And the comedy of errors that is the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona continues as today’s session concludes. A long accounting made by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales of various funds movements between 82 bank accounts across several banks to the name of Chief Justice Renato Corona over a period beginning 2003 through 2011 revealed an anticlimactic bottom line: total funds moving into the Corona accounts over the period amounted to USD28.7 million while total outflows amounted to USD30.0 million. Assuming that the beginning balance in 2003 was zero, that amounts to an ending balance in 2011 of minus USD1.3 million.
The size of the amounts of the movements, of course, were quite notable and, indeed, makes for curious speculation as to what Corona may have been up to during that period. But an accounting of fund movements in and out is meaningless without a beginning balance — a crucial piece of information that was missing from Morales’s testimony considering the bold claims that were made by the prosecution camp: that Corona held anywhere from $10 million to $12 million in these bank accounts. In finance parlance, such claims made by the prosecution camp were balance sheet (what in essence is a person’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth or SALN) figures. What Morales presented were all to do with just cash flow. These are two different things — a difference which an attorney who, by some accounts, is “not good with figures” will most likely not have intuitively grasped.
My own bank statement is quite impressive — if you look at the total inflows and total outflow stated over a given period, that is. But that does not mean I’ve got lots of cash. It simply means those amounts moved through my bank account — my salary accounting for most of the inflow and my personal expenses accounting for most of the outflow. How I wish either the inflow or outflow figures were actually my cash account balance.
In short, after being subject to Morales’s man-voice for close to an hour, we are nowhere near any absolute clarity over whether these claims about how much dollars Corona holds at any one time in his alleged bank accounts has any real bases. Yet Morales’s original claim was quite clear:
Morales told Senator-Judge Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. that the 82 bank accounts contained an estimated $12 million as
“My computation arrived at with the assistance with CPA lawyers, fresh deposits amounted to $12 million,” Morales said at the Senate impeachment court.
What exactly was the nature and approach of this “computation”? Did it involve any known form of mathematics? Perhaps rather than rely on PowerPoint slides prepared by an underpaid clerk, Morales should instead enlighten the court on the equations she may have applied to the task.
Earlier, “civil society” honchos Risa Hontiveros, Walden Bello and Harvey Keh filed private complaints with the Ombudsman making similar claims that they had information about Corona’s dollar holdings in various banks. Keh claimed to have received the information to substantiate his complaint in a brown envelope. “When I opened it, I was surprised and shocked. I saw transactions records—the name of the bank, the name of the depositor Renato Corona, the deposits, the dates the account was opened, opening balance,” Keh was reported to have said.
Indeed…
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who declined to open the brown envelope saying that he’s never met Keh had already issued a court subpoena summoning Keh to explain his claim last week. Nonetheless, Enrile did not seem to expect much from it. “I don’t know whether he would say anything interesting. I don’t know what information he has,†Enrile was quoted saying of Keh. Keh along with Hontiveros had since denied that they had said anything about Corona possessing cash holdings of USD10 million.
One thing that Morales’s testimony did highlight was how such enormous sums of dollar-denominated cash moved between 82 accounts over the period without any bank officer or branch manager from any of the banks involved raising alarm bells. Chief prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr himself described these movements as being “like professional money laundering”. And yet the Anti Money Laundering Council (AMLC) of the Philippines apparently had seemingly not taken any steps to take the involved banks to task despite being in possession of this data. Indeed, AMLC executive director Vicente Aquino had earlier altogether denied being in the process of investigating Corona’s accounts.
Obviously Morales and the AMLC not only did not contribute any clarity on the matter but muddled it even further. Could this be solid grounds for the defense panel to request that all bank managers involved in the transactions Morales itemised today be summoned to testify in court? Looks like Enrile’s 31st of May ultimatum to conclude this quaint trial won’t be met.
[Photo of Ombudsman Morales courtesy Yahoo! News.]
My solution to this problem is to allow a neutral, highly credible CPA firm like PwC or Ernst and Young do a audit on these accounts. I’m sure these guys are better than anyone of the CPAs from Malacanang.
Ombudsman probers: Corona wealth up to P677M
Corona to finally take witness stand on May 22
By TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:05 am | Thursday, May 17th, 2012
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/194719/ombudsman-probers-corona-wealth-up-to-p677m
@ Daido Katsumi
“PrincesaUrduja: TROLL.â€
Name-calling is “the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation without objective consideration of the facts.†Furthermore, it is the worn-out strategy of losers.
