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

Nobotty

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Agreed, not seeing the FF/GP impact. If criminal charges are brought then it is because of information found during the investigation that isn't currently in the public domain, you can't blame FF/GP (or indeed other members of FG) for not having the full details of a subsequent investigation at the time they gave him their confidence. They are going on the facts currently available.

Pretty much
I'm expecting them to be very thorough because of the sensitive nature of this, but there''ll be no file going to the DPP unless there's a recommendation to charge someone and that won't be happening because there's no crime
Theres enough barristers available to the current cabinet to confirm that, some of them party T.D' S which is why they voted confidence in him
They're not eejits

elperello

McMurphy wrote: »

There's no ifs about what Leo did, he admitted it and apologised. FF and the Greens endorsed it.

Still quite a few "ifs" to be chewed over.

I still can't agree that any disgrace attaches to FF/GP.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Complete speculation in the bolded bit and pre-empting the outcome.

FF and the GP endorsed Varadkar in the vote of confidence. They will be asked to own that decision and that is where the damage will be done.

They voted confidence in him based on the information available to them. If that information changes at a later point then only people looking to score some political points will be asking FF/GP to "own" the original decision.

McMurphy

Nobotty wrote: »

Pretty much
I'm expecting them to be very thorough because of the sensitive nature of this, but there''ll be no file going to the DPP unless there's a recommendation to charge someone and that won't be happening because there's no crime
Theres enough barristers available to the current cabinet to confirm that, some of them party T.D' S which is why they voted confidence in him
They're not eejits

Wrong.

A file is set to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) regarding the investigation into the leaking of a confidential draft contract by Tánaiste Leo Varadkar in the next two months.

As for your assertion that "no crime was committed" that's why the file is being sent to the DPP - they will make that call, which a judge will have to adjudicate on.

Your predictions haven't been great on this thread so far nobotty, weren't you the poster that was scoffing at Debbie McCanns article that reported the guards had progressed their preliminary investigations into the full blown criminal ones a week or two before any other media outlet announced it?

skimpydoo

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

No James, you need read the full trail. He was responding to me and I replied.

Has Varadkar been charged with anything James, yes or no?

This investigation has been going since last year and it looks more likely that he will be charged.

Leo's cheerleaders on here last year said this would all blow over and that the American election would replace it as news.

Guess what? That has not happened and it's only a matter of time before he is charged.

In the unlikely event that he is not charged, I will hold my hands up and say Mea Culpa. If he is charged will you and the other cheerleaders do the same?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Bubbaclaus

skimpydoo wrote: »

This investigation has been going since last year and it looks more likely that he will be charged.

Leo's cheerleaders on here last year said this would all blow over and that the American election would replace it as news.

Guess what? That has not happened and it's only a matter of time before he is charged.

In the unlikely event that he is not charged, I will hold my hands up and say Mea Culpa. If he is charged will you and the other cheerleaders do the same?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm not a "cheerleader" skimpy, so you would need to ask someone who is. My simple request is that people just deal in the facts, rather than making things up, such as claiming someone has been charged.

If people feel the need to make things up then it starts to look like they believe the facts aren't enough to get a result in their favour.

skimpydoo

Nobotty wrote: »

Pretty much
I'm expecting them to be very thorough because of the sensitive nature of this, but there''ll be no file going to the DPP unless there's a recommendation to charge someone and that won't be happening because there's no crime
Theres enough barristers available to the current cabinet to confirm that, some of them party T.D' S which is why they voted confidence in him
They're not eejits

If there is no crime, why is the investigation still ongoing and why did Leo apologise?

Confidence was voted in him because party TD's want to keep their snout in the trough and FG are happy for FF cabinet members to go but they don't want any FG cabinet member to resign or step aside.

James Brown

elperello wrote: »

Of course he has not been charged. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting otherwise.

It's also worth noting that the cabinet at the time of the incident being discussed was comprised of FG and Independents relying on FF through the Confidence and Supply agreement.

It's hard to see how FF and GP will be disgraced whatever the outcome.

They are already disgraced by shrugging off what Varadkar did, worried they might lose power. Not surprised by FF on that but a little by the Greens.
As I say if he is charged/found criminal it will add to their disgrace.

skimpydoo

James Brown wrote: »

They are already disgraced by shrugging off what Varadkar did, worried they might lose power. Not surprised by FF on that but a little by the Greens.
As I say if he is charged/found criminal it will add to their disgrace.

