Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

thecomedian

smurgen wrote: »

Nope. That's not what he said in the Dail.

But it is what he said.

smurgen

thecomedian wrote: »

But it is what he said.

Why lie? He said he gave it to Maitiú Ó Tuathail Who was not the head of NAGP was Chris Goody the CEO.

Cluedo Monopoly

markodaly wrote: »

The new dump not really biting on Twitter. This will be forgotten about next week. The Village blew their load too early.
SF will be looking rather foolish tomorrow now, or are they going to be like Matlock, trying to ask Leo questions about his personal life in the Dail?

You're missing the point completely. FF and the Green will be forced to defend Leo with gritted teeth. And at the next election there will be reference made to his dodgy dealings with sensitive information. Leo himself will look tarnished. It's a win for SF and the opposition all day long.

It was a vote of no confidence in Harris (and Bailey's refusal to support it) that brought down the last government and forced Leo into a February 8th election which FG really did not want. This vote will not bring down the government but the optics for FFG are pretty bad. Again.

I am looking forward to it

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Do you mean a legal affairs journalist by the Irish Times, who don't have skin in the game, versus a barrister who has been paid to write a legal opinion that gives backing to a political hit-piece?

If I pay a barrister enough, they will write me sonnets all day long! :D

They will in their backside write you what you want to hear. A barrister is only as good as his last case, if he is telling people porkies to please them he won't last long.

Keena also was wrong on the Mother and Baby Homes too. Dr. Maeve O'Rourke disputed what he said and was correct.

RandomViewer

Is Pascal heading for the wilderness too, has Varadker decided to sacrifice the sslithery one?

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Eh, that was 10 days ago.... and there is nothing new here, just a poor attempt to keep the story going.

Whatever your view, Leo leaking confidential information to a pal was 'the big scoop'. This is the criticism of lack of any accountability and TD's and well wishers tripping themselves up. If it's of no interest to you sure pay it no heed.

Faugheen

So the majority of these ‘meetings’ allegedly took place after the NAGP folded?

Struggling to see the big deal here...

Also, one of these ‘independently verified’ meetings was at the same time Leo was at a European Council meeting in Brussels.

This is a dud. They had a legit story here but now these screengrabs not only prove nothing, but cast doubt around the story as a whole.

Exclamation Marc

smurgen wrote: »

Why would he pass a confidential document to someone he met two minutes passing in the street? We've seen from other messages he's turned down helping others citing cabinet confidentiality.

That's not what I'm addressing.

In the context of these "new messages", I'm saying that they mean absolutely nothing. Sure they could refer to ten intense five hour meetings or they could refer to ten two minute hellos. There's too many blanks in these new messages to mean anything. It's readers filling in these enormous gaps that make them mean anything.

And people don't have to meet in person to have a personal or working relationship to answer your first question, so how many times people meet in person is pretty irrelevant.

Im not passing any opinion on the leaking of the document itself, I'm just saying that these messages are a pile of nothing, objectively speaking. Anyone who says otherwise has a motive.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Always good to know what you are dealing with Francie, just helping out.

Shure didn’t even the €500,000 man D’Arcy come out with a ‘done’ today.

Don’t feel too bad....

Now back on topic, which of the three threads are you concentrating on today, I’m kinda busy.

it's nearly 4.30pm Brendi, it's your shift outing the SF shills on RTE. Man the barricades!

Seriously, I am happy here that Varadkar is still under pressure to 'explain' himself.

had he gone when this story first emerged he would have done half the damage...it's all good really.

JohnnyFlash

RandomViewer wrote: »

Is Pascal heading for the wilderness too, has Varadker decided to sacrifice the sslithery one?

What are you on about, dude? All over the place.

seamus

markodaly wrote: »

Of course, as everyone is missing, just because MoT said he is going to meet Leo, doesn't mean he actually did!

What's curiously absent here is any talk of what happened at these meetings.

MOT was texting Bowes to say he's "Meeting Leo later" in the context of, "I'll have a chat to him about the NAGP".

So, where are the texts after the fact, where MOT tells Bowes what he discussed with Leo? Or even indications that there was a considerable phone call where MOT told Bowes that he had detailed discussion with Leo?

Because THESE would be the real dirt, the real evidence. So we have to assume if Bowes didn't reveal these and they're instead going for the, "He lied to the Dail" nonsense, one has to presume that these texts don't exist. MOT never came back later and said, "Had a great meeting with Leo, we talked about...".
This is what business partners do. They update each other on developments and meetings. MOT, did not.