“Fact is that you got misled by the media and that’s it. Right?â€
No, the fact is that you got misled by your own bias.
“There is nothing much worse than the incompetent prosecution and Morales is still confusing things.â€
Ombudsman Morales’ testimony may only be confusing to Corona supporters. Prosecution may be incompetent but so as the defense. Did you forget that the Presiding Officer Enrile had expressed his disappointment over the defense’s dull witnesses? And that Senator-Judge Miriam said their best and only defense left is Corona?
@princesa
According to you -
“Ombudsman Morales’ testimony may only be confusing to Corona supporters.”
Is this not confusing? -
When this old bitch was questioned by old dog, grumpy, schemy Cuevas (you hate name-calling, isn’t it? Name-calling is for losers according to you. Pot calling the kettle black case he he he…):
“You give us the impression that you swallowed hook line and sinker the entire contents submitted to you in response to your letter request (by AMLC),†Cuevas said.
“Again, I say, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THEY WOULD GIVE ME CORRECT INFORMATION.†Morales replied.â€
So she’s testifying but she has a disclaimer. Meaning, on her testimony, on her ppt presentation, she presented a very explicit Corona’s dollar account transactions WITHOUT counter-checking their authenticity.
If this Morales is a man, I would said straight to his face to MAN UP! Don’t leave home without your balls!
The way your mind works, it’s not confusing heh.
“Prosecution may be incompetent but so as the defense.”
How about telling us some examples of defence’s incompetence?
“Did you forget that the Presiding Officer Enrile had expressed his disappointment over the defense’s dull witnesses.”
So what is significant with “Enrile’s disappointment” and “dull witness”. For you, that is significant if I’m going to based it on how you posit it.
For me, the significant one is how MDA exposed the “lying witnesses”.
We could have a very interesting discussion if you can just cite the items you are claiming.
Can’t blame you for imagining scenarios that would fit your narrative.
@ Trosp
“And if the information is not correct? A classic comedy of error, isn’t it?â€
And that is only IF. As of now, the defense is YET to disprove Morales’ testimony. Patience, my dear.
“Haven’t you noticed this old bitch is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?â€
Yes, I did not only notice it but Ombudsman Morales declared that in the impeachment court. So what’s the problem if it is warranted?
Has the information been proven correct? Will AMLC be able to authenticate the information? Will they be able to testify in court that what they have gathered are correct? Did they not say the document/report was unauthenticated?
If it is warranted to hold another impeachment, so be it. But is it not too premature to say that in court?
Personally, at I don’t want to say that CJ has no ill-gotten wealth. However, doubts are flying all over the place with regards to motive, manner of disclosure of information, and data gathering done by those against CJ.
And there is nothing to disprove as the data itself were procured in an illegal manner, or worst, just falsified. There is nothing to disprove as they were not able to PROVE that the information gathered do exist as it was not authenticated.
The biggest question, “Does it really exists?”
Translation: I believe in Conchita’s unverified inaccurate evidence (and that’s okay)
@princesa
1. Comedy of errors
The way my mind works, these are comedy of errors:
> Prior to hearing, prosecutors were brandishing in the media the documents confirming Corona has 45 plush properties even though some of the ownership documents were obviously not in his name.
They disavowed their claim during the hearing and blamed the media, the same media to whom they’ve presented their documents, for misquoting them.
Do I need to post the transcript of how MDA shamed Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator Eulalio Diaz for his improprieties?
> This Harvey Key who was put into stand recently. How he was shamed for his spurious claim.
> A snippet from Daily Tribune today’s op-ed -
“Their spokesmen have expectedly gone on a full time spin, now saying that the CJ is so desperate to be acquitted, which they said is why he has now agreed to testify.
These spokesmen are neither logical nor consistent.
It was they earlier on, who kept on claiming that Corona should testify and that his refusal to testify is due to his fear of taking the witness stand. So what is it really since the chief magistrate has already announced through his lawyers, that he will be taking the stand on Tuesday? ”
And a lot more which to my mind are comedy of errors. I’m citing them so that I can present you what I’m talking about.
According to you -
“How could I imagine them if those comedy of errors committed by Corona’s OLD DOGS (do you really hate name-calling?) all happened LIVE on TV. Why don’t you just watch them on youtube and enjoy them.”
How about citing a portion of transcript or a situation where the defense committed comedy of errors that you are claiming? Or maybe links and let’s see what are those you consider as comedy of errors.
