MERGED: All About the Corona Impeachment

[masterjanuarius]

---

University of the East (UE) College of Law Dean Amado Valdez told ANC’s “Dateline Philippines" that the prosecution was able to prove its allegation that Corona failed to disclose his true wealth in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN)--with the help of the defense.

He said the presentation of hostile witnesses, including the Ombudsman, by the defense proved counter-productive to Corona's case.

“All the 3 charges were proven by the prosecution with the aid of the evidence from the defense, especially because all the charges are political in nature. It is about the perception of the people, it's not strictly legal,” he said.

Valdez noted that the testimony of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales hurt the defense because she was able to present an official document from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

“She presented an AMLC document, which is an official document. Unless you have proof that the documents are prefabricated, they are presumed to be regular. It produced the dollar accounts where it put him [Corona] in the corner and he had no other alternative but to testify and then deny that he does not have $10 million but only $2.4 million, which he still did not declare in his SALN,” he said.

It is not about proving or not proving the allegations ... but, IS IT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? I do believe that the Senator Judges will be answering this question in their deliberations ...

[masterjanuarius]

...CJ Corona is not fit to be a head of the highest court of the land...The way he answered question,very incompetent and inconsistent...Definitely,he will not follow what Gen. Reyes did.pabaga jud na siya ug nawong.
.

Is your president fit to lead this country?

[æRLO]

The focus shouldnt be on one man. But the focus on THIS case is and should be just one man. Just as a murder case against an accused is a case againt that one accused and not all murderers. Surely the logic that all murderers should confess in order to convict a particular murderer is retarded. No one is disputing that those issues you raise are important but your implication that their resolution is necessary to convict in this case is reaching.... Dont muddle the issue with this crap. You werent crying about it before cj got impeached so you can wait until after this trial to cry about it as well...

boss, where did I say that in any sense that the signing of the 189 waivers is going to help in the conviction of the CJ? I have reiterated time and time again, that it wouldn't play that kind of role in the trial, but that the dare/condition is an unexpected benefit brought about in this trial--the 189 public signing OR not signing the waiver would not make the CJ any less guilty nor any less innocent. Try to cite anywhere in my posts where I made that implication that it would. Only his act of signing and submitting his rights away can affect that verdict, and as what unfolded, he did it irregardless the condition.

[æRLO]

DZRH Now: Malacanang admits that they assisted Conchita Carpio-Morales in preparing for her testimony at the Impeachment Court.

That's a shocker

pero despite this revelation, people will still deny that this is not an well-orchestrated character assassination conducted by the Palace.

[monroy]

boss, where did I say that in any sense that the signing of the 189 waivers is going to help in the conviction of the CJ?

That's why I said implication.. because without you stating it, it's implied in your bringing it up even though it has nothing to do with this trial the sole purpose of which is the CJ's impeachment, not the salvation of this country.

Definition of IMPLICATE

transitive verb
1
: to involve as a consequence, corollary, or natural inference : imply

I have reiterated time and time again, that it wouldn't play that kind of role in the trial, but that the dare/condition is an unexpected benefit brought about in this trial--the 189 public signing OR not signing the waiver would not make the CJ any less guilty nor any less innocent. Try to cite anywhere in my posts where I made that implication that it would. Only his act of signing and submitting his rights away can affect that verdict, and as what unfolded, he did it irregardless the condition.

You're awfully naive if you think the CJ is a hero by demanding this sort of thing during trial. Looks it's quite simple, the CJ is trying to steer the issues away from his wrongdoings by posing a red herring that has nothing to do with his trial and people like you are lapping it up like it's the greatest idea. Hey, don't you think most of us have at one point or another wondered how great it would be if we all knew how much money our pols had in the bank? It's a great idea man, but what makes you think it's ever gonna happen. Just like scrapping the pork barrel. Dream on...

It's nice that he finally signed a waiver, but he could have done that at the start of trial, not at the end of it when he had enough time to mull over an explanation with his lawyers. If you admit that it has no bearing on his innocence or guilt, then it has nothing to do with the trial. Its rightful place is outside the trial, I'm not saying I'm against this idea, I think it would be great to know how much money porky pig or the crazy bitch has in their bank accounts. But bring it up outside of trial where it matters, not in the trial where it's self-serving.

[æRLO]

That's why I said implication.. because without you stating it, it's implied in your bringing it up over and over again like it has jack shit to do with this trial the sole purpose of which is the CJ's impeachment, not the salvation of this country.

Definition of IMPLICATE

transitive verb
1
: to involve as a consequence, corollary, or natural inference : imply





You're awfully naive if you think the CJ is some kind of hero by demanding this sort of thing during trial.

