Mary Harney has egg all over her face . . . again. Hugh O'Flaherty hadn't even booked his air ticket for the European Investment Bank, courtesy of Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats, when she was being blamed for preventing Charlie Haughey getting a fair trial.
It was wild. On the one hand, the Tanaiste was too soft with Fianna Fail; on the other, she was too hard. She just couldn't get it right. And the more Ms Harney tried, the deeper the hole grew.
Her difficulties brought understandable delight to the Opposition parties. ail summer. John Bruton put the boot in with gusto. Having failed to get the Dail to discipline the Tanaiste last May, when she had lost the run of herself and called for Mr Haughey's jailing, he demanded vindication.
Judge Haugh's ruling had serious legal implications, the Fine Gael leader thundered, and there had to be political accountability for what had happened. In that regard, Ms Harney was for the high jump. "Looking at the matter objectively, it is hard to see how the Tanaiste's position is tenable," Mr Bruton intoned.
You could almost hear the headstone being chiselled. Ms Harney had a heavy political responsibility to discharge because of her Cabinet membership. And neither she nor the Government had taken sufficient steps "to diminish the publicly damaging effect of her original remarks".
They were all out of step except Johnny Baby. Revisiting the scene of his Dail motion, the Fine Gael leader attempted to suggest that more was less: that a Dail censure motion involving Ms Harney's views that the former Taoiseach should be jailed - because of disclosures before the Moriarty tribunal - would actually help him get a fair trial.
It was as startling as Judge Haugh's ruling that Mr Haughey could not get a fair trial and therefore should not be subjected to a criminal prosecution by this State. At some future and unspecified time such a course of action might be possible. But not now.
This was the judge who initially refused Mr Haughey's application to adjourn all charges until after the Moriarty tribunal reported, but then offered the former taoiseach "additional safeguards".
Judge Haugh felt Mr Haughey should have these mould-breaking protections in the interests of a fair trial. All potential jurors were to be questioned on whether they had any relationship with Mr Haughey, with Ben Dunne, or any involved companies or potential witnesses.
On appeal from the DPP the "additional safeguards" were rejected by the High Court. But the "fair trial" battle continued, with Mr Haughey's legal team quoting a range of defamatory material from RTE, the newspapers and a planned political meeting. Then, with only days to go to the hearing, Ms Harney put her foot in when the Moriarty tribunal disclosed £8.5 million had been paid to the former taoiseach. We know the outcome.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General are now considering a judicial review for the High Court. Ms Harney is holding her peace. And Bertie Ahern is saying as little as possible.
But Derek McDowell gave it a lash. Having refused to support Mr Bruton in his last Dail motion on the issue, the Labour Party spokesman was again ploughing his own furrow. The judgment would cause serious public concern, he said, because after three years, Mr Haughey had still not answered charges arising from the McCracken report. If a jury trial was not possible, then the case should be referred to the Special Criminal Court where three judges sat without a jury, he said.
Support for the Tanaiste came in nasal Limerick tones. Des O'Malley wasn't hiding what he thought about the judgment. The alleged prejudice, he said, appeared to be considerably less than the McArthur murder case of 1982, when Mr Haughey had said the Garda had got "the right man" in circumstances where the identity of the accused was at issue. The trial had gone ahead.
Freedom of expression could not be overlooked, he said, when the accused was a former taoiseach and a well-known public figure.