PM Yingluck admits tough rice testimony ahead

[binjalin]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

[tingtongteesood]

Not enough time for the case, but more than enough time to visit the aqarium with her old mate Banharn. I call bullshit !

[binjalin]

Not enough time for the case, but more than enough time to visit the aqarium with her old mate Banharn. I call bullshit !

living up to your signature as usual

PS learn to spell aquarium?

[tingtongteesood]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

And you take everything the criminal caretakers say at face value without even questioning it ? Says a lot about you doesn't it. I could explain all the falsehoods here to you but you are a lost cause so I won't waste my time.

go read something that is not red biased and educate yourself about the truth and try not to look so 'brainwashed' jeeze...

[binjalin]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

And you take everything the criminal caretakers say at face value without even questioning it ? Says a lot about you doesn't it. I could explain all the falsehoods here to you but you are a lost cause so I won't waste my time.

go read something that is not red biased and educate yourself about the truth and try not to look so 'brainwashed' jeeze...

great maybe you could go through point-by-point and give me the benefit of your obvious "education" and wisdom? start anytime you like

[rubl]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

ad.1 please provide detailed information to show that the two cases can be compared. You may bring as many witnesses as you like.

ad.2. You suggest that a swift prosecution will follow. That would be based on all evidence gathered plus the testimony of Ms. Yingluck. Of course you might have meant a swift 'charging' rather than prosecution.

ad.3. The NACC documents that the mismanaged rice price pledging scheme which seems to be plagued by 'mislaid' moneys has been neglected by Ms. Yingluck. That's why they invited her on charges of 'negligence'.

ad.4. The NACC invited Ms. Yingluck who sent her legal team to handle all. She might consider sacking them and hire a new team which could start with asking for delay because of change in legal representation.

ad.5. Yes.

ad.6. Ms. Yingluck has been asking (by her legal team) for more time from the very start, while even in the last censure debate she said she was listening to warnings from a.o. the NACC. It would seem Ms. Yingluck or her legal team doesn't seem to take this case serious even. Maybe that fits with the negligence charge?

PS. I changed your text, from all bold to all normal. The boldness is already in your statements

[tingtongteesood]

Not enough time for the case, but more than enough time to visit the aqarium with her old mate Banharn. I call bullshit !

living up to your signature as usual

PS learn to spell aquarium?

Duh, yeah, I know how to spell thanks. So I miskeyed and didn't proof read, excuse me mr. spelling nazi. Is that a crime punishable by red 'democracy' ? You are clearly the crazy one here, not I, but keep trying with the poor attempts at insults if they make you happy....

[Fat Haggis]

If the NACC find sufficient evidence to recommend charges of Negligence against her, I'm presuming this then goes before another court/Senate? Will this court then expedite this case within days, or will they go through their current crop of cases, till such times as hers comes along?

Obviously the NACC want to hear from all these witnesses before Songkran, which is in 10 days, they will then have to go through all the evidence presented, and draw conclusions, and then make a decision based on said evidence? Again, this isn't going to be instantaneous, unless as some may claim, they already know the outcome, once they've made their decision, I would presume again it goes to the courts/senate, and they then convene a meeting, and decide when to impeach Yingluck for negligence, based on the evidence, wouldn't all of this from the last day of the NACC witness testimonial take time, possibly several weeks?

Would it be reasonable to then say that there's every likelihood she will remain as caretaker PM till at least the end of April? And even then, if she's impeached and no elections have been held, then appoints the new caretaker PM ?

[dinooz]

If the NACC find sufficient evidence to recommend charges of Negligence against her, I'm presuming this then goes before another court/Senate? Will this court then expedite this case within days, or will they go through their current crop of cases, till such times as hers comes along?

Obviously the NACC want to hear from all these witnesses before Songkran, which is in 10 days, they will then have to go through all the evidence presented, and draw conclusions, and then make a decision based on said evidence? Again, this isn't going to be instantaneous, unless as some may claim, they already know the outcome, once they've made their decision, I would presume again it goes to the courts/senate, and they then convene a meeting, and decide when to impeach Yingluck for negligence, based on the evidence, wouldn't all of this from the last day of the NACC witness testimonial take time, possibly several weeks?

Would it be reasonable to then say that there's every likelihood she will remain as caretaker PM till at least the end of April? And even then, if she's impeached and no elections have been held, then appoints the new caretaker PM ?

I think with an impeachment there is no court involved,if she can provide minutes and memos that she was on top of it and ordered her subordinates to investigate the corruption allegations bought up in the censure debate and bought up all the other warnings from other departments and did something about it then she will be ok,unfortunatley she didn't attend one meeting.If she can prove that she knew nothing about the GtG deals that have been proven false dunno how she can do that I am sure the PTP will be able to find a fall guy for her.

If they have good solid evidence against her,both the NACC evidence and her evidence is forwarded to the Senate to vote guilty or not.Once the NACC has decided to impeach her she has to stand down until the Senate decide.Not sure about the appointing a new Pm as the Pm has to be a MP and as she dissolved parliament there isn't any MP,S

your guess is as good as mine as what will happen but I feel the transfer case will get her before the impeachment does

As far as the court goes if corruption is found and she is found guilty of negligence and implicated in turning a blind eye I guess she may well be facing jailtime.

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

Non of what you quote is anything to do with either injustice or defence. She is facing charges of corruption on a hitherto unprecedented scale. JUSTICE means she faces those charges and answers them in HER defence. It is NOT a defence to say "but you haven't tried Abhisit yet'. If you get drunk tomorrow , take your car out and kill a policeman then when you get jailed for 15 years you cannot say "it's not fair because they haven't tried the son of redbull yet". You would be getting 15 years for killing someone whilst drunk driving, a fair and just punishment wouldn't you agree regardless of when the Ferrari driving little sh*t is tried.

Yingluck is facing charges for the disappearance of 400 Billion baht and whether Abhisit has been tried or not, does not justify, nor must it permit, 400 Billion baht to go unaccounted for from the public purse, nor should it delay for one moment Yingluck having to account for where this money is. I cannot understand why you cannot see that, whether you support her or not. Her charge is NOTHING to do with Abhisit, it is to do with 400 Billion Baht going missing on her watch. You spout the stuff that is used to brainwash people on red radio all day long. Stop doing it here.

[northernjohn]

again we see the indefensible trying to bluff their way oput of it. How can you defend not even doing the job you appointed yourself to do, yl made herself head of the rice scam yet never once sat in on any meetings or even attempted to guide them, instead she let them scam the thai people and steal their money, billions and billions of baht. The she and the ptp have the audacity to claim they are innocent and knew nothing about it while trying to stall all proceedings against her. As the head of the sheme the buck stops with her, there is no excuse, if any fraud was commited she should have known about it and stopped it, simply being too stupid to control what happened plus going on shopping trips instead of sitting in on meetings or reading the minutes is no excuse.

Stating that there are no true records of what actually happened with the rice or the money is who's fault, they have been asked for a very long time to produce accurate records but keep refusing to and now that its come back to bite them on the bum they are trying to use not being able to have them defence, the mind boggles at their ineptness.....

Interesting that you should mention going on road trips.

She was the Prime Minister not the Minister of Commerce.

She wants him to be a witness.

Does she expect him to say he was incompetent and she had to do the job for her. there by not be available to fulfill her duties as the Chair person of the committee and to power hungry to turn the job over to some one who was capable and had the time.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s legal team, meanwhile, questioned the motive of the NACC, pointing out its determination to put the Prime Minister on trial based on incomplete evidence

If that is the truth what are they fighting for they have a slam dunk.

Spend less time trying to get an innocent verdict from the public and more time proving your claims and no problem.

Just more of the PTP arrogance. Plus ignorance. One would think they had learned their lesson when the grass roots people rose up against their in your face attempt at exonerating her brother. But no they still try to do an in your face f___ you this is what we want and you don't count.

They are incapable of learning from their mistakes. Their answer is to have the militant party they control threaten and intimidate people who do not agree with them.

I am sure even though I have no proof of it that there is some competent PTP members who would love to do the honest thing yet are not allowed to by the PTP and if they were to join another party there constituents would not elect them because they have been so brain washed and intimidated by the Thaksin menagerie that they would vote PTP. They are not interested in a good man working for them. They are more interested in a bad man who has to live in either another country or jail and has nothing good to offer them that will not in the end cost them more.

You want evidence ask the rice farmers.

Ask the people who were promised a tax break on a new car to help clog the highways.

[northernjohn]

its a farce, not being allowed to have witnesses to testify on your behalf, due process not allowed when reviewing evidence, case taking precedence and jumping the q.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.http://www.trans-lex.org/966000

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

Impartiality is a principle of justice and the NACC has the burden of proof and must adhere to due process. That means they must; give adequate time to the defence, consider all evidence, consider all cases in a timely and impartial manner, etc. The manner in which the NACC are conducting this investigation and hearing is highly suspicious, especially given the lenience and lack of haste applied to others. They are laying themselves bare to criticism which will severely undermine their foregone verdict. This has happened before with several cases against Thaksin and or his parties leading to division & hatred.

Lorem ipsum notwithstanding her best defence and the one that she will almost certainly rely on is diminished responsibility through having an abnormally low IQ. Fact is, there is no evidence(even anectodal) that she even realizes or appreciates that she is technically a prime minister of a sovereign nation.

Sadly, the 450 billion baht that has been trousered by the red elite is too big a sum to be ignored. That it has bankrupt Thailand makes the charges more pertinent. That the real decision maker and controller of this red government boasted that he was given more than 30 billion baht( I see you recently learned of this theft in another thread) since Yingluck was the puppet PM is even more damning.

Having said that I will agree with you that she is a barry looking chick.

You will have to use smaller words than those to get through to him.

Down deep he knows she is guilty as sin. Thus he tries tio drag in all other kinds of nonsdence. If she is innocent the NACC will have no proof and there will be no charges made. They have proof that she is not innocent thus the charges were laid and she was givwen an extension of time to prepare her defense. I believe she spent a fair share of that time in the North. Really short of time no time to politic and defend her self.

Her useless lawyers are trying to fight the case in the public with the low intelligence people. Also the ones who do all their thinking with their lower head.

If the case remotely came close to rich teachers claims there would have been no charges. In short he has no idea of what is going on. That is being kind to him.

[Fat Haggis]

If the NACC find sufficient evidence to recommend charges of Negligence against her, I'm presuming this then goes before another court/Senate? Will this court then expedite this case within days, or will they go through their current crop of cases, till such times as hers comes along?

Obviously the NACC want to hear from all these witnesses before Songkran, which is in 10 days, they will then have to go through all the evidence presented, and draw conclusions, and then make a decision based on said evidence? Again, this isn't going to be instantaneous, unless as some may claim, they already know the outcome, once they've made their decision, I would presume again it goes to the courts/senate, and they then convene a meeting, and decide when to impeach Yingluck for negligence, based on the evidence, wouldn't all of this from the last day of the NACC witness testimonial take time, possibly several weeks?

Would it be reasonable to then say that there's every likelihood she will remain as caretaker PM till at least the end of April? And even then, if she's impeached and no elections have been held, then appoints the new caretaker PM ?

I think with an impeachment there is no court involved,if she can provide minutes and memos that she was on top of it and ordered her subordinates to investigate the corruption allegations bought up in the censure debate and bought up all the other warnings from other departments and did something about it then she will be ok,unfortunatley she didn't attend one meeting.If she can prove that she knew nothing about the GtG deals that have been proven false dunno how she can do that I am sure the PTP will be able to find a fall guy for her.

If they have good solid evidence against her,both the NACC evidence and her evidence is forwarded to the Senate to vote guilty or not.Once the NACC has decided to impeach her she has to stand down until the Senate decide.Not sure about the appointing a new Pm as the Pm has to be a MP and as she dissolved parliament there isn't any MP,S

your guess is as good as mine as what will happen but I feel the transfer case will get her before the impeachment does

As far as the court goes if corruption is found and she is found guilty of negligence and implicated in turning a blind eye I guess she may well be facing jailtime.

Thanks for the info, just a couple of further questions, with regards to the NACC, I thought they were Investigative only and that any form of impeachment would have to come from the Senate themselves based on the NACC reccomendations?

I would not be surprised if she's found Not guilty, as if Thaksin is as powerful as it's claimed, then paying someone off to "accept the blame" would be all to easy, and all she needs to state that she delegated X, Y or Z in her absence? Step up Mr. X and say yes, I was responsible, but chose to keep the PM out of the loop, he does a few years in Prison, and comes out with a bank balance that could buy a small Caribbean Island.

[Dogmatix]

If the NACC find sufficient evidence to recommend charges of Negligence against her, I'm presuming this then goes before another court/Senate? Will this court then expedite this case within days, or will they go through their current crop of cases, till such times as hers comes along?

Obviously the NACC want to hear from all these witnesses before Songkran, which is in 10 days, they will then have to go through all the evidence presented, and draw conclusions, and then make a decision based on said evidence? Again, this isn't going to be instantaneous, unless as some may claim, they already know the outcome, once they've made their decision, I would presume again it goes to the courts/senate, and they then convene a meeting, and decide when to impeach Yingluck for negligence, based on the evidence, wouldn't all of this from the last day of the NACC witness testimonial take time, possibly several weeks?

Would it be reasonable to then say that there's every likelihood she will remain as caretaker PM till at least the end of April? And even then, if she's impeached and no elections have been held, then appoints the new caretaker PM ?

I think with an impeachment there is no court involved,if she can provide minutes and memos that she was on top of it and ordered her subordinates to investigate the corruption allegations bought up in the censure debate and bought up all the other warnings from other departments and did something about it then she will be ok,unfortunatley she didn't attend one meeting.If she can prove that she knew nothing about the GtG deals that have been proven false dunno how she can do that I am sure the PTP will be able to find a fall guy for her.

If they have good solid evidence against her,both the NACC evidence and her evidence is forwarded to the Senate to vote guilty or not.Once the NACC has decided to impeach her she has to stand down until the Senate decide.Not sure about the appointing a new Pm as the Pm has to be a MP and as she dissolved parliament there isn't any MP,S

your guess is as good as mine as what will happen but I feel the transfer case will get her before the impeachment does

As far as the court goes if corruption is found and she is found guilty of negligence and implicated in turning a blind eye I guess she may well be facing jailtime.

Thanks for the info, just a couple of further questions, with regards to the NACC, I thought they were Investigative only and that any form of impeachment would have to come from the Senate themselves based on the NACC reccomendations?

I would not be surprised if she's found Not guilty, as if Thaksin is as powerful as it's claimed, then paying someone off to "accept the blame" would be all to easy, and all she needs to state that she delegated X, Y or Z in her absence? Step up Mr. X and say yes, I was responsible, but chose to keep the PM out of the loop, he does a few years in Prison, and comes out with a bank balance that could buy a small Caribbean Island.

Thaksin doesn't pay people cash to do stuff like that. He promises them a government job where they can rip off the taxpayer. So you would have to be confident he would still be in power behind the scenes when you got out, or you would get nothing.

[northernjohn]

 
PM admits tough rice testimony 
ahead

If it was all above board it would be easy to defend because there would be no evidence against her. How ever there is enough that she figures a month and a half is not enough time to change the records.

On the other hand even if she was completely innocent of any knowledge of wrong doing she would still be guilty of incompetency sitting as the chair person and not having a clue as to what was happening. It is a lose lose situation for her.

Fortunately for her legal doe's not recognize justice, fairness or reality. It only recognizes what is on a piece of paper makes no difference if the paper is right or wrong.

She is guilty as sin and will probably get a way with it.

[Thai at Heart]

Not that I care one bit, but how can the enquiry decline testimony from a desired witness. Have they given a reason because it could be that the statements ate irrelevant, but refusing to hear them does seem a little absurd.

[GAZZPA]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

Did your key get stuck when pressing the question mark?

