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

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

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

Not sure why you felt the need to tell me, but fair enough. I'm not going to get dragged in to discussing moderation.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Not sure why you felt the need to tell me, but fair enough. I'm not going to get dragged in to discussing moderation.

Ditto. Feedback is the place.

Muahahaha

Nobotty wrote: »

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

Now its plainly clear to me that you are commenting on something you dont actually know the details of. Fitzgerald wasnt doorstepped over this question about the email, nor was she asked it under pressure during a radio interview and just answered incorrectly by accident.

It was Alan Kelly who asked her the question about her knowledge of the strategy to attack Maurice McCabe at the Higgins Commission via a parliamentary question, ie he submitted a letter with the question upon it long in advance of her answer which she then gave to mislead the Dail. Both she, her 100k a year tea of special advisor and her team of senior civil servants all had ample time to deliver the answer in a truthful fashion. Fitzgerald herself could have googled the answer in her own email in under five seconds and delivered the truthful answer. But she did not, she instead misled the Dail which is a resigning matter as Denis Naughten also found out when he too had to resign for misleading the Dail for giving answers to parliamentary questions that were not truthful.

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

Again there was no information put before the Tribunal on Fitzgerald misleading the Dail. Here are the Terms of Refernce of the Charleton Tribunal, you wont find anything in there that says Judge Charleton was ever allowed to investigate or make comment upon her misleading the Dail.
https://www.disclosuretribunal.ie/terms-of-reference/
Fitzgerald misleading the Dail was a political matter that was outside the scope of his investigation. The tribunal did include an investigation in what exactly the Department of Justice and Fitzgerald were doing by not supplying emails under the discovery process but at no point did it ever stray into Dail matters because that was clearly outside the Terms of Reference which the Judge was bound by.

So any claim on here that Fitzgerald was exonerated for misleading the Dail by either the Charleton Tribunal or the Collins Report is nothing more than a deliberate lie and a big bottle of smoke. Neither investigation was ever even allowed to investigate it in the first place, dont mind comment upon it, dont mind exonerate her for it.

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

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

No, strictly speaking that isn't true.

There are different levels of confidentially. If boards.ie leaked the email addresses of its users online that would be confidential information. This would not be on the same level as something like medical records.

Furthermore there is a less obvious path to corruption than say, the GP union having a financial interest in the contents, and paying for that information. The GP union was not in a position to bid on the contract, and was frozen out of its negotiation (and was basically bakrupt anyway). There is no financial angle. Varadkar clearly didn't do it for money.

What did he do it for? To keep in with the lads: to ingratiate himself with doctors that may have been (with good reason) angered about being left out in the cold. Is this legitimate? Hardly. Varadkar painted this as being in the public good, and it probably was, but that wasn't the primary motive, which was clearly winning personal support (for Fine Gael in general, but mainly himself).

James Brown wrote: »

It's quite obvious the FG lobby use SF to hide behind.

Not really. They are mainly concerned with SF being the most popular opposition party by a huge margin. If SD or Labour were at 20% instead of languishing in mid to low single digits a lot of their attacks would be directed that way instead.

James Brown wrote: »

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.

Granted I haven't been in this thread long, but your reply here is the closest to actually talking about the issues at all.

If it were only talking about the issues at hand I would see this thread only being several pages long, not 453.

James Brown wrote: »

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?

FFG is a tangent in the first place.

RandomName2

Muahahaha wrote: »

Again there was no information put before the Tribunal on Fitzgerald misleading the Dail. Here are the Terms of Refernce of the Charleton Tribunal, you wont find anything in there that says Judge Charleton was ever allowed to investigate or make comment upon her misleading the Dail.
https://www.disclosuretribunal.ie/terms-of-reference/

I am not familiar with what she specifically said in the Dail, nor will I be examining it here as it has nothing to do with the GP agreement that this thread is about.

However the Charleton report sates as fact that FFG acted appropriately in general, and responded correctly to evidence presented to her concerning Maurice McCabe.

Now perhaps her statements in the Dail were entirely unrelated to McCabe, and were instead on an entirely different matter, so therefore saying that she acted appropriately and reasonably in relation to the McCabe case would not, as such, cover what she said and did in the Dail. I find this doubtful however, and must wonder why the Sinn Fein people here continue to sieve through acres of mud hoping to find the barest nugget from this affair.

Whether Fine Gael acted correctly in relation to McCabe is a different issue from FFG herself, but presumably treating Fine Gael as a whole is not convenient to whatever weak point is.. frankly not even being made.

golfball37

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, strictly speaking that isn't true.

There are different levels of confidentially. If boards.ie leaked the email addresses of its users online that would be confidential information. This would not be on the same level as something like medical records.

