Monday, June 30, 2014

Weak government case against plunderers

Of course, the three senators will say these cases are "trumped up" and "politically motivated". What is certain about this scandal is the fact that it did happen. Funds went missing, misdirected and the intended beneficiaries did not get any single goods or services that the papers say they did.

So it happened. The question before us is--how did it happen? The facts are already clear.

Napoles and politician make a deal. They will make a project. Project has costs, they determine cost. Politician make request. Governmment gets the requests and process it. Government allocates budget. Budget allocation named Napoles' NGO. Budget department processes funds request or SARO. SARO is given to NGO. NGO gets monies from treasury. NGO then splits the money two ways--NGO commission and the politician.

The modus has already been exposed. The only question is--do we have enough evidence to link the politico and the operator together? Since this is a conspiracy, there must be something to jell them all together. Yes, says the whistleblower, no says Napoles.

The interest of Napoles, according to her lawyers, is self-preservation. Does the government need her testimony? Yes, because it proves direct participation. Does the government need to establish positive and direct participation in the crime of conspiracy to commit plunder?