In other words, MOT did a lot of namedropping into these texts, and little else.
"Meeting Leo later". "Bumped into Leo and Simon at the match". "Leo always delivers".

Top-notch spoofer.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's over and done with imo.
A few bowels will gutter out their faux outrage upwards tomoro in the Dail, Leo was wrong, admitted it, nothing to make him change his story here today.
No proof he broke the law at all on the information provided.

Agreed. He leaked, we know he did. He wasn't held to account but it added to the damage of his reputation.
Leaves it open though doesn't it? People will make up their own minds.
Now your idea nobody cares wouldn't be my interpretation, no need to dispute people's opinions as not being genuine because it doesn't suit you.
Sure we could say the same about the numerous folk been telling us nothing to see here since day one.
More to come...

smurgen

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

That's not what I'm addressing.

In the context of these "new messages", I'm saying that they mean absolutely nothing. Sure they could refer to ten intense five hour meetings or they could refer to ten two minute hellos. There's too many blanks in these new messages to mean anything.

And people don't have to meet in person to have a personal or working relationship to answer your first question, so how many times people meet in person is pretty irrelevant.

Im not passing any opinion on the leaking of the document itself, I'm just saying that these messages are a pile of nothing, objectively speaking. Anyone who says otherwise, has a motive.

The new message contextualizes the environment in which leo Varadkar personally sent a confidential not for circulation documents to a personal friend. It puts the bed the idea that he barely knew him. If it was a casual acquaintance why didn't he send him a link to publically available information? Why not fob him off? It seems exceptional to me that the head of government would personally sent a confidential document to a randomer. Have you been sent many yourself?

Fann Linn

seamus wrote: »

What's curiously absent here is any talk of what happened at these meetings.

MOT was texting Bowes to say he's "Meeting Leo later" in the context of, "I'll have a chat to him about the NAGP".

So, where are the texts after the fact, where MOT tells Bowes what he discussed with Leo? Or even indications that there was a considerable phone call where MOT told Bowes that he had detailed discussion with Leo?

Because THESE would be the real dirt, the real evidence. So we have to assume if Bowes didn't reveal these and they're instead going for the, "He lied to the Dail" nonsense, one has to presume that these texts don't exist. MOT never came back later and said, "Had a great meeting with Leo, we talked about...".
This is what business partners do. They update each other on developments and meetings. MOT, did not.

In other words, MOT did a lot of namedropping into these texts, and little else.
"Meeting Leo later". "Bumped into Leo and Simon at the match". "Leo always delivers".

Top-notch spoofer.

Peadar Toibin has called for Zero Craic to come before a Dail Committee, maybe able to answer your questions then.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Do keep up, it wasn't a cabinet document, it was a government agreement between the state and GP's, which was already approved by the cabinet.

A confidential negotiated document (not involving the NAGP), LV leaked to his pal the head of the NAGP.

thecomedian

smurgen wrote: »

Why lie? He said he gave it to Maitiú Ó Tuathail Who was not the head of NAGP was Chris Goody the CEO.

Ok he was the President of it then.
Is that all of your argument?

Exclamation Marc

smurgen wrote: »

The new message contextualizes the environment in which leo Varadkar personally sent a confidential not for circulation documents to a personal friend. It puts the bed the idea that he barely knew him. If it was a casual acquaintance why didn't he send him a link to publically available information? Why not fob him off? It seems exceptional to me that the head of government would personally sent a confidential document to a randomer. Have you been sent many yourself?

You're filling in blanks.

I have key contacts in my job who work in the US. I've never met them in person. That doesn't make them randomers. How often you meet someone in person doesn't determine how much or how little you know someone. I've bumped into the same industry contacts once a month at events. Doesn't mean I know them well at all.

This new leak is all about 'in-person' meetings. From one person. With no context. Again, I'd tell my friends that I met a friend whilst a rugby match, that can be anything from having five pints with them to saying hello when I passed them walking into the ground. You're filling in blanks.

seamus

Fann Linn wrote: »

Peadar Toibin has called for Zero Craic to come before a Dail Committee, maybe able to answer your questions then.

If he appears, then someone is going to look ridiculous.

Do they routinely ask for evidence under oath, or is that only in exceptional circumstances?

James Brown

seamus wrote: »

Bemused, is the word.

That so many intelligent adults would even think that Village post has any substance at all.