Furthermore there is a less obvious path to corruption than say, the GP union having a financial interest in the contents, and paying for that information. The GP union was not in a position to bid on the contract, and was frozen out of its negotiation (and was basically bakrupt anyway). There is no financial angle. Varadkar clearly didn't do it for money.

What did he do it for? To keep in with the lads: to ingratiate himself with doctors that may have been (with good reason) angered about being left out in the cold. Is this legitimate? Hardly. Varadkar painted this as being in the public good, and it probably was, but that wasn't the primary motive, which was clearly winning personal support (for Fine Gael in general, but mainly himself).




Not really. They are mainly concerned with SF being the most popular opposition party by a huge margin. If SD or Labour were at 20% instead of languishing in mid to low single digits a lot of their attacks would be directed that way instead.



Granted I haven't been in this thread long, but your reply here is the closest to actually talking about the issues at all.

If it were only talking about the issues at hand I would see this thread only being several pages long, not 453.



FFG is a tangent in the first place.

There’s legislation and rules around cabinet confidentiality, no comparison to other instances you’ve listed. If Varadkar had the presiding ministers approval then he was within his rights to share the document. The relevant minister was Harris, hence why the Gardai interviewed him. If he told Gardai he was aware in advance of Leo sharing then there is no case to answer

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, strictly speaking that isn't true.

There are different levels of confidentially. If boards.ie leaked the email addresses of its users online that would be confidential information. This would not be on the same level as something like medical records.

Furthermore there is a less obvious path to corruption than say, the GP union having a financial interest in the contents, and paying for that information. The GP union was not in a position to bid on the contract, and was frozen out of its negotiation (and was basically bakrupt anyway). There is no financial angle. Varadkar clearly didn't do it for money.

What did he do it for? To keep in with the lads: to ingratiate himself with doctors that may have been (with good reason) angered about being left out in the cold. Is this legitimate? Hardly. Varadkar painted this as being in the public good, and it probably was, but that wasn't the primary motive, which was clearly winning personal support (for Fine Gael in general, but mainly himself).




Not really. They are mainly concerned with SF being the most popular opposition party by a huge margin. If SD or Labour were at 20% instead of languishing in mid to low single digits a lot of their attacks would be directed that way instead.



Granted I haven't been in this thread long, but your reply here is the closest to actually talking about the issues at all.

If it were only talking about the issues at hand I would see this thread only being several pages long, not 453.



FFG is a tangent in the first place.

Strictly speaking or casually picking fluff out of your bellybutton and speaking, it's true.
Confidential means it's not for consumption by any Tom, Dick or Harry. The seriousness does not mean it's only a little bit confidential. The fall out or results can be minor or serious.
IMO, LV was trying to garner support from his pal's membership by doing them a solid and passing this confidential document. I base this opinion on the back and forth as published.
I do not believe the 'public good' line. I think he lied to try cover his arse.
Basically he damaged the trust for any future negotiations.

The thread is extended every time somebody, like yourself, comes in to dispute or fudge the bare facts and add their own tuppence ha'penny on why Varadkar did nothing wrong. Which is cool, but to suggest it's shinners stirring is disputed by the thread content if you read back.

It's not about McCabe I would say Fitzgerald was raised because she mislead the Dail and was resigned. What Varadkar did was in the least as bad.

Muahahaha

RandomName2 wrote: »

I am not familiar with what she specifically said in the Dail, nor will I be examining it here as it has nothing to do with the GP agreement that this thread is about.

However the Charleton report sates as fact that FFG acted appropriately in general, and responded correctly to evidence presented to her concerning Maurice McCabe.

Thats not in dispute and its precisely what the Charleton Tribunal report found

Now perhaps her statements in the Dail were entirely unrelated to McCabe, and were instead on an entirely different matter, so therefore saying that she acted appropriately and reasonably in relation to the McCabe case would not, as such, cover what she said and did in the Dail. I find this doubtful however, and must wonder why the Sinn Fein people here continue to sieve through acres of mud hoping to find the barest nugget from this affair.

Im not sure what you find doubtful, its literally what happened. There are two issues at play
1. Her and her department not providing emails to the Charleton Tribunal as legally required under the discovery process of that Tribunal
2. Her misleading the Dail on her knowledge of a legal strategy by Noirin oSullivan and AGS to attack Maurice McCabe at the Higgins Commission. She said she had no knowledge of it but it turned out that Alan Kelly and RTEs Katie Hannon found out that she did.

Charleton ruled on 1. above but he did not and nor could he ever rule on 2. above because it was simply never in the Terms of Reference.

