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

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I’m sure he has more to occupy his time than bother about incidentals in a conversation as trivial as that.

Incredible that this is rumbling around the media of all descriptions three days later.

Ah sure what's a bit of sectarian pot stirring in a Country where the wounds of violent sectarianism still run deep. Yet another nothing to see here from Leo the Tone Deaf.

Busy Leo has movie quotes to compile, acquaintances to throw under metaphorical busses, and a Taoiseach to publicly undermine.
And allllll the while distracted by Mary Lou dancing through his subconscious like a republican banshee.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah sure what's a bit of sectarian pot stirring in a Country where the wounds of violent sectarianism still run deep. Yet another nothing to see here from Leo the Tone Deaf.

Busy Leo has movie quotes to compile, acquaintances to throw under metaphorical busses, and a Taoiseach to publicly undermine.
And allllll the while distracted by Mary Lou dancing through his subconscious like a republican banshee.

Much ado about nothing.

But you will always have those who try to take the hyperbolic route, unfortunately.

The professionally insulted classes.

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Much ado about nothing.

But you will always have those who try to take the hyperbolic route, unfortunately.

The professionally insulted classes.

Good Man Brendan.

Deflect from Leo's latest gaff by insulting members of the electorate.
That will play well in the hustings.

Floppybits

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Good Man Brendan.

Deflect from Leo's latest gaff by insulting members of the electorate.
That will play well in the hustings.

Another one to add to the list, the permanently outraged, lefties, righties, shinners and now the professionally insulted classes.

How to win votes and elections the FG way, insult and belittle anyone who questions there decisions or behavior.

golfball37

Unionist Senator (former) Ian Marshall has heavily criticized Varadkar today for his comments. Not because of the inaccuracies but because of the angle. What purpose did it serve.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

Interesting you have to bring up another FG woman to make some point about god knows what, and yes, she was exonerated by the Disclosures Tribunal.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/frances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184

The problem with slurs like the ones against Fitzgerald is that the exoneration comes much later and the volume of media around it is much much smaller. This allows for continued accusations of wrongdoing despite the exoneration.

This will also happen with the current Village issue. The Gardai will eventually conclude that there is no case to offer, yet we will have the same people time and again referring to Leo the Leak.

Muahahaha

For the umpteenth time where in the Tribunal Report does it say that Fitzgerald was exonerated for misleading the Dail.

You all know full well that she was never exonerated for misleading the Dail yet this lie continues to get peddled here time and time again.

She resigned in disgrace not because of anything the Tribunal ruled upon but because she misled the Dail. These are the cold hard facts, anything else is just willfully lying.

RandomName2

Muahahaha wrote: »

For the umpteenth time where in the Tribunal Report does it say that Fitzgerald was exonerated for misleading the Dail.

You all know full well that she was never exonerated for misleading the Dail yet this lie continues to get peddled here time and time again.

She resigned in disgrace not because of anything the Tribunal ruled upon but because she misled the Dail. These are the cold hard facts, anything else is just willfully lying.

The Collins Report found “no evidence to suggest any deliberate concealment or withholding of material from the tribunal”

You could argue that the Collins review was willfully lying.

Sinn Fein usually says the media and courts are in the pockets of Fine Gael, unless they happen to agree with what they say.

Muahahaha

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Collins Report found “no evidence to suggest any deliberate concealment or withholding of material from the tribunal”

.

So it doesnt exonerate her for misleading the Dail. If it does then post a link to where the Collins Report says as such. hint: it doesnt

No report ever considered Fitzgerald misleading the Dail because no report ever had it contained within its terms of reference, they simply could not make judgement on matters that were not contained in the terms of reference.

Fitzgerald lied about her knowledge of a legal strategy to discredit Maurice McCabe and she misled the Dail She claimed she never saw the email about this strategy to attack Maurice McCabe yet then it turned out later that she had seen the email and had actually replied to it. In the meantime she also told Varadkar version 1 of her story and he too misled the Dail based on that false information.

Be it by incompetence or corruption she misled the Dail and that is what she voluntarily resigned for, no one put a gun to her head. No tribunal or report has ever exonerated her for misleading the Dail and nor will they ever either. To claim otherwise is just outright lies.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

OK, so you are saying nothing really, but throwing out some loose accusations that you run away from when confronted.

Is that not your forte?

markodaly wrote: »

Not murder and kill Unionists, a good start.

markodaly

Muahahaha wrote: »

So it doesnt exonerate her for misleading the Dail. If it does then post a link to where the Collins Report says as such. hint: it doesnt

No report ever considered Fitzgerald misleading the Dail because no report ever had it contained within its terms of reference, they simply could not make judgement on matters that were not contained in the terms of reference.

Fitzgerald lied about her knowledge of a legal strategy to discredit Maurice McCabe and she misled the Dail She claimed she never saw the email about this strategy to attack Maurice McCabe yet then it turned out later that she had seen the email and had actually replied to it. In the meantime she also told Varadkar version 1 of her story and he too misled the Dail based on that false information.

Be it by incompetence or corruption she misled the Dail and that is what she voluntarily resigned for, no one put a gun to her head. No tribunal or report has ever exonerated her for misleading the Dail and nor will they ever either. To claim otherwise is just outright lies.

The Charleton Tribunal has fully accepted the evidence of former tánaiste and minister for justice Frances Fitzgerald about her knowledge of, and responses to, an alleged Garda strategy to undermine the reputation of Garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe.

The Tribunal report gives a clear exoneration to Ms Fitzgerald, who was forced to resign from the Government in November 2017 as a result of the political controversy surrounding her role.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/frances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184

No, she didn't lie, as per the findings of the tribunal.
If you think she did, go find the passage in the report where it is stated.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Judgement for past mortal sins seems an ill advised choice of contest.

I have no interest in this particular case, though Fine Gael has had a record of poor show with whistleblowers (Alan Shatter springs to mind). In the case of Fitzgerald the Collins Report exonerated her.

As explained numerous times, she wasn't exonerated for misleading the Dail or causing Varadkar to mislead the Dail.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

1. That Sinn Fein supporters don't specifically care about the local services GP agreement (but let's be honest, nobody does)
2. That these 'issues' are transparent excuses for attacks by one party on another. All it needs now is for someone to bring up printer costs.. maybe shoehorn it into the other 'issue' of the Sinn Fein foreign fundraiser advert.. two tangents for the price of one.
3. Francis Fitzgerald was exonerated by the Collins report.

Did you forget yourself? It's tradition to at least pretend it's related to the thread topic before having a go at shinners.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The problem with slurs like the ones against Fitzgerald is that the exoneration comes much later and the volume of media around it is much much smaller. This allows for continued accusations of wrongdoing despite the exoneration.

This will also happen with the current Village issue. The Gardai will eventually conclude that there is no case to offer, yet we will have the same people time and again referring to Leo the Leak.

She mislead the Dail and cannot be exonerated. It happened.

He leaked and therefore shall be rightly known as one who leaks.

Neither of these people are criminals, that we know of.

markodaly

James Brown wrote: »

Neither of these people are criminals, that we know of.

I genuinely laughed at that bit. :pac:

Doesitmatter21

markodaly wrote: »

I genuinely laughed at that bit. :pac:

Its true we do not know if the Leak is a criminal yet, the gardai have not concluded their investigation

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

I genuinely laughed at that bit. :pac:

Good man.
Just trying not to commit as we won't know until the Garda conclude their investigation

Muahahaha

markodaly wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/frances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184

No, she didn't lie, as per the findings of the tribunal.
If you think she did, go find the passage in the report where it is stated.

Yes she did lie, she was asked if she had knowledge of a legal strategy to discredit Maurice McCabe and she said she did not. Then it turned out she did have knowledge of it and this was proved by her responding to an email that contained details of that very strategy. She lied and misled the Dail in doing so, pure and simple. The Dail record had to be corrected on no less than 5 occasions because of the frequncy of which Fitzgerald misled it.

She lied and was then caught out in her lie by her own email. Theres no getting away from that and for that she rightfully resigned.

Nobotty

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yes she did lie, she was asked if she had knowledge of a legal strategy to discredit Maurice McCabe and she said she did not. Then it turned out she did have knowledge of it and this was proved by her responding to an email that contained details of that very strategy. She lied and misled the Dail in doing so, pure and simple. The Dail record had to be corrected on no less than 5 occasions because of the frequncy of which Fitzgerald misled it.

She lied and was then caught out in her lie by her own email. Theres no getting away from that and for that she rightfully resigned.

Where did she respond and what did she say?
Auto read and automatic reply/acknowledgement does not equate to knowledge

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

Did you forget yourself? It's tradition to at least pretend it's related to the thread topic before having a go at shinners.

But nobody is interested in the GP agreement. They never have been.

People here have been talking about Francis Fitzgerald for the last few pages. Not a topic of much interest to me.

I wonder who kicked off the discussion and why.

Okay, I think I can guess, but let me check.

McMurphy wrote: »

There's bigger issues in the country, but what does that mean in reality?

The country can only deal with one issue at a time is it?

Are they bigger than the then Taoiseach of the country, leaking confidential information to his pal, and lying about it in the Dail, and now, care of FOI documents, he's gotten Simon Harris dragged into it?

Can you remember why Frances Fitzgerald resigned?

Well, that's hardly surprising. A tangent introduced by McMurphy for a chance to be obnoxiously condescending

McMurphy wrote: »

Lol, the last time you went through this you eventually had to slink off with your tail between your legs.

Where, in the independent report, was she, Frances Fitzgerald, exonerated for misleading the Dail and her then Taoiseach mark?

Here, I'll even link you to it. http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/Third_Interim_Report_121254.pdf

You went off to fetch that part last time you went through this pantomime, and you never did comeback.

Why oh why would you voluntarily embarrass yourself again over something you know well is going to end up with you and egg on face?


Martin and McDonald refuse to apologise to Fitzgerald

And that started a long winded something about FG by Sinn Fein posters.

I think the point was that if you mislead the Dail you resign? Well resignation is really at the discretion of the party and government leadership. That has always been the case. Legality clearly is not an interest in the scope of this matter.

So I suppose the really far reach by the Sinn Fein posters is that if Varadkar misled the Dail, that he should tender his resignation to Varadkar?

Again, if you are interested in the Maurice McCabe affair for its own sake then there are more interesting angles, but I guess nobody here is interested in Maurice McCabe for himself, or what he did.

Muahahaha

Nobotty wrote: »

Where did she respond and what did she say?
Auto read and automatic reply/acknowledgement does not equate to knowledge

Email to Fitzgerald- outlines legal strategy of trying to discredit Maurice McCabe at the oHiggins Commission
Reply from Fitzgerald- "Noted"
Fast forward 3 years and when asked about her knowledge of the legal strategy to be deployed against McCabe Fitzgerald said she had no knowledge. RTEs Katie Hannon has a source from within the Dept of Justice to say that she did had knowledge of the stratgey to discredit McCabe all along despute her saying she didnt. The email received and responded to by Fitzgerald was her literally being the author of her own downfall.

Its as black and white of a lie as you're going to get. She was asked a question about what she knew and when she knew it and her response was simply not the truth and this was subsequently verified by her own email response. She later got caught out in her lie, therefore she had to resign.

At no point does any inquiry, report or Tribunal exonerate her for any of her above activities of misleading the Dail and to claim otherwise is just a lie in itself.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

But nobody is interested in the GP agreement. They never have been.

People here have been talking about Francis Fitzgerald for the last few pages. Not a topic of much interest to me.

I wonder who kicked off the discussion and why.

Okay, I think I can guess, but let me check.



Well, that's hardly surprising. A tangent introduced by McMurphy for a chance to be obnoxiously condescending



And that started a long winded something about FG by Sinn Fein posters.

I think the point was that if you mislead the Dail you resign? Well resignation is really at the discretion of the party and government leadership. That has always been the case. Legality clearly is not an interest in the scope of this matter.

So I suppose the really far reach by the Sinn Fein posters is that if Varadkar misled the Dail, that he should tender his resignation to Varadkar?

Again, if you are interested in the Maurice McCabe affair for its own sake then there are more interesting angles, but I guess nobody here is interested in Maurice McCabe for himself, or what he did.

