Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Flip Flop Flip-Inquirer versus Trillanes

Dear insansapinas,

In my blog, did I say that, there were two statements made by Trillanes which were  published in GMA network and Inquirer. The first was an accusation that Reyes was the powerful person behind Garcia and the second was exonerating the late General from the allegation.

Was he misquoted? Did he flip flop? 
Because I am going out of my batcave to see my doctor, let me republish this news:
Kunwari na sa batcave din kayo at di kayo inaabot ng news. toinkk

MANILA, Philippines—Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV Monday tried to wriggle out of his previous claim that the late formerDefense Secretary Angelo Reyes was the “powerful” person behind former military comptroller Carlos Garcia, but the Inquirer stood firm 
on the accuracy of its report.

Garcia has been at the center of a political storm after he and state prosecutors late last year entered into a plea bargain under which plunder charges against the former major general would be dropped if he pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of direct bribery and facilitating money laundering.
Garcia has been accused of plundering more than P300 million from state coffers.
On Feb. 2, the Inquirer carried a story in which Trillanes, in an interview with Senate reporters, identified Reyes as the powerful figure behind Garcia.
“I am naming him (Reyes),” Trillanes said in that media interview. That interview was taped. (hala ka)

Trillanes gave that answer when he was asked about a previous television interview in which he said that someone powerful—whom he did not identify then—was fronting for Garcia.
The Inquirer also reported that TV interview and Reyes subsequently put out advertisements in major newspapers challenging the senator to identify the “powerful” person he was referring to.
‘It ain’t Reyes’
After Reyes—who denied involvement in military corruption—committed suicide last week, Trillanes made a turnabout: He said that Reyes was not the “powerful” figure behind Garcia.
The Inquirer bannered Trillanes’ denial under the headline “Trillanes: It ain’t Reyes.”
In an interview on ANC network Monday, Trillanes said the Inquirer “got it wrong.”
Talking with Senate reporters after his ANC interview, Trillanes was categorically asked if he was denying that he had previously said that the former defense secretary and Armed Forces chief of staff was the powerful figure behind Garcia.
Trillanes avoided giving a direct answer, saying: “It will muddle everything again.”
He said that Reyes was “the principal” behind Garcia, and added: “It should be placed in that context.”
Pressed by reporters if he was now saying that “Reyes was not the powerful person” he had mentioned to the media, Trillanes said: “I believe those statements again can be twisted … I didn’t turn around.”
A principal
But Trillanes said he was sticking to his other previous claims that Reyes was “one of the principals” behind Garcia and another ex-military comptroller, Jacinto Ligot.
Like Garcia, Ligot is facing plunder charges.
“Just to clarify everything, I maintain my position that the late General Reyes was one of the principals of General Garcia and General Ligot,” he said Monday.
Trillanes pointed out that Reyes was the AFP chief of staff when Ligot was comptroller and that he was the defense secretary when Garcia was comptroller.
Garcia has forged a plea bargain with prosecutors to evade a P303-million plunder case in the Sandiganbayan. This is the subject of inquiry by the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Trillanes Monday said the Inquirer’s “It ain’t Reyes” headline did not capture his statements on Reyes’ links to either Garcia or Ligot.
“It was qualified in the story, but not in the banner,” he said.
Accurately reported
Trillanes also said that he did not name former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the top official involved in corruption.
“When I was asked if it will reach GMA (Arroyo), I said it’s not far-fetched. It’s not the same as I named her,” he said.
The Inquirer also reported that statement accurately.


No comments: