them, sure looks like Fitzgerald done her best to keep them in the dark.

Tell me how

bladespin wrote:

Doubt the govt knew much anout them, sure looks like Fitzgerald done her best to keep them in the dark.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually here that Enda knew about them.