The ZTE-NBN Deal: What now?

[gwapo_gyud]

---

I think it's true, daghan naman na siya isyo b4
grabeha sad ana ni Abalos! dako man kaayo pangayo kick-back
pang retirement naman siguro na niya

[vipvip68]

JDV was quoted and admitted that it was just a CHANCE encounter with the FG in Wakwak.

Read this and figure it out.....

Article 1: "Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos on Tuesday denied claims that he had an emotionally charged meeting with businessman Jose "Joey" de Venecia III and First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo last March while the government was forging the controversy-ridden national broadband deal."

Link: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/61002/Ab...JDV-son-Mike-A

Article 2: "First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo has confirmed that he met with Jose “Joey” de Venecia III at a golf clubhouse, but said it was “a purely chance encounter” that did not include his ordering the businessman to “back off” from the National Broadband Network (NBN) deal."

Link: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakin...ticle_id=89631

So which is which ba gyud? Ingon si Abalos on tuesday 9/18/2007 that the meeting sa Wakwak DID NOT take place. Fast forward to thursday 9/20/2007. We have the First Gentleman saying that He DID meet with JDV III but it was just a "chance encounter"....

Take note here that nag meet ang administration congressmen on Wednesday night....maybe to get their stories staight? hehe

Even a grade 1 student can tell that one of them is lying...

[diem]

[color=navy]A good lawyer would argue that though Abalos denied claims that an emotionally-charged meeting occurred between JDVIII and FG BUT Abalos did not deny that a chance encounter could have occurred between the two at WakWak.

Emotionally charged meetings and chance encounters are different as fruits and vegetables. Yeah that's what a good lawyer would say.

That's why I feel testimonies from witnesses, even from credible ones, can be risky~ because their truths can be twisted to generate doubt and indecision.

You have the finance secretary stating under oath that there was indeed a meeting.... would that not be of value or would you still need audio / video recordings?

[color=navy]Of course the finance secretary's statements taken under oath has value but its value can be refuted/contradicted by other credible witnesses statements taken under oath, during cross-examination and in the presence of irrefutable evidence such as a audiovisual recording.

And time and time again, we know that people can lie even under oath, disregarding the legal consequences for other gains and promises. And sometimes, being placed under oath and being interrogated by a committee can be a goad-- a sort of pressure forcing the witness to say what is wanted to be heard.

That's what I believe is the limit when it comes to witness testimonies; the human factors that can be subject to error.

[chipper_buy]

I agree with you diem testimonies of witnesses can be twisted in so many ways that not only it can confuse a decision, it can also create doubt to the person who claims his/her story is credible.

Anything that goes in and out of the witness mouth will be subject for a decision to be made. Basically, testimonies should not be taken lightly because it can be a turning point in every case.

[athlon XP-M]

ZTE deal suspended

http://services.inquirer.net/express...90069-xml.html


This topic is close...

[vipvip68]

@ athlon XP-M


please do explain why you tried to have this topic closed based on the ZTE deal being suspended....

The topic is on the mystery man being Big Mike. Whether the deal is suspended or not is irrelevant as his supposed involvement is in question... not on whether the deal with ZTE will go through or not.


I hope this topic is KEPT OPEN so that other people may express their opinion on this matter as more information is revealed to us. This is a developing story... give the people the opportunity to present their sides....

[vipvip68]

I agree with you diem testimonies of witnesses can be twisted in so many ways that not only it can confuse a decision, it can also create doubt to the person who claims his/her story is credible.

Anything that goes in and out of the witness mouth will be subject for a decision to be made. Basically, testimonies should not be taken lightly because it can be a turning point in every case.

I agree with you also... but you have to remember that it can work both ways. So you also have to be critical about what the First Gentleman, Abalos, Mendoza and the rest of the government side are claiming.

If you believe there has been a spin on a particular testimony (such as on the side of JDV III) please do present your side as I have already expressed my opinion on the spin government is making on the issue.


In other words... be specific.... what reason do you have that suggests JDV III is lying and what reason do you have suggests that the government is actually telling the truth.... and vice versa.

[vipvip68]

[color=navy]A good lawyer would argue that though Abalos denied claims that an emotionally-charged meeting occurred between JDVIII and FG BUT Abalos did not deny that a chance encounter could have occurred between the two at WakWak.

So Abalos now claims he did not have an emotionally charged meeting... but a chance encounter?


Whether it be an emotionally charged meeting or a chance encounter... it is still a meeting... So you are categorically admitting that Abalos DID meet with JDV III.

Read the article again... you notice the title is "Abalos denies March meeting with JDV son, Mike A." It doesn't differentiate between a "chance" meeting and an "emotionally charged" meeting....

So... did Abalos meet with JDV III.... Abalos said he did not.... yet your lawyer is claiming that he did....

[vipvip68]

Cracks are beginning to surface in the testimonies of DOTC Secretary Mendoza and Finance Secretary Teves.


In last thursday's senate probe Sec. Mendoza insisted that Abalos never talked to him about the NBN deal.

However, just before the hearing finished, Sec. Teves said Abalos had arranged and attended a meeting with ZTE officials at the Teves residence.

Also, Teves earlier this year had said that Mendoza had called him to a meeting with ZTE officials at the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, a meeting where Abalos was also present.


Who is lying here? Secretary Mendoza or Secretary Teves? They cannot both be correct... they cannot both be wrong as their statements contradict each other...

[dtex]

Makes me wonder why the younger De Venecia just blew the whole thing now. He could have asked Pres. GMA to call off the deal before she went to China to sign it up. I doubt if this guy is telling the truth or probably just sourgraping for losing the deal.

ok kalang wla naman gani nag kadimao ang mga explanations sa cabinet officials nilA? ARE YOU THAT BLIND OR JUST A PAID HACK