“theoretical discussants” on television have been repeating the entire two weeks that Janet Lim-Napoles will just invoke her right against self-incrimination in the Senate, and the “task” is how to get around that.
So corny.
sweetie, brush up on practice: Here it is… (free download):
After preliminaries….
Browbeating…
“I don’t know, your Honor…. Uuhmmm…hindi ko ho… masyadong matandaan iyan… (I don’t remember, your Honor)
I don’t seem to…recall, your Honor…
“hindi ko ho alam …” (i don’t know that…)
“wala ho akong matandaan na ganyan…” (i don’t remember anything like that whatsoever whomsoever, eyver and eyver)
Hindi ko ho alam yan… Hindi ko ho alam ang ginawa nila… (i don’t know that… I don’t know what they did…)
hindi ho…. Wala ho….” “I don’t know… I don’t remember… I don’t know to you, este, I don’t know … no sir.. none…. I didn’t know what they were doing…”)
….A teardrop will fall.
A glistening, slow-moving droplet will slide on her erstwhile diamond-peeled skin….
followed by sniffles…
sighs….
suppressed coughing….and…
uncontrollable sobbing….
sobbing… hu-hu-hu….turning to wailing…
And then…there will be difficulty in breathing….
a sharp increase in blood pressure…
rising to 280 over 300…. chest pains,
heaving, fainting spells…
And…..cue music.
Right against self-incrimination? Wal-ley!
Medic!!!! I need a medic here…. Somebody help… Medic!!!!
And off she rides into the sunset….
(there’s a technique for handling the usual i-don’t-recall-i-don’t-remember sort of answer… how to turn it around… but i guess you know how to do that because… your middle name is dazzling-showman-senator…)
I’ve nothing to write about today — What is the difference between the PDAF being struck down as unconstitutional and the DAP being dealt a legal fatal blow?
PDAF is an act of Congress; DAP was
created by the hand of the President.
From where the President sits, a lethal attack on the DAP has more serious legal consequences on the presidency – maybe not political because his people keep reminding us he still has the numbers —
but who is to say what outcomes legal blows may bring.
Therefore, from this point of view, he had to, and has to put up a fight for DAP — from where he sits, he cannot have it undone, having it undone wholesale might weaken the case of Malacañang before the Supreme Court.
It’s almost like…i hate to say this… being indicted in a criminal case or being an accused in a criminal case — legally, your only options are to stay silent — or to fight back (actively present defenses). You cannot do any act that would be construed as admissions that you were wrong — you cannot confess. It’s almost like … i’m sorry i’m going to say this… it’s almost like —ikaw ang nasasakdal. Sorry i had to say that; but this allows an understanding of why he has to do what he is doing.
That’s the difference between the attack on the PDAF and the onslaught on the DAP. DAP is made up of his overt acts.
His “advisers” thought the best form was the unprecedented primetime all- TV -network -broadcast. And since his trust rating was slipping as well, instead of confining themselves to legal arguments, they thought they might as well throw in the “i-am-not-a-thief” theme.
There are however some questions about the logic displayed in the speech itself or the content, in the context of the “scrap-pork” calls.
The call, supported by overwhelming numbers according to the empirical data of the social scientists, is:
