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

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You made a mistake McMurphy and forgot the info already out there. There's no problem with that, people make mistakes and forget sometimes. I won't accuse you of misleading the board

Also, why would he need to mention it during a confidence motion for someone else? Bizarre line of thinking that.

Can you link to where Simon Harris admitted or acknowledged being asked to leak the documents, before the times report that he did so during the Gardai interview bubbs?

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Nope, try again.

We know the village alleged that Simon Harris was asked, we didn't know he admitted it, IE, we now know (if the times article is accurate) that this is now factual, as opposed to an allegation.

Why didn't he mention it to the Dail during the no confidence motion?

Seems to me Harris didn't tell the full truth to the Dáil but has to the Gardai, for obvious reasons.

Correct me someone if I am wrong.

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

Why would Paddy be a witness to anything going on with Leo/Zero craic and Simon Harris

Well he is one of a few pushing this village
magazine story.

You surely haven't missed this bit?

Paddy upset at the government for not giving him his annual tech show.

Come on we all know it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/leak-controversy-doctor-settles-libel-action-against-web-summit-chief-39700302.html

suicide_circus

McMurphy wrote: »

Edit here we go.


https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1373397792161472519?s=09

Oh dear...

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Well he is one of a few pushing this village
magazine story.

You surely haven't missed this bit?

Paddy upset at the government for not giving him his annual tech show.

Come on we all know it.

I think you misread my post, you said he'd be "a weak witness".

Why do you think he'd be needed as a witness in this, assuming it goes to court?

FrancieBrady

Funny tweet..'Simon should resign for not leaking it if it was in the national interest'.

LessOutragePlz

This story is not going away anytime soon.

jmcc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Funny tweet..'Simon should resign for not leaking it if it was in the national interest'.

This shows that Simon Harris was far from the simple bumpkin that Varadkar expected. If the scandal doesn't take him out too, he could be the deputy leader of FG when Coveney takes over.

Regards...jmcc

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

Can you link to where Simon Harris admitted or acknowledged being asked to leak the documents, before the times report that he did so during the Gardai interview bubbs?

Why would he need to? I don't recall him ever being questioned about it. It was Varadkar receiving the questioning.

You forgot a piece of the story, and thats fine. There's no need to try and move the goalposts into an area they don't fit. Harris was never being questioned on this and as a result wasn't asked about the Village piece on him personally. Village Magazine released the screenshot of the Twitter DM anyway at the same time, and reported it as a factual occurance, not an allegation as you claim.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why would he need to? I don't recall him ever being questioned about it. It was Varadkar receiving the questioning.

You forgot a piece of the story, and thats fine. There's no need to try and move the goalposts into an area they don't fit. Harris was never being questioned on this and as a result wasn't asked about the Village piece on him personally. Village Magazine released the screenshot of the Twitter DM anyway at the same time, and reported it as a factual occurance, not an allegation as you claim.

Bubba, come on! :rolleyes:

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bubba, come on! :rolleyes:

What? It was known that Matt O'Toole asked Harris and Harris didn't give it to him from the Village Magazine article of 4 November. There is screenshots of the Twitter DMs included in that.

Harris has confirmed same in his Garda statement, as per the current article. So being consistent with the information known from 4 months ago.

Yet apparently I'm the one that needs to "come on" here. Crikey :pac:

I'll leave ye at it I'd say.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What? It was known that Matt O'Toole asked Harris and Harris didn't give it to him from the Village Magazine article of 4 November. There is screenshots of the Twitter DMs included in that.

Harris has confirmed same in his Garda statement, as per the current article. So being consistent with the information known from 4 months ago.

Yet apparently I'm the one that needs to "come on" here. Crikey :pac:

I'll leave ye at it I'd say.

Harris was 'asked to leak the document'. We did not know this.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What? It was known that Matt O'Toole asked Harris and Harris didn't give it to him from the Village Magazine article of 4 November. There is screenshots of the Twitter DMs included in that.

Harris has confirmed same in his Garda statement, as per the current article. So being consistent with the information known from 4 months ago.

Yet apparently I'm the one that needs to "come on" here. Crikey :pac:

I'll leave ye at it I'd say.

This is, the first time we have read any acknowledgement from Harris to the fact.

He refused, because he knew it wasn't something he should be doing, and yet he voted confidence in Leo for doing something he himself knew was wrong.

If you think I forgot, despite posting about it many, many times fair enough, but that's an odd hill to choose to perish on.

I'm guilty of one thing only, omitting the word "admitted" to being asked.

If however it's in the public domain already that Harris acknowledged or admitted to being asked, I'll stand corrected.

Do you have a source where he's on record of him publicly admitting to the request?

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Harris was 'asked to leak the document'. We did not know this.

He is literally asked for the document by Matt in the Twitter DM screenshot Francie. There is zero disputing that, so I am not sure why you are trying to.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He is literally asked for the document by Matt in the Twitter DM screenshot Francie. There is zero disputing that, so I am not sure why you are trying to.

He has NEVER said he was 'asked to leak the document' Bubba. Stop pretending this is not new info.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He has NEVER said he was 'asked to leak the document' Bubba. Stop pretending this is not new info.

Continued goalpost moving. You've gone from making incorrect statements like the below to the above now that you realise that we did actually know. Very dishonest way of posting really. Just keep moving the goalposts until your shot hits the net

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Harris was 'asked to leak the document'. We did not know this.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Continued goalpost moving. You've gone from making incorrect statements like the below to the above now that you realise that we did actually know. Very dishonest way of posting really. Just keep moving the goalposts until your shot hits the net

What???