2. Conchita Carpi-Morales
You’ve commented -
“Yes, I did not only notice it but Ombudsman Morales declared that in the impeachment court. So what’s the problem if it is warranted?”
That is your rejoinder to my previous comment -
“Haven’t you noticed this old bitch (my name-calling triggered by your name calling) is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?”
To my mind, Morales knew beforehand that Corona will be acquitted. It has nothing to do with me having a problem with a second impeachment case be raised against Corona if it is warranted.
BTW, Tiglao’s take on Corona’s dollar account not being declared in his SALN is very interesting.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/28823/colossal-deception-on-corona%E2%80%99s-accounts
Snippet:
“So how much did Corona have in his bank accounts, and did he report this in his SALN? While only a guess, it would be the biggest and last of Corona’s banking transactions reported: $687,433.
That dollar amount is worth P29.4 million now. But in 2001 when the exchange rate was P51 to the dollar, that was equivalent to P35 million. Doesn’t that figure remind you of the P34.7 million payment by the Manila government for the Basa-Guidote property, which the Chief Justice’s better-half, Cristina Corona, received and claimed she was holding in trust, and therefore was not their asset?”
If that is the case, Carpio will have a lot of splaining to do.
But then, maybe not. When this old bitch was questioned by old dog, grumpy, schemy Cuevas (you hate name-calling, isn’t it? Name-calling is for losers according to you. Pot calling the kettle black case he he he…):
“You give us the impression that you swallowed hook line and sinker the entire contents submitted to you in response to your letter request (by AMLC),†Cuevas said.
“Again, I say, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THEY WOULD GIVE ME CORRECT INFORMATION.†Morales replied.â€
A very clear disclaimer isn’t it?
Can’t blame you for imagining scenarios that would fit your narrative.
Correction- MDA to read MDS. My apology.
@PrincesaUrduja
I think you have to understand something as well. These “82 accounts” are not part of the impeachment complaint now right? Only the accounts which are part of the PSBank documents from the small lady since that is the the evidence of the prosecution which the defense needs to disprove.
They only presented the Ombudsman because I believe, the purpose is to show that their claims outside of the impeachment court are unverified and dubious at best. Their move actually prompted the Senator judges to question the “questionable” actions of the office of the Ombudsman.
Now, going on your “IF” statement, assuming it is proven that all of these statements by some witnesses are found dubious and were misinformation or not properly handled, I believe contempt charges should be filed, regardless if she is the Ombudsman.
I know you are trying to be neutral as well in this discussion but I just wanted to expound on your comment.
Cheers!
@ 17Sphynx17
“These ‘82 accounts’ are not part of the impeachment complaint now right?â€
Precisely. That’s the reason why the prosecution did not present them before as evidence against Corona. So aren’t you wondering why the defense still subpoenaed Ombudsman Morales and other witnesses who had knowledge of Corona’s alleged multi-million dollar accounts IF these were really not relevant to any of the articles of impeachment?
“They only presented the Ombudsman because I believe, the purpose is to show that their claims outside of the impeachment court are unverified and dubious at best.â€
In my point of view, they presented Ombudsman Morales to demean her preliminary findings and thus prevent her from further investigating Corona’s dollar accounts.
“Their move actually prompted the Senator judges to question the ‘questionable’ actions of the office of the Ombudsman.â€
I don’t really find them “questionable†since the spotless Ombudsman acted on her own freewill to investigate and prosecute Corona in the exercise of her primary jurisdiction.
“I know you are trying to be neutral as well in this discussion but I just wanted to expound on your comment.â€
It’s good to know that you appreciate my attempt to be neutral and didn’t bite me when I posted a different point of view. I’d read some of the articles here and was already beginning to think that all posters here were just fanatic Corona supporters who coincidentally hate P-Noy.
Just because most of us here prefer the rule of law doesn’t mean that we are Corona fanatics.
The purpose of this impeachment trial instigated by none other than PNoy himself, was to get rid of him… by any means necessary.
@ Trosp
“you hate name-calling, isn’t it? Name-calling is for losers according to you. Pot calling the kettle black case he he he…â€
I’m just wondering. What do you call Daido Katsumi’s reference to me as TROLL? And how do you label the author of this article when he ridiculed the witness’ MAN-VOICE? Moreover, how do you label yourself when you referred Ombudsman Morales thrice as OLD BITCH?
I can’t blame you for being obviously BIASED against me while PRETENDING to be BLIND of your friends’ and your own “name-calling†antics.