The details of the contents of the document are not related to the fact they were confidential and Varadkar leaked it to a pal.

It's quite obvious the FG lobby use SF to hide behind.
You are assuming, honestly or not, that anyone critical of Varadkar or FG is a biased shinner. This is very convenient I imagine but it ignores the issues raised it doesn't excuse or justify them.
Also you assume people don't care about McCabe because Fitzgerald is being discussed. McCabe is not a FG TD who mislead the Dail. So why would he come up?
If people think the public only consists of FG supporters and biased shinners, it might explain the tone deafness.

blanch152

Nobotty wrote: »

Where did she respond and what did she say?
Auto read and automatic reply/acknowledgement does not equate to knowledge

The maintenance of the pretence that Fitzgerald lied to the Dail requires a preposterous belief that a Minister personally reads and responds to every email that they receive.

That is simply not a tenable belief.

Nobotty

Muahahaha wrote: »

Email to Fitzgerald- outlines legal strategy of trying to discredit Maurice McCabe at the oHiggins Commission
Reply from Fitzgerald- "Noted"
Fast forward 3 years and when asked about her knowledge of the legal strategy to be deployed against McCabe Fitzgerald said she had no knowledge. RTEs Katie Hannon has a source from within the Dept of Justice to say that she did had knowledge of the stratgey to discredit McCabe all along despute her saying she didnt. The email received and responded to by Fitzgerald was her literally being the author of her own downfall.

Its as black and white of a lie as you're going to get. She was asked a question about what she knew and when she knew it and her response was simply not the truth and this was subsequently verified by her own email response. She later got caught out in her lie, therefore she had to resign.

At no point does any inquiry, report or Tribunal exonerate her for any of her above activities of misleading the Dail and to claim otherwise is just a lie in itself.

Would you remember one email out of 100's from 3 years ago that you or perhaps your PA replies noted to if it wasnt your job to drill into the day to day rigeur?
At the end of the day all that information was put in front of the tribunal and there was a reasonable deliberation made
Your opinions are perfectly valudly held but they dont carry the weight of a tribunals findings
A lie has to be deliberately thought out in my opinion
You'd want to be very stupid to genuinely know of something,where theres a verifiable trail and pretend it isnt there
No one clever enough to land in high office is that stupid IMO
I believe thats why theres less criticism in that tribunal than someone of your view would expect

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

The maintenance of the pretence that Fitzgerald lied to the Dail requires a preposterous belief that a Minister personally reads and responds to every email that they receive.

That is simply not a tenable belief.

Strawman argument thay nobody made anyway. Fitzgerald never denied seeing the email herself and nor did she deny responding to the email herself either.

If you're trying to claim that Fitzgerald didnt see or didnt respond to the email herself well thats quite the silly hill to die on when even Fitzgerald herself didnt take this position.

And just to add to those claiming she was exonerated by the Collins Report for midleading the Dail, no-where in the terms of reference was this even allowed to be investigated dont mind reported upon. Yet posters on here are holding up the Collins Report as some sort of exoneration for Fitzgerald misleading the Dail when it was nothing of the sort. It was an investigation into why Fitzgeralds department did not provide important emails to the Disclosures Tribunal when there had been a legal discovery order for same, nothing more, nothing less and certainly nothing to do with investigating her misleading the Dail.

Here are the Terms of Reference, I invite anyone to tell me where Michael Collines SC was allowed to make rulings on Fitzgerald misleading the Dail. Hint- he wasnt because it was never in the Terms of Reference
https://assets.gov.ie/2187/231018175906-8004df2051354faab25c2b37a50f0181.pdf