I have not read any of this to be truthful but it shouldn't matter. If the NACC feel the need to investigate the allegations then they should be able to do it. It may or may not be true that they did not deal with issues correctly in the past, I don't know. But if it is true that they didn't then is a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

Sooner or later people have to let things take their course and forget about any past issues. Yingluck can afford the very best lawyers so she will have her defense in place I am sure.

In summary my point is the NACC do not need to justify their actions whilst investigating allegations of fraud, it is their sole purpose, and questioning their motivation is irrelevant because they would simply say "we are doing our job".

[wolfmanjack]

its a farce, not being allowed to have witnesses to testify on your behalf, due process not allowed when reviewing evidence, case taking precedence and jumping the q.

Ok. lets pretend like you are the district attorney with several prosecutors and police investigators under your command.

Every morning you have a meeting and ask the progress of the cases being investigated.

Say there are 10 cases where #1 is the oldest and #10 is the newest case.

The investigators and prosecutors report that #1 - 9 have some evidence but probably not enough to convict. However case #10 have plenty of evidence and a conviction is almost guaranteed.

Now you have to choose which case to take to court.

Are you going to go with case #1 which you will most likely get thrown out for lack of evidence or are you going to go with case #10 which your prosecutors are confident to win?

By your statement i would have to guess that you would say even though we have enough evidence to convict on case #10 we are not going to take it to trial until after we have already tried cases #1-9 even though you may never get enough evidence on those cases to go to trial.

Anyone looking at that scenario would have your job for not prosecuting the one case you have enough evidence to prosecute.

In other words there is no que when it comes to prosecuting cases. you prosecute ones you have the evidence to win and continue to gather evidence on those you can't.

[GentlemanJim]

Not that I care one bit, but how can the enquiry decline testimony from a desired witness. Have they given a reason because it could be that the statements ate irrelevant, but refusing to hear them does seem a little absurd.

Time?

This is not an criminal enquiry or to put her in jail, this is simply to see if she should go through the judicial process, at which time, if she has to, she can have 100 witnesses if she wants. The problem then of course, is that each witness can be cross examined, something the defence really dos not like when they know their client is on thin ice. I bet you if she goes to court there is not 11 witnesses. They are requesting it now to save time. The named witnesses she has at the moment would keep on being 'unable to make it' due to pressures of work. It would take two years to get through 11.

[lovetotravel]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

Abhisit's case is completely different from Yingluck's. And the previous rice pledging program is not like the current one. The PTP brought up the charges against Abhisit the last year or so. Political? Probably:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Abhisit-rice-scheme-probed-30208034.html

Abhisit was not the chair for the program. Yingluck is. Her charges are completely different. And they have been investigating this for much longer than 21 days. She has been warned about this program for years by many, many different organizations. Most of which are independent. Including the UN.

[slapout]

lovetotravel; no sense in pointing out the facts to some people. This is one of the reasons why the list of witnesses proposed by the PM was whittled down. Its a shame that pheu thai and its supporters were never exposed to sgt, Friday on the old Dragnet program. (Just the facts lady, just the facts)

[binjalin]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

Did your key get stuck when pressing the question mark?

I have not read any of this to be truthful but it shouldn't matter. If the NACC feel the need to investigate the allegations then they should be able to do it. It may or may not be true that they did not deal with issues correctly in the past, I don't know. But if it is true that they didn't then is a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

Sooner or later people have to let things take their course and forget about any past issues. Yingluck can afford the very best lawyers so she will have her defense in place I am sure.

In summary my point is the NACC do not need to justify their actions whilst investigating allegations of fraud, it is their sole purpose, and questioning their motivation is irrelevant because they would simply say "we are doing our job".

what allegation of fraud? provide link please

it's set-up - not even allowed to call witnesses she wants

whatever side you are sympathetic too this WREAKS of unfairness and 'politics' don't you understand there will be NO PEACE in Thailand whilst the Thai people look on at all of this hypocrisy and injustice? ordinary Thais are talking about this 'set-up' and even though they may get away with it short-term the Thais are not stupid (as the yellows would have you believe)

PS this was a direct lift from the document so not 'my' question marks

[binjalin]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

Did your key get stuck when pressing the question mark?