Its plain and simple, she misled the Dail and nobody has ever exonerated her for it, despite the claims of some posters on here They were asked to link to where Charleton exonerated her for misleading the Dail and they couldnt do it for a simple reason- he never did. Yet the lies that she was fully exonerated by the Charleton Tribunal Report (and now the Colllins report too) keep getting posted here ad nauseum.

markodaly

Muahahaha wrote: »

So anyone claiming that the Collins report exonerates Fitzgerald for misleading the Dail is also outright lying.

Best write to Justice Charlton, RTE and the Irish Times so, as they are 'outright lying'.

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?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ffrances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

Confidential means it's not for consumption by any Tom, Dick or Harry. The seriousness does not mean it's only a little bit confidential. The fall out or results can be minor or serious.

The water is muddied in this case by the publication of the contents by the IMO however.

James Brown wrote: »

LV was trying to garner support from his pal's membership by doing them a solid and passing this confidential document. I base this opinion on the back and forth as published.

Well yeah, clearly.

James Brown wrote: »

I do not believe the 'public good' line. I think he lied to try cover his arse.
Basically he damaged the trust for any future negotiations.

The IMO isn't complaining publicly at least. The only GP union that was highly critical of the government was the one that received the document, and it doesn't exist anymore.

James Brown wrote: »

The thread is extended every time somebody, like yourself, comes in to dispute or fudge the bare facts and add their own tuppence ha'penny on why Varadkar did nothing wrong.

Oh no he clearly did wrong, and I'm no fan of his motive. When I evaluate how substantial the wrongdoing was though I find it fairly paltry. More significant than the event itself would be the judgement (or lack thereof).

James Brown wrote: »

It's not about McCabe I would say Fitzgerald was raised because she mislead the Dail and was resigned. What Varadkar did was in the least as bad.

Well yes that's presumably the argument that people are beating around the bush about. Resignation is a voluntary process, though the leader of a party can essentially push their party member (as was the case with our last Minister for Justice). However in this case Varadkar is the party leader, so the judgment rests entirely on himself. There could be a backbench revolt, but there seems no chance of that.

If the shoe was on the other foot would FG be demanding a resignation? Presumably. That's the way politics works in this country. Would the resignation demand be entertained? Highly unlikely.

RandomName2

Muahahaha wrote: »

Im not sure what you find doubtful, its literally what happened.

So the Dail statements were entirely unrelated to the McCabe affair? I am highly doubtful this is the case.

The report stated that her behavior in relation to the McCabe affair was reasonable and justifiable given the information available to her.

Now language might mean different things to you and I, but if something is a subset of something else, I would assume that it were covered by the more general term.

This is mainly nonsense though as this issue is merely being brought up due to to her resignation. There is no actual interest in whether or not she merits exoneration. Her resignation was because to not do so would have caused a snap election triggered by the opposition party Fianna Fail. If Fianna Fail were not in a position to do so, presumably she would not have resigned. Resignation is discretionary.

Is there anything else to say on the matter?

I suppose a long list of minsters who misled the Dail who didn't resign could be compiled. Not sure if it would prove the point of resignation being discretionary given that this is already patently obvious.

For what it's worth FFG in my opinion seems to me to have been somewhat scapegoated in this affair. Not entirely blameless, but not an unreasonable or malicious actor. However I think it is fair to say that Fine Gael did have some significant responsibility for the treatment of McCabe, and FFG predominantly got unlucky being passed the buck.

Muahahaha

markodaly wrote: »

Best write to Justice Charlton, RTE and the Irish Times so, as they are 'outright lying'.



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/frances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ffrances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184

So then you'll be able to point me to where the Terms of Reference covered an investigation by Charleton into Fitzgerald misleading the Dail then?

If you cant do that (which you cleary cannot) then how can you ever claim that she was exonerated by Charleton for something that he literally did not investigate nor comment upon.

Im not sure how many times it has to be said but Charleton never ruled on her misleading the Dail, he ruled upon her and her department not supplying him with emails under his discovery process. These are two separate matters and any cursory reading of the Terms of Reference of the Tribunal that he ran confirm that as fact.

So unless you can provide a direct quote from the Charleton Report that says he exonerated her for misleading the Dail then it is very very simple- its because he never did despite your claims that he did. He wasnt allowed to because doing so would have broken his own Terms of Reference.

markodaly

Muahahaha wrote: »

So then you'll be able to point me to where the Terms of Reference covered an investigation by Charleton into Fitzgerald misleading the Dail then?

If you cant do that (which you cleary cannot) then how can you ever claim that she was exonerated by Charleton for something that he literally did not investigate nor comment upon.

Im not sure how many times it has to be said but Charleton never ruled on her misleading the Dail, he ruled upon her and her department not supplying him with emails under his discovery process. These are two separate matters and any cursory reading of the Terms of Reference of the Tribunal that he ran confirm that as fact.