"He said two or three times a year, but we have some texts from one guy's phone that indicate it could have been as high as ten times in 2019! Ha! Check mate!"

'maybe 2 or 3 times a year. Maybe at a function. Not best mates'. Close enough to leak him a confidential document when asked by MOT after Harris, the Health Minister had refused. LV had to seek it out, he hadn't a copy himself.

Show's he's less than credible. Remembering all we have is Leo's word on his reasoning for leaking.
Folk should be interested.

RandomViewer

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

What are you on about, dude? All over the place.

The quack seems to have had way too much access to senior ministers in both private and public situations, was he in Clifden?

JohnnyFlash

RandomViewer wrote: »

The quack seems to have had way too much access to senior ministers in both private and public situations, was he in Clifden?

The Quack? Who are you on about? All very confusing.

seamus

Bowie wrote: »

'maybe 2 or 3 times a year. Maybe at a function. Not best mates'. Close enough to leak him a confidential document when asked by MOT after Harris, the Health Minister had refused. LV had to seek it out, he hadn't a copy himself.

Like I say, bemused. That you think these two sentences are at odds with one another.

smurgen

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

You're filling in blanks.

I have key contacts in my job who work in the US. I've never met them in person. That doesn't make them randomers. How often you meet someone in person doesn't determine how much or how little you know someone. I've bumped into the same industry contacts once a month at events. Doesn't mean I know them well at all.

This new leak is all about 'in-person' meetings. From one person. With no context. Again, I'd tell my friends that I met a friend whilst a rugby match, that can be anything from having five pints with them to saying hello when I passed them walking into the ground. You're filling in blanks.

Do you pass confidential files to your contacts in work that they shouldn't have access to because you might be in trouble like Leo Varadkar if you do.

RandomViewer

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The Quack? Who are you on about? All very confusing.

The Quack, Zero Craic, Matty the midget, the non-friend, seems to have more nicknames than patients

smurgen

seamus wrote: »

What's curiously absent here is any talk of what happened at these meetings.

MOT was texting Bowes to say he's "Meeting Leo later" in the context of, "I'll have a chat to him about the NAGP".

So, where are the texts after the fact, where MOT tells Bowes what he discussed with Leo? Or even indications that there was a considerable phone call where MOT told Bowes that he had detailed discussion with Leo?

Because THESE would be the real dirt, the real evidence. So we have to assume if Bowes didn't reveal these and they're instead going for the, "He lied to the Dail" nonsense, one has to presume that these texts don't exist. MOT never came back later and said, "Had a great meeting with Leo, we talked about...".
This is what business partners do. They update each other on developments and meetings. MOT, did not.

In other words, MOT did a lot of namedropping into these texts, and little else.
"Meeting Leo later". "Bumped into Leo and Simon at the match". "Leo always delivers".

Top-notch spoofer.

How did he get the files?

JohnnyFlash

This is from the ‘shocking reveal’ by Village Magazine today. A week and a half of absolute bunkum and tabloid fodder from a glorified blog.



The whole thing is being discussed on the Last Word and Matt is rightly asking if SF have made a major error of judgement in going for a vote of no confidence on such a spurious matter. Used up a lot of political capital for very little gain it appears. County hurling now, lads.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

This is from the ‘shocking reveal’ by Village Magazine today. A week and a half of absolute bunkum and tabloid fodder from a glorified blog.



The whole thing is being discussed on the Last Word and Matt is rightly asking if SF have made a major error of judgement in going for a vote of no confidence on such a spurious matter. Used up a lot of political capital for very little gain it appears. County hurling now, lads.

Who is he asking?


Leaking confidential files is far from spurious.

Faugheen

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1325846312525369349?s=21

Paschal and Harris denying any meetings involving them took place. Public diaries disputing a number of these alleged meetings as well.

Absolute dud. Sounds like MoT was trying to get out of having to talk to this Chay Bowes fella, or whoever he is.

The opposition making themselves look like laughing stocks here. It’s a shame as well because The Village’s initial story had some merit.

Exclamation Marc

smurgen wrote: »

Do you pass confidential files to your contacts in work that they shouldn't have access to because you might be in trouble like Leo Varadkar if you do.

Ignoring the point of my post and ask an unrelated question to the core issue I was pointing out with the new leak, yeah, not worth arguing with you.

Faugheen

https://twitter.com/noelrock/status/1325822056995418113?s=21

Thread from Noel Rock debunking a number of these alleged meetings, with proof.