How can a witness who admitted taking commissions and willing to return that self-imposed figure of 40 million be accepted as a state witness? a case of a pot calling itself white? if her affidavit were submitted already with the office of the ombudsman, why is there a parallel senate investigation? in aid of 2016 vilification with its chairman giving a premature verdict, isn't the blue ribbon committee acting as judge and trying to influence the decision of the courts? why did the doj allow the whistle-blowers to meet before facing the senate? why the unusual silence of the ombudsman amidst all these?
No comments:
Post a Comment