Wazzup Pilipinas!
"Every celebrated witness in a Senate or House of Representatives “investigative” hearing, when faced with a difficult question to answer, utilizes a ploy often used in the organized crime hearings of the U.S.: “I invoke my right against self-incrimination.”
We heard all about the famous line used by witnesses appearing in the Senate in aid of legislation. Is it in search of the truth or in search of publicity?
If a witness feels the answer to the question (even if a denial) will lead into criminal charges, the right can be invoked.
The only way to change the rules is by constitutional amendment.
Lately there's been a lot of rumor spreading online from misfits bloggers who would always seem to be the controversial talk of the town (or the community if I may say so). What only a few realize is that it was orchestrated to provoke and incite many to actively protest and object against an erring blogger who seems to be attacked by an army of self-righteous peers that didn't even confronted the accused personally.
Many of us are like that. We already judge a person as guilty even before a trial ever took place. Trial by publicity is done easily the same way we make something trending on Twitter. There would be people working overtime to exaggerate an issue.
It is very easy to play on the emotions of our peers by providing them damaging reasons to hate the person. This becomes effective if these army of haters will leave everything good about the situation and focus on emphasizing only the misdeeds.
When people leave out some of the details that will incriminate them in the process, then it would only mean that they have something to hide.
No one will incriminate or put the blame on herself even if you force her to. She would only resort to other ways to get even and hurt the opposite party she considers as an enemy. If all of her online provocation in social media networks or intimidation thru SMS doesn't work, she will threaten you with a law suit and brag about how great her lawyer is. Do you fear? You should pity her.
Transparency should take effect if we are really fighting for a respected community. We should be able to know what really goes on within our area of influence. Hanging out with the same group of people would not work. You need to expose yourself deeper and mingle with the other crowd if you really are in search of an understanding of how each and every mind works.
It is very easy to accuse somebody of ill-mannered traits, what is not very easy is to accept that you are also guilty of making mistakes.
Just ask yourself this:
"When an issue or complaint against blogging peers is raised, do you fan the flames or advise parties to resolve their difference?"
"We will all have our own fair share of failure, mistakes, foul-ups, falling down, trying to get up, start over, among others. In these times, your best friend will only be yourself, including your faith to a higher being, and those who may have helped you directly or those who have decided not to cast judgement on you.
And if we don’t want to be judged when we are at our weakest, we have to be understanding of others especially when they are down.
So when you see attacks on individuals circulated on social media—including disclaimer images alluding to something negative—done by both parties to each other, I hope we can advise them instead to resolve their difference rather than fan the flames further.
Merry Christmas. May all our friends in conflict be at peace with each other soon." - Janette Toral
She invokes her right against self-incrimination. The bad thing about this is that she is doing it with a smile. She doesn't take this seriously. This is serious business. And, we could see that she is asking the answer to the questions to her lawyers even though she knows the answers herself.
ReplyDeleteYeah she is right but taking this business seriously is needed. She as smiling when you said those words. Besides she already lend herself in the hands of the government. For I am a student. I wish to know a lot for this issue and thanks for this article that i had information about PDAF.
ReplyDeleteI really don’t care about Janet Napoles’s scam before but based on the feedbacks of all the people I’m with, it made me interested. We all know that almost half of her answers during the Investigative Hearing is just she wanted to “invoke her right against self-incrimination” which truly reveals and puts herself into worst. What I really hate about her is that she’s too obvious, if you just observe carefully; she can’t speak out and defend herself even in simple questions without her lawyers. She’s so independent. Shame! It seems like everything in the Senate was a joke because she doesn’t meant what she said.
ReplyDeleteYes, everyone has the right to keep quiet. But one thing I noticed is that, she's trying to answer with too much pride. Plus as if she's not even serious. She must know that this is a serious issue in our country and needs to be answered immediately.
ReplyDeleteYes, we have the right to be quiet and not to accuse a person but it's too obvious. And I hate the fact that Janet Napoles kept on denying her cases. PDAF is a serious issue here in our country, but it seems that she doesn't care about it. That's why you can't blame our fellowmen why they hate this corrupt woman.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has the right to keep quiet but I hate how Janet Napoles denied her cases. We all know that almost half of her answers during the Investigative Hearing is just she wanted to “invoke her right against self-incrimination” which truly reveals and puts herself into worst.
ReplyDelete