I can’t help thinking about the proceedings in the Senate yesterday in basketball terms.
Sara’s defense is in an indefensible position. We all know, because we all watched, Sara’s insane meltdown for the ages where she said very specifically that she has the option to hire an assassin to kill the President. There is solid evidence, the whole nation as a witness, and as it turns out she even said it again(!) in another occasion, I didn’t even know that, and of course she did, because that’s what vacuous, privileged brats do.
So there is motive, there is capability and there is intent. In other words, the defense was entering the game to lose.
When I used to play there were occasions I had to guard the best player, who regularly scores say 40pts a game. I know he’s going to score 40, he knows he’s going to score 40, every one in the fn crowd is there to watch him score 40, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
So what do you do? You keep his teammates from giving him the ball. If he’s dribbling the ball you put your hand between the floor and the ball to change his pace. You get in his way. When he has the ball you try to make him pass it. You keep him from getting to his favorite spots. You guide him to a spot where he will get double teamed. You cover his eyes with your hand when he shoots a jumpshot. You accidentally step on his foot. You share your opinion about his sexuality.
In other words you do anything and everything to try and stop, delay, confuse, and divert. He’ll still score, but because of your efforts, he’ll just do 30 or less if you’re lucky.
Sara’s defensive team was doing the same thing. I don’t see why they won’t just blindly object to every time the prosecution says anything – there’s no rule against that, right? Just make things up. Objection, vague. Objection, too detailed. Objection, Tagalog. Objection, English. Objection, the sky is blue. It’s literally UNLI objection until Chiz gets annoyed, so push that option all the way, and what’s he gonna do? Stop you from objecting?
The defense is not going to be able to stop that video from playing anyway. When people see that again it has the effect of an atomic bomb. So the strategy to stop, delay, confuse and divert is really the only thing they had.
That’s why I was impressed with the defense yesterday, because while the prosecution could have scored 40 they probably only managed 30 from all the delays and diversions. Plus shouldn’t all that admissible evidence wrangling have been ironed out pre trial? It, and possibly the repeated admission of affidavits took hours and, more importantly for the defense, took some bite off of what would have been explosive evidence.
On another note, I am thrilled to see professionals at work on our TV screens, from both camps but especially with the prosecution. Attorney Ligutan and Narvasa looked the way we want Attorneys to be, professionals who speak specifically and with purpose, who are working their asses off for the best interests of their respective clients. I am confident the law schools will be full of motivated freshmen next year. Previous to this the only exposure people have had with Attorneys were the corrupt kind, or in comedies featuring ‘Attorney no – case’ or ‘Attorney – tumatanggap ng labada pag sabado’.
Also on a final note, the way things are shaping up, this trial won’t be over til mid 2027. Let’s see how either party takes advantage of that.