It's possible that some Green TD's may end up leaving the party if is charged/found guilty.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

They voted confidence in him based on the information available to them. If that information changes at a later point then only people looking to score some political points will be asking FF/GP to "own" the original decision.

Again, you are wrong.

There may be criminal charges based on what we know.

skimpydoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, you are wrong.

There may be criminal charges based on what we know.

When Leo gave his statement in the Dail late last year, the dogs on the street knew this would not go away.

jmcc

skimpydoo wrote: »

It's possible that some Green TD's may end up leaving the party if is charged/found guilty.

Joining ARG? It seems that they've got their Middle Class Marxist priorities right with hoodies and totebags for all.

They seem to be of the type who would have been Labourites only Labour imploded in 2016. Many of them seem to have ended up in the Green Party by accident as it was quite fashionable with all that Greta Thunberg rubbish and "Climate Justice" stuff permeating the single shared braincell of the Wokus Dei Dublin media. Turned out that the reality of being in government was quite different to what they expected and when they didn't get their own way, they sulked.

They may defect to the SocDems but they would be unlikely to be reelected to the Dail as the electoral dynamics will be different in the next GE with a lot of the SF surplus votes staying with SF candidates.

Regards...jmcc

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven."

Once they have proved that an advantage was given and received.

You said that the DPP was home and dry if they believed that an advantage was given and received. You were wrong.

You are not going to move the goalposts on this one.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, you are wrong.

There may be criminal charges based on what we know.

Nope, my opinions are not "wrong", sorry.

blanch152

jmcc wrote: »

Nothing at the moment. (Better check Twitter to see if Leo the Leak has tweeted that he has been charged. ) The Gardai are still investigating and may forward a file to the DPP.

Regards...jmcc

McMurphy wrote: »

Yet.

The Gards are currently preparing a file to be sent to the DPP, which the DPP will have to consider, the file will come with a recommendation from the Gards, which the DPP can choose to take into consideration or ignore.

Leo hasn't spoken with the Gards yet, not sure if that's any sign of what's to come or not. But it certainly appears Leo's in trouble.

Which is it lads?

The Gardai may forward a file or they are preparing a file to be sent to the DPP?

Nobotty

McMurphy wrote: »

Wrong.



As for your assertion that "no crime was committed" that's why the file is being sent to the DPP - they will make that call, which a judge will have to adjudicate on.

Your predictions haven't been great on this thread so far nobotty, weren't you the poster that was scoffing at Debbie McCanns article that reported the guards had progressed their preliminary investigations into the full blown criminal ones a week or two before any other media outlet announced it?

I wasn't scoffing, I was actually factually correct at the time
A file is only ever sent to the DPP when there is evidence of a crime or some doubt
Its my contention that there won't be a crime
I'll concede that the investigating officers may take the carefull decision to let a sensitive matter like this be concluded higher up the chain
Its a process
You are articulating your own opinion on that, as am I
Some journalists likewise (to sell papers)
This palava about criminal investigation is just words
Its the Sinn Fein equivalent of the FG lad going on about Gerry Adams being in the IRA

You and others are very caught up in that type of thing, I've no interest in it because I'm c0ck sure where this whole thing will conclude
No harm in that and no harm in me having my opinion,I expect to be right in the end
I'm 100% confident that there'll be no charge here
As I've said before, don't shoot the messenger, I'm not shooting you either
You've your opinion, I've mine

elperello

James Brown wrote: »

They are already disgraced by shrugging off what Varadkar did, worried they might lose power. Not surprised by FF on that but a little by the Greens.
As I say if he is charged/found criminal it will add to their disgrace.

skimpydoo wrote: »

It's possible that some Green TD's may end up leaving the party if is charged/found guilty.

Notwithstanding the fact that all Governments worry they might lose power FF/GP appear to have acted in good faith based on the situation at the time.

Motions of no confidence have become devalued currency in Irish politics and I think but you are overselling their effect.

I note you are both using the charged/convicted line. They are not interchangeable terms in law.

The GP have their own woes at the moment.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm not a "cheerleader" skimpy, so you would need to ask someone who is. My simple request is that people just deal in the facts, rather than making things up, such as claiming someone has been charged.

If people feel the need to make things up then it starts to look like they believe the facts aren't enough to get a result in their favour.