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE
2.1. The Terms of Reference for the Review are as follows:
1. Michael Collins S.C. is appointed to conduct an independent review and
undertake a thorough examination of the practices and procedures employed by
the Department of Justice and Equality in regard to its obligations to provide
documents to the Disclosures Tribunal.
2. The review shall involve consideration of a written document, to be prepared by
the Department by 21 December 2017, setting out and explaining the actions
taken in response to requests by the Disclosures Tribunal for documents, with
particular reference to any orders made or directions issued by the Tribunal
requiring the production of documents. The review will also encompass an
examination of all relevant documents and records held by the Department
together with any additional material obtained from any interviews with
Department officials and other relevant persons, as considered appropriate by
the Reviewer. Specifically the reviewer will examine why the emails of 15 May
2015, 25 May 2015 and 4 July 2015 were not sent to the Tribunal until November
2017.
3. The Reviewer shall be given all necessary cooperation by the Department,
including access to documents, records and other relevant materials.
4. At the conclusion of the review, the Reviewer shall submit a written report to the
Taoiseach which will set out the facts as found, together with such observations
or comments as are considered necessary, in relation to the following matters:
(a) The actions taken by the Department in response to all requests for
documents directed to the Department, whether formal or informal;
(b) the processes and protocols within the department which gave rise to those
actions, including processes relating to:
i. the receipt of requests for documents,
ii. the assignment and communication of responsibility for responding to
such requests,
4
iii. the supervision and management of those responsible for responding
to such requests, including any decisions or discussions taken about
the material that was to be sent to the Tribunal,
iv. the search process is used to locate relevant documentation, and
v. the provision of documents to the Tribunal;
(c) The communication of information to and from senior management and with
the Minister at the Department concerning the Department’s response to
requests for documentation made by the Tribunal including a review of any
relevant notes or minutes of any interactions.
5. In the report the reviewer may identify any concerns arising from the above with
regard to:
(a) practices and procedures operated by the Department in relation to the
storage, identification and retrieval of documents,
(b) management and supervision processes relating to interactions, including the
sending of documentation, with the Tribunal in the Department,
(c) communication of information within the Department,
(d) communication of information between the Department and the Tribunal,
(e) whether, taking account of the recent additional trawl, insofar as its practical,
the department has now carried out an appropriately comprehensive search
and retrieval to identify any relevant material for the Tribunal.
The Reviewer may also advise on what further measures, if any, might be taken
to address those concerns.
6. The Reviewer shall use his best endeavours to submit a final report to the
Taoiseach on or before 19 January 2018 or at the earliest possible date
thereafter

So anyone claiming that the Collins report exonerates Fitzgerald for misleading the Dail is also outright lying because the Terms of Reference never allowed him to do so in the first place. And who set the Terms of Reference? None other than Leo Varadkar and his Department. Its very easy not to uncover wrong doing when you literally write Terms of Reference that prohibit that wrong doing from being investigated in the first place. Collins was never allowed to investigate her misleading the Dail therefore it logically follows that he also cannot exonerate her for it.

Despite these clear facts some posters here want to tell us that black is not black at all but actually white.

golfball37

If Frances Fitzgerald ignored or didn’t remember an email about the strategy employed in the biggest justice scandal of the decade, as minister for justice no less, then she’s not fit to be sweeping up in the corridors of the Dail.

If she did nothing wrong then she’s the worst person I’ve ever seen hold any office for that alone. It would be akin to Donnelly ignoring stuff about the covid vaccine.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The maintenance of the pretence that Fitzgerald lied to the Dail requires a preposterous belief that a Minister personally reads and responds to every email that they receive.

That is simply not a tenable belief.

No it does not.
It states she responded to it and later stated on record, that she wasn't aware of it. A mistake or a lie.

golfball37 wrote: »

If Frances Fitzgerald ignored or didn’t remember an email about the strategy employed in the biggest justice scandal of the decade, as minister for justice no less, then she’s not fit to be sweeping up in the corridors of the Dail.

If she did nothing wrong then she’s the worst person I’ve ever seen hold any office for that alone. It would be akin to Donnelly ignoring stuff about the covid vaccine.

Exactly. Either way she was unfit.

nordiestar

Tokyo wrote: »

Mod: Banned for a week for repeated uncivil behaviour.

Mod: Ranting about moderation snipped - Threadbanned

Bubbaclaus

Certainly an interesting first post in 9 years, but not sure what the relevance is to the topic of the thread

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Certainly an interesting first post in 9 years, but not sure what the relevance is to the topic of the thread

Yet you posted anyway.
I've raised a similar point, but in feedback. It got closed.