Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 3 Mar 2019
THE GOVERNMENT HAS been urged to make a statement after The Observer published claims that former Taoiseach Enda Kenny offered to use Ireland’s position to lobby on behalf of Facebook on EU data legislation.
The article published details from a Facebook memo which described Kenny as a “friend of Facebook” and said that the company had a “great relationship” with the former Taoiseach.
The memo claimed that Kenny stated that Ireland’s presidency of the EU provided “the opportunity to influence the European Data Directive decisions” and that Ireland could also influence other member states, “even though technically Ireland is supposed to remain neutral in this role”.
The memo was reportedly contained in court documents as part of a California court case involving Facebook.
Ireland held the presidency of the EU between January-June 2013 during Kenny’s first term as Taoiseach.
Facebook’s international headquarters are located in Dublin and the article notes the critical role played by Ireland’s data protection commissioner on an EU-wide basis.
In response to the claims made in the article, Fianna Fáil’s enterprise spokesperson Billy Kelleher TD said questions needed to be answered.
“This will require a statement to clarify it (sic) the government and its diplomatic services were being used to lobby other EU member states on behalf of Facebook,” Kelleher tweeted.
Fianna Fáils technology spokesperson James Lawless TD described Kenny’s actions as described by the document as “brazen”.
“The willingness of former Fine Gael, Taoiseach Enda Kenny to bat for Facebook and his brazenness to use Ireland’s position to protect his allies in big tech is indicative of the appalling attitude still held among his party colleagues,” Lawless said.
We certainly need an explanation regarding this matter but we also need a tangible gesture of intent from government that they are serious about appropriately dealing with the giants operating within social media. Our bill can do that and can be prioritised on the legislative agenda if they truly recognise its importance.
Independent MEP Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan described the claims in the article as “extraordinary”.
Kenny did not comment on The Observer’s article and TheJournal.ie has sought a response from the Department of Communications following Kelleher’s call for clarification from the government.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Hopefully Sloppy Steve told the truth
@Dr Rex Butts: if he lied to the FBI he can be charged with a crime. That’s the law. The FBI will ask questions of which they have factual evidence obtained by investigation or surveillance. FBI interviews are not sworn testimony, in the Executive branch. In the Legislative Branch (congress) or Judicial Branch (court) it is sworn testimony and a response can be refused to be given under Fifth Amendment rights of citizens, to avoid lying or perjury of oneself.
@Mark Fields: yup, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a federal crime for anyone who “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully … makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” The same statute has been used to convict and imprison Rod Blagojevich, Scooter Libby, Bernard Madoff, Martha Stewart, and Jeffrey Skilling.
@Dave O Keeffe: the point being that with his interview by the FBI he HAD to answer questions and was not giving sworn testimony. He could not simply say nothing.
@Mark Fields: Since when has lying ever been an issue with this administration
@Mark Fields: that’s a lot easier when the white house chooses your questions
sorry, that was in the case of the Senate
@Mark Fields: Yes he could. You’re perfectly entitled not to answer the FBI’s questions.
@Ben McArthur: the real risk in speaking freely is that he doesn’t know what thru have already been told. If he contradicts someone else he can be arrested.
This is telling that a person who was not permitted to publicly discuss the Bannon interview reveals information about the interview then can remain anonymous. The people involved in the Mueller investigation are corrupt.
@Mark Fields: all they said was that he answered every question. Hardly earth shattering stuff.
@Dave O Keeffe: in other words “only a little corrupt”.
@Mark Fields: You’re assuming that the leak came from Mueller’s side. It might have come from Bannon’s side.
@Stephen Blott: correct, Bannon and his team and the Trump team are familiar with the proceedings too
If Bannon had said anything bad for Trump Mullier team would have leaked it to CNN….One year later this whole Russian conspiracy is more imaginary than real….Wont stop Democrats expanding its terms and keeping it going for next 7 years Trump is president….
@John003: Not true. Muller indicted members of the Trump team without any media warning, none of it was leaked.
Just because the media aren’t in the know doesn’t mean he’s empty handed from the Bannon questioning.
Some of those establishment Republicans hate Bannon just as much as the Democrats do…
Unfortunately, it seems that Feinstein damaged the integrity of these congressional closed door interviews with her antics in the Senate Judiciary committee. Not sure if that action is having any effect in this instance.
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: I think having it stipulated that your questions have to be pre-approved by the people that are under investigation looks really, really bad.
@Dave O Keeffe: He answered everything asked of him during the Mueller interview. Why would the administration restrict him from answering similar questions in a closed door congressional interview?
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: he did answer the congressional questions, but commented he was not allowed to elaborate his responses.
@Mark Fields: He answered 25 pre-approved questions with the answer “no”….Both parties say he failed to interact with the committee. I’m wondering why he was restricted from given the same responses he did in the Mueller interview to the committee. Especially considering it is a closed interview.
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: I have a theory, Republicans don’t run the FBI and would be more likely to pursue him for not answering properly. Republicans in the Senate got stonewalled and don’t know if they should do anything about it.
@Dave O Keeffe: No that theory doesn’t make sense for me.
If he has already answered all the questions in the Mueller interview, what does anyone have to gain by restricting him from answering similar questions in a closed session interview with the committee?
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: it’s not what’s to gain, it’s what’s to be lost. Opposition questions would be antagonistic if it’s a free forum. Bannon doesn’t strike me as the type to hold his tongue. With Mueller they have no say in the questions. This allows them an element of control. Refusing to answer pre-approved questions is a display of control. The Senate won’t push anything against Bannon because they don’t have the numbers. The committee doesn’t mean much anyway since the memo debacle.
@Dave O Keeffe: You don’t think that the questions that Mueller and his team will ask Bannon will be antagonistic? Or that they will be less antagonistic than the committee? Mueller’s team consists of some the the top prosecutors and legal minds in the US, out of a population of 350 million people.
Between Mueller and the committee, the committee is the easier place to be asked questions. Without a shadow of a doubt.
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: deciding what questions your political opponents are allowed to ask you is a massive bonus. We’ve seen these House and Senate committees. They are not conducted under the same rules that the FBI are bound by. As the FBI would be using anything gained (if there is anything) for a case they are bound by the relevant laws. The House committee does not have that concern. Take the memo for example. Look how the committee acted and then look how the FBI responded. They are bound.
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: You are assuming he answered honestly and completely. Something I personally doubt very much.
@David Knight: If Bannon didn’t answer truthfully in Mueller’s interview, he is in trouble.
The simple fact of the matter is that at this stage of the investigation Mueller and his team essentially have all the facts gathered already. They know Trump, Kuschners, and Bannons actions better than they know their past actions themselves.
Imagine listening to that egit for 20 hours..
have your say