He did something commendable by waving his rights, even though there is no force of law that would compel him to do so. The people who called forth for the waiver should be commended as well for the mere act of calling it forth. But is he a hero? We'll see how far this impact will go and what consequences it will bring. Again let me quote myself...

boss, where did I say that in any sense that the signing of the 189 waivers is going to help in the conviction of the CJ?

that encompasses implicit or explicit form. Where did I say that the condition for the 189 congressmen and senator would alter the verdict in any shape or form. I'm only pointing out that it shouldn't be brushed off so trivially if they are indeed after justice and good governance, as what is the essence of this impeachment. Bisan pa ug naay usa, duha, tulo or tanan anang 189 lawmakers ang dili mu sign or are guilty of the same crimes that are being thrown at the CJ; it won't change the fact if the CJ is indeed found guilty. Again, it is gravely narrow-minded to put off focus other possible crooks just because our attention should be solely on one crook. You get a chance to let evildoers shot themselves in the foot, you take away the gun because there is only one evildoer under scrutiny? That is precisely why there is a gross amount of graft in the country, these crooks think there's just too many of them for justice to catch.

[monroy]

OT: How do you cite an implication? If I wanted to say you said something, I'd say you said something, not implied.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the reason why we have gross amount of graft in this country is because people like you are only too eager to let crooks get away with graft through technicalities rather than uphold the spirit of the law. This is how corruption fighting tools like the SALN are allowed to be defeated by hiding behind the shield of another law like the FCDA as if to suggest that the framers of the FCDA or Bank Secrecy Act had in mind the purpose to neutralize the SALN as a tool to fight corruption. That makes no sense of course, but this is the kind of nut job interpretation of our laws that the CJ would have you swallow. Talk about being excessively literal rather than purposive... Philippine justice is a rule by technicalities, not a rule of law hence its reputation as being broken and inefficient. We've an unhealthy obsession with the letter rather than the spirit of the law that leads to injustice.

[æRLO]

OT: How do you cite an implication? If I wanted to say you said something, I'd say you said something, not implied.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the reason why we have gross amount of graft in this country is because people like you are only too eager to let crooks get away with graft through technicalities rather than uphold the spirit of the law. This is how corruption fighting tools like the SALN are allowed to be defeated by hiding behind the shield of another law like the FDCA as if to suggest that the framers of the FDCA had in mind the purpose to neutralize the SALN as a tool to fight corruption. That makes no sense of course, but this is the kind of nut job interpretation of our laws that the CJ would have you swallow. Talk about being excessively literal rather than purposive... Philippine justice is a rule by technicalities, not a rule of law hence its reputation as being broken and inefficient.

okay... mao rajud diay ang sturya, you are so certain of the CJ's guilt that bahala natong uban basta madakpan na si CJ. Heck, personally, i don't care kung guilty ang CJ or not, as long as justice is served. What concerns me is the aftermath, where do they go from here. That waiver could be the way to get the ball rolling the right direction. I can follow the train of thought sa depensa sa CJ, it doesn't necessarily mean I believe it. What it comes out if the prosecution/testimonies threw enough out there to make a certainty that he is guilty OR if enough doubt has been cast against the CJ, it depends on what is the threshold of evidence needed to convict or acquit among the senator-judges.

[monroy]

^ No that's not what I'm saying at all. That's why I said if you wanna do that, bring it up outside of impeachment. For the CJ to bring it up during impeachment was self-serving, and to see his fans lap it up like its the second coming to me is laughable. Hey if you wanna believe the CJ really cares about corruption and not saving his own ass by muddling the issues then that's your call.

And come on, be realistic. The senator-judges aren't going to convict or acquit on the basis of evidence but on the basis of their political careers. You giving those jacktards too much credit...

[wak_wak]

OT: How do you cite an implication? If I wanted to say you said something, I'd say you said something, not implied.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the reason why we have gross amount of graft in this country is because people like you are only too eager to let crooks get away with graft through technicalities rather than uphold the spirit of the law. This is how corruption fighting tools like the SALN are allowed to be defeated by hiding behind the shield of another law like the FCDA as if to suggest that the framers of the FCDA or Bank Secrecy Act had in mind the purpose to neutralize the SALN as a tool to fight corruption. That makes no sense of course, but this is the kind of nut job interpretation of our laws that the CJ would have you swallow. Talk about being excessively literal rather than purposive... Philippine justice is a rule by technicalities, not a rule of law hence its reputation as being broken and inefficient. We've an unhealthy obsession with the letter rather than the spirit of the law that leads to injustice.

well said bai.. sakto jud ni..