Is The Taoiseach a Perjurer? - Irish Mail on Sunday

[the-analyst2007]

Is The Taoiseach a Perjurer? - Irish Mail on Sunday

According to a front page article in today's Irish Mail on Sunday, the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has refused to deny claims of perjury at the Mahon Tribunal, a hypothesised claim that Eamon Dunphy made on friday nights Late Late Show.

The paper says that while Mr Dunphy made the allegation in front of half a million viewers, Mr Ahern declined to comment because he 'did'nt see the programme'.


Dunphy on Friday night said the following:

'It appears the Taoiseach is a perjurer....I think it is hard to look at the evidence put before the tribunal and come to the conclusion that he has told the truth. If he has lied under oath to the tribunal, which was set up by the Oireachtas and himself as Taoiseach, that's a very serious matter'

On the same programme one time Ahern supporter John Waters said refering to evidence of Miss Caruth:

You don't send a woman in to do your dirty work. When that woman is abused and humiliated by a bully, you go around and give him a couple of slaps - thats what you do in that culture.

Bertie's silence continues to resonate and his silence tells us he has something to hide. It confirms the fears of his own people, never mind the suspicions of his enemies.

[The Red Rose of Cork]

The taoiseach, a perjurer ? the taoiseach, a liar ?

[johnfás]

Dunphy didn't call him a perjurer, to be fair to him. He said it appeared that he was, on the basis of the evidence currently available. There is a difference.

[rockyracoon]

Dunphy didn't call him a perjurer, to be fair to him. He said it appeared that he was, on the basis of the evidence currently available. There is a difference.

Yes there is a difference and furthermore not telling the truth might not be tantamount to telling a lie. Nixon and his team during watergate relied upon "fuzzy" recollection leading to less than accurate answers as a defense against possible perjurous testimony. It up to the public to decide for themselves on the validty of such arguments.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Dunphy didn't call him a perjurer, to be fair to him. He said it appeared that he was, on the basis of the evidence currently available. There is a difference.

Yes there is a difference and furthermore not telling the truth might not be tantamount to telling a lie. Nixon and his team during watergate relied upon "fuzzy" recollection leading to less than accurate answers as a defense against possible perjurous testimony. It up to the public to decide for themselves on the validty of such arguments.

Nixon, a very appropriate reference. Yes, despite Fianna Fail calls for silence, the public can decide on the validity and those with any sense of smell or logical thought process will call it what it is.

[hiker]

Is The Taoiseach a Perjurer? - Irish Mail on Sunday

Had it come from any other "newspaper", it might have been credible.

[JCSkinner]

Is The Taoiseach a Perjurer? - Irish Mail on Sunday

Had it come from any other "newspaper", it might have been credible.

Like the Daily Sport, perhaps? Don't shoot the messenger, hiker. They only reported the transcript of the Late, Late. Anyone who watched the show heard what Dunphy said.
It seems to me that there is now a queue of people An Taoiseach could exercise his legal team against, were they not so preoccupied with this site.
Dunphy is potentially one, and Varadkar's radio comments on Saturday make him another.
There is also Dan Sullivan, nominating himself for a good suing.

[constitutionus]

the mail itself called him a liar in the banner headline of its front page recently and no actions been taken against them. the same goes for the indo in an article they did shortly after the carruth evidence.

considering how nuts people went when frank connolly didnt sue macdowel for his remarks in the dail (where he had protection) im amazed theres virtually nothing being said about this. surely the media monitoring unit berts so proud of caught both these articles ,so wheres the court case?

frank had an excuse in that dail privilage, which bert is now taking a case on to extend to repeated stuff outside the dail, protected michael. bert doesnt. and has sued before. so its strange alright.

either berts setting them up for a fall, or his positions goundless. as another P.IE poster is fond of saying. "its only defamation if its not true !"

[Blue Tide]

Just saw Mary Coughlan on Week in Politics tonight and she couldn't state that she didn't believe BA was a perjurer and yet she has full confidence in the Taoiseach. Jesus, what a disgraceful lack of standards! In what other country in the western world would a similar situation occur.

[Airport Spider]

What was Coughlan doing though? What was she trying to achieve? Weird.