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What???

Which part are you confused with?

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Which part are you confused with?

We didn't know he had been 'asked to leak the document'. That is new info.
You claim I have 'moved goalposts' when I have said nothing different since this has broken.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We didn't know he had been 'asked to leak the document'. That is new info.
You claim I have 'moved goalposts' when I have said nothing different since this has broken.

We did know he was asked by O'Toole. We have known since 4 November when the screenshots of the conversation between Matt O'Toole and Simon Harris were released, where O'Toole asked him for a copy of the document.

No idea why you would claim that this isn't the case.

Going around in circles here. I've made the facts clear, some people just seem like they would prefer their own facts.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

We did know he was asked by O'Toole. We have known since 4 November when the screenshots of the conversation between Matt O'Toole and Simon Harris were released, where O'Toole asked him for a copy of the document.

No idea why you would claim that this isn't the case.

Going around in circles here. I've made the facts clear, some people just seem like they would prefer their own facts.

Did you miss the word 'also' in the article? He was 'also' asked by O'Toole.

Stop digging here Bubba, Harris has revealed new info.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you miss the word 'also' in the article? He was 'also' asked by O'Toole.

Stop digging here Bubba, Harris has revealed new info.

What do you think the 'also' means?

Pretty clear to me that it means he was also approached by O'Toole, as we knew, but you seem to have some other interpretation of it? I'm curious now as to what you think that is?

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What do you think the 'also' means?

Pretty clear to me that it means he was also approached by O'Toole, as we knew, but you seem to have some other interpretation of it? I'm curious now as to what you think that is?

Who else do you think asked him?

He was 'advised' that anything he said may arise in a court. He said he was asked to leak the doc, and that he was 'also' asked by O'Toole.

shtpEdthePlum

This is absurd.

Anyone can see that this admission changes the situation. The deflection by several here is transparent. It indicates what will certainly be the last gasps of the boards.ie FG defence team.

Now that Harris has disclosed that he was indeed asked to leak the information and but refused to, it obviously shows that the then-health minister (who would have been the person with authority over this document) decided it couldn't go to O'Toole.

Leo gave the contract to Matt because they were friends and he was worried their union might turn against their party during the election. He used his position of privilege to curry favour with this buddy in spite of the fact that it undermined and directly threw Harris under the bus. It also conferred a more advantageous bargaining position to the rival doctors' union. It also boosted Leo's standing while sh!tting on Harris.

Harris wouldn't leak these documents. It's a huge development. It warrants discussion and no we should not "just let the gards do their job" because we're entitled to discuss proceedings when the former leader of the country is this crooked. It is very worrying that there is active suppression of the discourse here by certain users, what's the problem with talking about this major news story???

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who else do you think asked him?

He was 'advised' that anything he said may arise in a court. He said he was asked to leak the doc, and that he was 'also' asked by O'Toole.

Wow. Certainly an interesting interpretation of that article from you Francie. No wonder you think there is new information in it. That's not how it reads at all though.

To me it is very clearly saying that he was also contacted by O'Toole, separate to Varadkar being contacted by O'Toole. As we knew.

I can see now why you were so confused with my posts though, certainly clears it up.

Suckit

One thing for sure, 'old' news or not, when it is in the papers in the morning, it will get a whole new lease of life.
Despite what has been said over the last few months, this story doesn't look like it's going to go away, and all of the people with this newly acquired information will have to either support Leo or risk being called a homophobe or a racist..

Johnthemanager

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

This story is not going away anytime soon.

But Leo might be!

skimpydoo

What will it take for the FG and Leo supporters on here to realise that this is serious? Don't try and bring SF into this as its not about them but Leo and his wrongdoing which he has admitted to doing.

CruelSummer

So it’s absolute gobsh*** Paddy Cosgrave that’s behind this story. How can people stand over this during a pandemic? Our country needs a stable Government right now and this is the priority of multi millionaire hypocrite Cosgrave.
An attack on Government over issues that happened before Covid.
And the Shinner cheerleaders here with all their own IRA, army council links cheerleading this like they’re upstanding law abiding citizens.

Irish Indepednent:
“Bowes was introduced to Village publisher Michael Smith by Web Summit founder Paddy Cosgrave, an outspoken critic of the Government. "He [Cosgrave] suggested to me that Village would be the place to run the story - and he was right because no one else wanted it," Bowes said, adding that Cosgrave was a friend whom he is working with on a number of health reform projects.”

Also Paddy Cosgrave:

“ Cosgrave criticised the Irish tax system, which was rejected as hypocrisy as Amaranthine, an investment fund set up by Cosgrave with other Web Summit founders, is based in California but registered in Delaware - an effective tax shelter.”

CruelSummer

CruelSummer wrote: »

What will it take for Sinn Fein to put Ireland first for once, instead of getting into bed with Paddy Cosgrave to write smear stories about Varadkar who’s also been subject to death threats.
How could anyone vote for them - their priorities aren’t jobs, reopening the country, health of our citizens, the monumental task of getting Ireland out of the pandemic, it’s this.
There’s been an online hate campaign against Varadkar, separate to this issue which is shameful and could have led to the death threats.
SF should be careful getting into bed with Cosgrave, he’s a dangerous individual who throws his toys out of the pram very quickly if he thinks he won’t be running the SF government from the sidelines.

This thread is about Leo leaking documents, have you any comment on that topic