sdf
I think this is the core block, here:
This isn’t an issue of the prosecutor being “unwilling” to confirm the remaining receipts. The remaining receipts were clearly for personal items, like Wu’s Tiffany ring. The argument that this amount seems relatively low has little relevance; Winona Ryder shoplifted even though the amount involved was pathetically small.
The problem with these other projects is that the presidential office forged the evidence to “prove” these funds actually went towards those projects. It’s not just a matter of forging receipts: they manufactured stories about when/how these funds were delivered for “confidential diplomacy” reasons, all of which have since been proven false.
I think this is probably the truth of what really happened. Money was taken from the slush fund and delivered straight into pockets of CSB’s “friends”, theoretically as compensation for money his “friends” had previously spent on “confidential diplomacy”. And rather than admitting this, CSB lied and manufactured evidence to make it appear as if funds were spent directly on “confidential diplomacy”.
Maybe the all damn thing is as clear as mud. One might try to think why, only after 6 years, there are problems about it. Why, if CSB allways did the same, they didn’t arose 6 years ago? Why, so close to ellections, we have this?
Back to the point I brought up earlier because CSB is unable to deliver any concrete results for the Blues or the Greens.
He’s a lame duck presidents, why should he be given the privilege of the presidency anymore?
Meritocracy mentality sure is cut throat… 
CSB went to be president with a shooting target on his back since day one. But, as a lame duck, he still has more power than the lame duck in Hong Kong.
What kind of useless, self-soothing drivel is that?
I could retort… as powerless as the duck in Hong Kong may be, at least he doesn’t have to live in Portugal. (And at least his approval rating is higher than 20%.)
All that fancy words, and still cannot explain why he lied. :no-no: It’s too funny to see him and his supporters spin this.
[quote=“cctang”]I think this is the core block, here:
This isn’t an issue of the prosecutor being “unwilling” to confirm the remaining receipts. The remaining receipts were clearly for personal items, like Wu’s Tiffany ring. The argument that this amount seems relatively low has little relevance; Winona Ryder shoplifted even though the amount involved was pathetically small.
[/quote]
In 2003 the former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, testified in a French court that a kickback of US$400 million for the purchase of six French frigates was paid to the KMT in 1991. Although Dumas did not mention the name of the recipient of the payoff, he did say that the money was given to the Secretary General of the KMT, who at the time was James Soong. Should we pursue the small change, or billions of illicitly acquired dollars and land assets gained by the KMT? I say that there are bigger fish to fry, and it’s no wonder that many in the KMT are hesitating about pressing the corruption issue too far.
The problem with these other projects is that the presidential office forged the evidence to “prove” these funds actually went towards those projects. It’s not just a matter of forging receipts: they manufactured stories about when/how these funds were delivered for “confidential diplomacy” reasons, all of which have since been proven false.
[/quote]
Supposedly, this kind of accounting has been standard practice in Taiwan since the ROC began. Now the legislature has pushed through accounting fair practice standards, but had CSB not pulled this ace out of his sleeve, those accounting practices would still be legal. The prosecutors have said that it would be a technically legal use of the fund to buy diamond rings for his wife, although they have decided to push the issue anyway.
I think this is probably the truth of what really happened. Money was taken from the slush fund and delivered straight into pockets of CSB’s “friends”, theoretically as compensation for money his “friends” had previously spent on “confidential diplomacy”. And rather than admitting this, CSB lied and manufactured evidence to make it appear as if funds were spent directly on “confidential diplomacy”.[/quote]
Just because you say it’s what you think happened doesn’t mean that if you say it you aren’t guilty of libel if it’s not really the case. Anyway, that’s beside the point. The point is that such practices are commonplace in Taiwan. Mayor Ma himself has donated and hastily returned money more than once this year when it was discovered that he acquired the money (or the dog) in a way that was frowned upon. I admire CSB for taking the fall. The international press has noted that it’s totally plausible that CSB is acting out in this way so that his “hypocrisy” can clean the system of some of it’s flaws.
Are you really saying CSB should get a pass for stealing millions, if there are others out there who’re accused of stealing billions? Does that really pass for logic in your mind? Perhaps we should stop arresting people for assault as long as murderers walk free.
I don’t pretend to get it. But even if I were to adopt your perverted sense of “justice”, I still don’t get your “point” (if one exists). I absolutely think James Soong should be prosecuted. I don’t know why Taiwanese prosecutors have not yet approached Roland Dumas, but they certainly should. Perhaps you should play the part of Chiu Yi, and get your hands on some receipts in order to reveal to the press.
If James Soong is guilty of receiving billions in payoffs in exchange for redirecting military contracts, then he absolutely deserves to be in prison. Unlike you, I’m not holding anyone’s LP.
Yes, it was once legal to withdrawal any amount of funds without invoices.
But can we at least agree that:
- at no point has it been legal to forge invoices;
- at no point has it been legal to manufacture false evidence, and to subsequently lie to prosecutors?
Well, good that this is “besides the point”. Because I was going to explain to you that in many nations, the laws determining libel absolutely does require me to knowingly spread false information.
Now I’m concerned that you’re doing more than CSB’s LP than just holding it.
First off, did Ma forge invoices? Did Ma lie to a prosecutor investigating corruption? If you answer yes to either of those two questions, then I say, kick the guy out of office, and hang the guy. That just seems like common sense.
Second, CSB “took” the fall? When was this, exactly? After the prosecutor announced that charges were being filed against his wife, and that charges would be pending against CSB once his presidential immunity ended? By the same token, let’s celebrate OJ Simpson’s brave choice to “take the fall” in the death of his ex-wife.
That comment just made my day. I can’t believe I went through the entire post thinking you were serious. Borat, is that you?
Well, this is not one of many nations, this is Taiwan. There are criminal libel laws here as well as civil libel laws. It’s widely known that Taiwan’s libel laws are a source of controversy and are in need of reform. “The application of criminal libel, however, continues to be the major blot on Taiwan’s press freedom copybook.” - The International Press Institute
And why??? Is it really the job of the prosecutor’s office to decide which diplomatic missions are okay, and which ones should be paid for by the President and private parties? The prosecutor does not think that the “UN Taiwan Salute” is good enough. The President, in his address to Taiwan, intimated that the prosecutor in this case has revealed some of the state secrets confidentially revealed to him under honor to keep them secret. What if names of spies, diplomatic workers, etc., were revealed in the course of this investigation. According to CSB, the prosecutor has already shown disregard for state secrets. Jerome Keating mentioned that Taiwanese spies and moles in China were killed when Lee Teng Hui revealed their presence in 1996, just ten years ago.
The act of forging a receipt isn’t illegal. The law stands against using that receipt and “fraudulently obtaining money or property under the guise of legal authority.” CSB says that he has not obtained money or property in the course of these events. The receipts were used to get the money for the secret programs, then that money was spent on the secret programs. Where is the embezzlement there?
As CSB said, “this case is not like other ordinary criminal cases. It involves the constitutional framework, diplomatic work, and many confidential matters.” Numerous times in this past year we have heard of lawsuits in the US dropped to protect state secrets. Maybe this case will run it’s course despite the possibility of revealing secrets to the detriment of this nation.
The irregularities on the part of the prosecutor in this case really make one wonder. He has not maintained communications with CSB in the course of the investigation. He has revealed state secrets. He thinks payments to public relations company and mainland pro-democracy activists are ok, but not those for the UN Taiwan Salute, among others. He wants to dig deeper into the secret laundry bag of espionage. When CSB’s wife asked to delay her appointment with the prosecutor by four to five days, he assumed that she had used her right to remain silent and issued an indictment. Will this case really stand up in court? According to how I read CSB, this case only got to court because the prosecutor didn’t give enough opportunities for them to be heard.
I assume you haven’t read the indictment in Chinese? Nor have you read the President’s speech in Chinese? Maybe this is a translation issue here.
There’s two issues here:
-
- did CSB withdraw money from the funds legally,
-
- did CSB pocket this money privately, or did he spend it on the diplomatic missions.
The prosecutor made absolutely no judgment about which diplomatic missions are “good enough”. The problem is with issue #2 above: the prosecutor analyzed the receipts and information delivered by the President, and has found no evidence that any of these funds actually went to those missions. Some of the cash flow could be validated reaching the pockets of “friends” of the administration. On the other hand, there’s no evidence of any kind that CSB didn’t pocket the cash (and/or Tiffany ring) that was purchased with the rest of the cash.
And even that’s a generous explanation. CSB and the others indicted gave the prosecutor a story about where these funds flowed, in order to prove that the funds weren’t pocked. The prosecutor ultimately proved the story was a manufactured lie, and the others indicted have since confessed that they had indeed lied.
And the Tiffany ring purchased with the funds in question were either purchased for his wife, or (new version) his mother-in-law. Which “diplomatic mission” do you think that falls under?
I think this statement should have read And the Tiffany ring whose purchase receipt was used to cover up the state fund expenses and was now called into question, was either purchased for his wife, or (new version) his mother-in-law.
Its clear in the speech both the English and Taiwanese version that the President reiterated that he never took any money from the state fund for personal uses.
Hypothetically though, I think he d also have a good defense against that.
CSB went to great length in his speech to differentiating between confidential and non confidential account; the later requires receipts as the law stands now, while the former has essentially disappeared.
Also the difference between state affairs fund and special purpose funds(personal expense). He lamented that as head of state he comes worse off than village chiefs or Ma Ying jeou the mayor in that he doesnt have a designated private fund for personal expenses.
That the accounting rules as applied by both the accounting and the auditors have created confusion.
Now that this possible line of defense that I am suggesting, hypothetically, has been laid in the speech, I am not suggesting CSB would employ such.
But the prosecution, in order to establish the crime of falsification of receipts, needs to prove that fund has been diverted for personal expenses, and this state of confusion would come in handy as a counter argument. That is, the fund also serves as a personal expense account.
While its now called a state affair fund, the accounting rules are so misleading that people can be excused for thinking it also serves as a personal account. Fact:CSB doesnt have a personal expense account nor a confidential account per se, and someone in the president’s position needs both; Fact:Its true now as was the norm in KMT times, funds required for confidential works exceeded those for non confidential one; FactAround 2002, receipts were required for all withdrawl from the state affairs fund, thus limiting the funds’ utility in terms of confidential purposes. Real receipts would blow the cover on any covert activities. But fact:the accounting and audits people allow for a way out of the predicament, innocuous unrelated receipts are allowed just to balance the book. Thus for accounting purpose, the fund embraced features of a personal ‘special purpose’ fund. Personal though unrelated receipts have been accepted for certain withdrawls. The prosecution in fact accepts this in at least two instances.
Now CSB has reiterated NO FUNDS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AND USED FOR PERSONAL NEEDS. That will remain the thrust of the defense arguments.
But hypothetically isnt it possible to argue that, since the ‘state affairs’ fund is not purely such in accounting’s perspectives, and since the president doesnt have a personal expense account and should have one, isnt it possible that the president and family have been confused by the fact that accounting accept personal receipts for withdrawl, and thus isnt it reasonable for them to assume it also serves as a personal account?
Before CSB was elected president, he had also been Taipei mayor thus shared the benefits of a personal slush fund as the current mayor Ma. His family were used to withdrawing from an expense account. Why shouldnt they have believed its the same kind of fund, especially when the accounting and audits said any receipts would suffice for withdrawl purposes.
Which is not to say CSB admits using the fund for personal gains. He emphasised he did not. Its is however in hypothesis an argument against one of the premises of the prosecution case. If the fund can be and is treated as personal account because of accounting practises, then there couldnt have been falsification because personal use of the fund is allowed. Hypothetically speaking.
I assume you haven’t read the indictment in Chinese? Nor have you read the President’s speech in Chinese? Maybe this is a translation issue here. [/quote]
Since you think that this is a translation issue, then you could probably correct the following portion of the translation of the President’s speech. I think not…
From the text posted on the government websites, what I said is literally what the translation reads. Yet you argue that what I said has enough likelihood that there’s some kind of translation error. As you think the President is hiding something, can’t you find some evidence here in how the English translation differs from the original Chinese and Taiwanese that was said by the President?
Something in June 21st Los Angeles Times drew my eye today.
[quote=“Los Angeles Times - Overzealous prosecutors, cross-examine yourselves, June 21, 2006”]
Hunger for convictions leads many prosecutors to hide evidence that could prove innocence.
Prosecutorial misconduct should not surprise us. Prosecutors are lawyers (intent on victory), politicians (craving popularity) and human beings (needing to rationalize serious errors). The question is what medicine can be prescribed to treat the malignant influences on their behavior. The solution begins with the right kind of public pressure. We must judge prosecutors by much more than how many headlines and convictions they muster. [/quote]
From all appearances the prosecution in this case is trying to get headlines and cutting corners when it comes to upholding the Constitution. Prosecutors get special recognition when they get high profile cases in the public’s eye, not when they obey the letter of the law or show all evidence that is accumulated. It’s a prosecutor’s job, apparently, to get a conviction, if not a conviction then at least a case, and not to let innocence be proven before a case goes before a judge.