@princesa
Something is wrong with your comprehension or maybe your’re in denial.
Read this again in my previous comment -
““Haven’t you noticed this old bitch (MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING) is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?â€
And this one from my comment again, the complete one -
“But then, maybe not. When this old bitch (MY NAME CALLING) was questioned by old dog, grumpy, schemy Cuevas (YOUR NAME CALLING. you hate name-calling, isn’t it? Name-calling is for losers according to you. Pot calling the kettle black case he he he…):
You intentionally nitpicked the part of my comment so that it will fit your narrative heh…
Check your reading comprehension madam.
And BTW, where are the defence’s comedy of errors that you were bragging here? It seems they’re all your fairy tales. Is the “it’s there” claim your best convincing argument?
Can’t blame you for imagining scenarios that would fit your narrative.
Anyway, I’m too happy for your reply otherwise I’d be banned from this blog. I drove away a lot of commenters here if I drive away one more commenter.
Cheers!
@ Trosp
“Something is wrong with your comprehension or maybe your’re in denial.”
Something is really wrong with your contraction → your’re. That’s for sure.
“MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING”
So if BLAMING is the right way of argument, then I can also blame benignO, the author of this article?
“You intentionally nitpicked the part of my comment so that it will fit your narrative heh…”
You cherry-pick on comments that reveals your BIAS.
“Check your reading comprehension madam.”
Check your grammar first, sir.
“And BTW, where are the defence’s comedy of errors that you were bragging here? It seems they’re all your fairy tales. Is the ‘it’s there’ claim your best convincing argument?â€
No, it’s called COMMON SENSE which I’m afraid is not so common nowadays.
“Anyway, I’m too happy for your reply otherwise I’d be banned from this blog. I drove away a lot of commenters here if I drive away one more commenter.â€
Well I’m glad you’re “happyâ€. But I don’t think the author of this article has any plan of banning you (and other like-minded posters) here since you somehow amplify his point of view. Loudspeakers come in handy I guess. Moreover, there may be dozens of reasons why commenters stop posting their remarks on public forums like this one. Some lose their interest of the topic. Some just like posting one or few comments. And some are even blocked. I hope you’re not that clueless. Unless you have a scientifically based study that shows you’re the sole reason for driving away posters from this blog, DON’T FLATTER YOURSELF TOO MUCH. Get some reality check once in a while and try not to dwell on your imaginary world.
And next time you enter a public forum, CHECK YOUR EGO AT THE DOOR. Just a friendly advice.
@pincesa
According to me -
““Haven’t you noticed this old bitch (MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING) is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?â€
And according to you, that is BLAMING! -
“So if BLAMING is the right way of argument, then I can also blame benignO, the author of this article?”
Madam, I’m calling it leveling the playing field. Blame yourself if I’ve reciprocated your name name-calling. You labeled Cuevas old dog, grumpy, schemy and I reciprocated by labeling your ombudsman old bitch. Whoever you mentioned in your post is now a fair game for name-calling.
I ask you to check your comprehension and according to you, check my grammar first.
I’ve done that long time ago and I don’t forget to mention that here in this blog that grammar is not my strong point. As I’ve commented before -
“Grammar and spelling are not my strong points.
But I’d bet my other ball that comprehension is one of my strong points.
Sadly, I can’t comprehend anything from jcc’s comment.
What’s the meaning of disconjunctive? Where have you taken your “Eâ€nglish 101?
Baka disjunctive(?)”
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2011/12/raissa-robles-re-cristina-corona/
According to me addressing your comedy of error claim by the defense -
““And BTW, where are the defence’s comedy of errors that you were bragging here? It seems they’re all your fairy tales. Is the ‘it’s there’ claim your best convincing argument?â€
According to you -
“No, it’s called COMMON SENSE which I’m afraid is not so common nowadays.”
The question is where and not what. Really, you have reading comprehension problem. Have you thrown them away?
Or your reading comprehension is selective?
Since you’re claiming that the defense has committed comedy of errors, isn’t it just proper for you to cite even one?
And your answer is “common sense”.
BTW, you really can’t believe there are commenters here who don’t visit here anymore because I’ve pissed them?
How do you call a commenter when being refuted will not respond anymore and perhaps, out of shame, will not comment anymore in any topic in this blog?
Do I need to prove it scientifically as you’re insinuating? Granting I’m going to prove it scientifically, please suggest the method (exclude the common sense spin please.)
My ego?
Jeez, I consider it name-calling…
BTW, I’m not always agreeing with benign0 or Ilda -
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2011/07/religious-group-throws-money-into-the-mitsubishop-issue-in-the-hope-of-resolving-it/
@ Trosp
“Madam, I’m calling it leveling the playing field.â€
Sir, you said – MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING. For me that’s synonymous to BLAMING ME FOR YOUR NAME CALLING but you disagreed. Instead, you call it “leveling the playing fieldâ€. So you’re fond of SUGAR-COATING your antics. Noted.
“Blame yourself if I’ve reciprocated your name name-calling.â€
So again, you’re just “leveling the playing field†(sugar-coating) and the BLAME is on me? Right. So let me rephrase – if I should BLAME myself for your OLD BITCH name-calling, then benignO should also BLAME himself for my OLD DOGS name-calling. Clear now? Good.
“I ask you to check your comprehension and according to you, check my grammar first.â€
Yes, that was my response and still is. Can’t read between the lines? I thought so.
“But I’d bet my other ball that comprehension is one of my strong points.â€
Don’t count on it too much. You’d missed my point several times already.
“The question is where and not what.â€
Again you have misconstrued me. My response – No, it’s called COMMON SENSE which I’m afraid is not so common nowadays. – is specifically for your question – Is the ‘it’s there’ claim your best convincing argument? – That’s why I told you days ago to WATCH those “comedy of errors†on youtube and enjoy them, remember?
“Or your reading comprehension is selective?â€
No, but surely you have selective amnesia.
“Since you’re claiming that the defense has committed comedy of errors, isn’t it just proper for you to cite even one?â€
For your info, I had cited instances of the defense’s “comedy of errorsâ€. Let me remind you of this excerpt from my recent post here – “The former Associate Justice revealed her brilliance for neither being rattled by the grumpy, schemy Cuevas…In fact, the spotless Ombudsman shamed Cuevas with her legal “comprehension†and caught him red-handed being coached in public.†So does your selective amnesia ring a bell now?
“BTW, you really can’t believe there are commenters here who don’t visit here anymore because I’ve pissed them?â€
That’s circumstantial. NOT concrete evidence.
“Do I need to prove it scientifically as you’re insinuating? Granting I’m going to prove it scientifically, please suggest the method (exclude the common sense spin please.)â€
It’s just a simple task of arithmetic called COUNTING. So if you don’t have figures to show, you have nothing but CLAIM.
@princesa
I’m summarizing -
(For clarity, my current comments are enclosed in parenthesis.)
According to you when I commented “Madam, I’m calling it leveling the playing field.†-
“Sir, you said – MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING. For me that’s synonymous to BLAMING ME FOR YOUR NAME CALLING but you disagreed. Instead, you call it “leveling the playing fieldâ€. So you’re fond of SUGAR-COATING your antics. Noted.
“Blame yourself if I’ve reciprocated your name name-calling.â€
So again, you’re just “leveling the playing field†(sugar-coating) and the BLAME is on me? Right. So let me rephrase – if I should BLAME myself for your OLD BITCH name-calling, then benignO should also BLAME himself for my OLD DOGS name-calling. Clear now? Good.
“I ask you to check your comprehension and according to you, check my grammar first.â€
Yes, that was my response and still is. Can’t read between the lines? I thought so.”
———————————–
(What is between the lines? Would it be very hard for you to be specific? Or you don’t have any specifics? Just imagining things again?
Let’s go back again to that issue.
You’re telling us that you can call people names and if anybody would call your attention by reciprocating what you’re doing – doing also the name-calling at the expense of the person you’re putting in a high spot, THAT IS BLAMING YOU.
If they say that they are just leveling the playing field, meaning you name-call, they can also name-call – ACCORDING TO YOU, IT’S A SUGAR COATED ANTICS. In our lingo ipinarehas lang, kung may kinukutya ka, binalikan ka rin ng kutya, you labelled it as sugar coated antics?
May I ask how your name-calling should be treated?
Just let it go? Just let you badmouth people you don’t like?
Reading your comment beats the fun I have every time I watch the Jersey Shore or reading the PDI.
Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)
———————————–
According to you -
“Don’t count on it too much. You’d missed my point several times already.”
———————————–
(May I ask what are those points? Or you don’t really have any points at all? If they are, what are they? Don’t tell me that I should read between the lines again.
Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)
———————————–
According to you to my statement “The question is where and not what.†-
“Again you have misconstrued me. My response – No, it’s called COMMON SENSE which I’m afraid is not so common nowadays. – is specifically for your question – Is the ‘it’s there’ claim your best convincing argument? – That’s why I told you days ago to WATCH those “comedy of errors†on youtube and enjoy them, remember?”
“Or your reading comprehension is selective?â€
No, but surely you have selective amnesia.
“Since you’re claiming that the defense has committed comedy of errors, isn’t it just proper for you to cite even one?â€
For your info, I had cited instances of the defense’s “comedy of errorsâ€. Let me remind you of this excerpt from my recent post here – “The former Associate Justice revealed her brilliance for neither being rattled by the grumpy, schemy Cuevas…In fact, the spotless Ombudsman shamed Cuevas with her legal “comprehension†and caught him red-handed being coached in public.†So does your selective amnesia ring a bell now?”
———————————–
(My comment is where are they specifically? Cite just a portion of transcript otherwise you’re just pulling our legs. You’re just relating us your fairy tale. Puro ka ‘wento baka walang ‘wenta ‘yan.
Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)
———————————–
Another of your comment when I commented “BTW, you really can’t believe there are commenters here who don’t visit here anymore because I’ve pissed them?†-
“That’s circumstantial. NOT concrete evidence.”
———————————–
(I really don’t have any idea what will be enough for you. Do those people have to provide their testimonial to make it a concrete evidence?
Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)
———————————–
And when I’ve commented “Do I need to prove it scientifically as you’re insinuating? Granting I’m going to prove it scientifically, please suggest the method (exclude the common sense spin please.)â€
Your comment -
“It’s just a simple task of arithmetic called COUNTING. So if you don’t have figures to show, you have nothing but CLAIM”
———————————–
(So it’s not anymore scientific but a simple arithmetic.
I can tell you that at least seven commenters here were not commenting here anymore because I refuted them. I can confirm four of them I can say I directly caused.
So I showed you the figure. Now what? Show you who they are?
I can show you who they are but if I’ve done that, WOULD THAT SETTLE YOUR SIMPLE ARITHMETIC THING?
Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)
Please stick around otherwise I’ll be banned here…
@ Trosp
“May I ask how your name-calling should be treated?â€
Still stuck on that “name-calling” issue triggered by benignO’s MAN-VOICE name-calling? LOL
“Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?â€
So you still haven’t figured that out? LOL
“So I showed you the figure. Now what? Show you who they are?â€
Who cares? LOL
“Please stick around otherwise I’ll be banned here…”
Again, who cares? LOL
Now I understand why some posters here stop visiting this blog. They got sick of your redundancy; drowned by your prolixity; and eventually suffered from terminal boredom.
@princesa
That’s what I mean.
You’re just full of hot air. Wala ka kahit isang nasagot. Puro innuendos.
I just want to prove it to the comment readers and you’ve confirmed it yourself.
Hindi ka naman nahihiya nyan?
Stick around and see you again next time.
@ Daido Katsumi
No name-calling this time? Good. Since you’re still responding from my post, I guess I’m not a “troll” after all.
“Just because most of us here prefer the rule of law doesn’t mean that we are Corona fanatics.â€
The impeachment trial is the proper forum for prosecuting and defending public officials like Corona who are accused of unlawful activities. And the proceeding is still on going. So what “rule of law†are you talking about?
“The purpose of this impeachment trial instigated by none other than PNoy himself, was to get rid of him… by any means necessary.â€
And you have proven this yourself beyond any reasonable doubt? Right.
Well, has it been proven BEYOND reasonable doubt that the prosecution/ombudsman did not acquire “evidences” in an illegal manner? That all “evidences” presented are valid, authenticated and properly studied? Does she really have the right to go against due process because it “depends on the complaint”? or baka complainant ang gusto nya iparating?
There is double standard in the process at which the information was acquired. That is the main concern here.
@ itchyBB
You got it wrong. I was asking about PNoy who allegedly instigated the impeachment trial. And NOT about the prosecution or ombudsman. So next time you butt in, make sure you understood what the argument is.
I was talking about the subject matter of the article not PNoy. You have 2 topics in one response, I simply commented on the first. Ikaw na magaling. Happy?
@ itchyBB
The topics that Daido Katsumi and I we’re SPECIFICALLY discussing were “rule of law…Corona fanatics†and “impeachment trial instigated by…Pnoy†when you’d “butt inâ€. You were clearly out of the topic. Sorry.