A lot of people on the internet have put a huge amount of time into this, and won’t be satisfied until they see pictures of Leo lining up for his breakfast in Mountjoy. It’s become an obsession for some of them, and they have wasted literally months of their life on the story. It’s a lurid fantasy for them as this stage.

The LeotheLeak stuff on Twitter really does attract a certain sort - SF supporters who can’t differentiate between your and you’re being the main grouping. Huge amount of anger out there. You can even see if a bit around here - this is hitting 9k posts, and lots of amateur legal eagles pouring over legislation they simply don’t understand. The Maria Bailey story - 20k posts. It’s weird behaviour but I suppose it gives some people a meaning in life or something. Hating someone else is easier than working on yourself, or getting involved in public life yourself.

skimpydoo

blanch152 wrote: »

Once they have proved that an advantage was given and received.

You said that the DPP was home and dry if they believed that an advantage was given and received. You were wrong.

You are not going to move the goalposts on this one.

Well, the letter sent to Martin Heydon, which was published here is the advantage.

Advantage, is not always money in this case it's looking after FG.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Once they have proved that an advantage was given and received.

You said that the DPP was home and dry if they believed that an advantage was given and received. You were wrong.

You are not going to move the goalposts on this one.

I agree with you here Blanch. Advantage or not, he still leaked a confidential negotiation document to his pal. If he gained or did not, he still did it.
Like most government corruption and cronyism it's difficult to legally prove such things as favour or advantage. That's why we need 'an end to cronyism' and to 'change the way we do business' right?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, you are wrong.

There may be criminal charges based on what we know.

There may be criminal charges based on what certain people think, but not based on what we know.

If there are criminal charges, they will be based on things we don't know.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Once they have proved that an advantage was given and received.

You said that the DPP was home and dry if they believed that an advantage was given and received. You were wrong.

You are not going to move the goalposts on this one.

The 'advantage' is presumed, if that is part of the case against him.

That onus on the defendant is the significant change in corruption legislation - the onus is on the accused/defendant to prove otherwise.

Exactly what the 'goalposts' were when I originally referenced this legislation.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There may be criminal charges based on what certain people think, but not based on what we know.

If there are criminal charges, they will be based on things we don't know.

There may 'not' be criminal charges based on what certain people think.

It is speculation to say he will be charged or won't be charged.

We simply won't know until the investigation completes. A few months ago you were adamant this wouldn't get this far.

jmcc

blanch152 wrote: »

There may be criminal charges based on what certain people think, but not based on what we know.

If there are criminal charges, they will be based on things we don't know.

That's a bit Forrest Gumpish. Are you an FFG front bencher?

Regards...jmcc

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'advantage' is presumed, if that is part of the case against him.

That onus on the defendant is the significant change in corruption legislation - the onus is on the accused/defendant to prove otherwise.

Exactly what the 'goalposts' were when I originally referenced this legislation.

The advantage can't be presumed, it has to be proven, that is the requirement of Section 14.

Minister makes a decision that favours Francie Brady. There is no evidence of any advantage to the Minister from Francie Brady for that decision. There is no case.

Minister makes a decision that favours Francie Brady. The Gardai find evidence that Francie Brady makes a payment of €100,000 to the Minister. The presumption is that this payment is corrupt and the Minister has to prove it wasn't. However, if the payment didn't exist or the Gardai couldn't prove it came from Francie Brady, there is no case.

So, first step, is prove there was an advantage to Leo Varadkar in giving this document to O'Tuathail. There is none.

jmcc

blanch152 wrote: »

The advantage can't be presumed, it has to be proven, that is the requirement of Section 14.

The Heydon letter is highly problematic then, isn't it?

Regards...jmcc

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There may 'not' be criminal charges based on what certain people think.

It is speculation to say he will be charged or won't be charged.

We simply won't know until the investigation completes. A few months ago you were adamant this wouldn't get this far.

Based on the information in the public domain, there is no case. There might well be wasted Garda time.

blanch152

jmcc wrote: »

The Heydon letter is highly problematic then, isn't it?

Regards...jmcc

Not really, look at the dates.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Based on the information in the public domain, there is no case. There might well be wasted Garda time.

Which is speculation, nothing more.

jmcc

blanch152 wrote: »

Not really, look at the dates.

"The union which received a copy of a confidential document from then-taoiseach Leo Varadkar threatened to tell its members to campaign against Fine Gael just two months beforehand."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40075016.html

Regards...jmcc