So unless you can provide a direct quote from the Charleton Report that says he exonerated her for misleading the Dail then it is very very simple- its because he never did despite your claims that he did. He wasnt allowed to because doing so would have broken his own Terms of Reference.

Is it your claim that Justice Charlton, RTE and the Irish Times are 'outright lying'?

RandomName2

markodaly wrote: »

Is it your claim that Justice Charlton, RTE and the Irish Times are 'outright lying'?

No he's saying that he doesn't specifically mention the Dail.

Proposition - FFG did wrong
Charlton - No she didn't
Proposition - Well you didn't mention the Dail specifically, as such Varadkar should resign.

I said from the outset, it is incredibly labored logic, and that's being generous.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Best write to Justice Charlton, RTE and the Irish Times so, as they are 'outright lying'.



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/frances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ffrances-fitzgerald-acted-appropriately-at-all-times-charleton-1.3660184

It's like a loop.
Can you cite in the report where it exonerates her on the misleading the Dail, (the reason she was resigned)?

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

The water is muddied in this case by the publication of the contents by the IMO however.

Well yeah, clearly.

The IMO isn't complaining publicly at least. The only GP union that was highly critical of the government was the one that received the document, and it doesn't exist anymore.

It was confidential and unpublished when he leaked it to his pal. No mud just a leak.
He leaked a confidential document. What the IMO say or don't say won't change that.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh no he clearly did wrong, and I'm no fan of his motive. When I evaluate how substantial the wrongdoing was though I find it fairly paltry. More significant than the event itself would be the judgement (or lack thereof).

That's the problem though. Another minister leaks something you do have issue with and he says he doesn't think it's a big deal and we all shrug it off?
Or you are in sensitive negotiation and find out the other party is passing out info behind your back. Would you be confident in continuing?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well yes that's presumably the argument that people are beating around the bush about. Resignation is a voluntary process, though the leader of a party can essentially push their party member (as was the case with our last Minister for Justice). However in this case Varadkar is the party leader, so the judgment rests entirely on himself. There could be a backbench revolt, but there seems no chance of that.

Too late IMO. FF/FG/Greens had their chance to show some ethics and decided pensions and power trumped them.

RandomName2 wrote: »

If the shoe was on the other foot would FG be demanding a resignation? Presumably. That's the way politics works in this country. Would the resignation demand be entertained? Highly unlikely.

Yes, political parties are out to get each other, however what he did warrants he get resigned IMO.
We don't know. I'd like to think others have a bar.

Doesitmatter21

https://twitter.com/colincoyle/status/1370855722569850883?s=20

Things have changed

Johnthemanager

Doesitmatter21 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/colincoyle/status/1370855722569850883?s=20

Things have changed

Well, well, well!!!!

Will Leo step aside while the Criminal investigation is on going?

golfball37

https://mobile.twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1370860252724408324

Still nothing to see here I presume

Jinglejangle69

I actually thought they were investigating it already????

Fann Linn

golfball37 wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1370860252724408324

Still nothing to see here I presume

Not a normal party. Sectarian comments last week, Garda investigation this week. The man isn't fit to be a member of govt.

Brendan Bendar

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not a normal party. Sectarian comments last week, Garda investigation this week. The man isn't fit to be a member of govt.

Ease back on the hyperbole, dude.

golfball37

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not a normal party. Sectarian comments last week, Garda investigation this week. The man isn't fit to be a member of govt.

He’d fit perfectly in SF. He’s done more for them electorally than anyone.

Fann Linn

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Ease back on the hyperbole, dude.

Is any of the above wrong?

IngazZagni

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I actually thought they were investigating it already????

It was an initial investigation. Some people here rubbished me for suggesting it wasn't a criminal investigation already.

It's not surprising in my opinion. I think the Guards would be ridiculed for not formally investigating it.

Brendan Bendar

Fann Linn wrote: »

Is any of the above wrong?

Almost everything...

Jinglejangle69

IngazZagni wrote: »

It was an initial investigation. Some people here rubbished me for suggesting it wasn't a criminal investigation already.

It's not surprising in my opinion. I think the Guards would be ridiculed for not formally investigating it.

So they are just investigating it now?

And haven't interviewed Leo yet?

Sorry I'm confused here.

The tweet says Gardai have upgraded from initial enquiries to an investigation now.

"Gardaí have upgraded their initial inquiries into Tánaiste Leo Varadkar’s leaking of a confidential Government document to a friend into a full investigation"

So basically it's only an investigation now and wasn't before??

IngazZagni

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So they are just investigating it now?

And haven't interviewed Leo yet?

That seems to be the case yes.

Fann Linn

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Almost everything...

So he's not being investigated?
He didn't make sectarian comment last week?

Doesitmatter21

Getting a case together before they will speak to him it seems