I have not read any of this to be truthful but it shouldn't matter. If the NACC feel the need to investigate the allegations then they should be able to do it. It may or may not be true that they did not deal with issues correctly in the past, I don't know. But if it is true that they didn't then is a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

Sooner or later people have to let things take their course and forget about any past issues. Yingluck can afford the very best lawyers so she will have her defense in place I am sure.

In summary my point is the NACC do not need to justify their actions whilst investigating allegations of fraud, it is their sole purpose, and questioning their motivation is irrelevant because they would simply say "we are doing our job".

Sooner or later people have to let things take their course and forget about any past issues

glad you think Thaksin's 'issues' should be forgotten as part of the past - refreshing because you would not advocate double standards right?

[mikemac]

That's lovely, except the NACC is not a court and they are doing is collecting the evidence to either dismiss the allegations against Yingluck or push the case to the actual courts.

Besides that the burden of proof lies with the government, they work for the people and their secrecy on the rice scheme was keeping information away from those they work for.

The government has a duty to be transparent and accountable on their use of public funds, that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so shows that they want to hide the facts, and why would they want to hide the facts if there's nothing wrong with the scheme?

Exactly. Why would they want to hide anything they have done (or in Yingluck's case, not done as well) if there is nothing wrong with their evil baby, the rice scheme ? Unless................................................................................................

[Dogmatix]

If she was charged with corruption, proof would be evidence that she knew that money was changing hands, and that she possibly profited from it. Negligence requires proof that she did not perform her duties in a responsible manner. The very fact that billions of baht are missing and she knows nothing about it, that millions of farmers haven't been paid, despite many promises, that they can't sell the rice, is ample proof of negligence. No witnesses required, guilty as charged.

Very right. The NACC just need to prove that, in spite of repeated warnings from various parties over two years, she did nothing to even investigate the fate of state funds and assets that are unaccounted for and the sale of state assets for substantial losses, let alone try to prevent the thefts and losses from continuing. They don't need to show she was involved in the corruption herself or produce evidence of who was. Just showing the losses and the holes left by missing stocks is enough.

Quite apart from the impeachment process she will have her day in court, the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders, if she decides to stick around in Thailand, and she will be able to produce whatever witnesses and evidence she likes for the court's consideration.

Here is the section of the Penal Code Poo will be tried under, if the NACC decides to proceed with the case. If they proceed with the impeachment process, they are obliged also to initiate criminal proceedings at the same time.

Section 157 Whoever, being an official, wrongfully exercises or does not exercise any of his functions to the injury of any person, or dishonestly exercises or omits to exercise any of his functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years or fined of two thousand to twenty thousand Baht, or both.

Needless to say the prospect of a 20,000 baht fine might not be too worrying but spending up to 10 years' in jail would be significantly more of an inconvenience for poor Poo. Given the TDRI's latest estimates of 400 billion baht stolen from the fund, Poo's negligence might be regarded by the court as far more serious than Thaksin's peccadillo in his wife's cheating over the Ratchadapisek land scandal. If found guilty, Poo is likely to get more than the two years her clone got for that.

[Dogmatix]

That's lovely, except the NACC is not a court and they are doing is collecting the evidence to either dismiss the allegations against Yingluck or push the case to the actual courts.

Besides that the burden of proof lies with the government, they work for the people and their secrecy on the rice scheme was keeping information away from those they work for.

The government has a duty to be transparent and accountable on their use of public funds, that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so shows that they want to hide the facts, and why would they want to hide the facts if there's nothing wrong with the scheme?

Exactly. Why would they want to hide anything they have done (or in Yingluck's case, not done as well) if there is nothing wrong with their evil baby, the rice scheme ? Unless................................................................................................

They must be particularly scared of the prospect of an unelected interim Commerce Minister having a good look through the records of the rice pledging.

[Dogmatix]

Not that I care one bit, but how can the enquiry decline testimony from a desired witness. Have they given a reason because it could be that the statements ate irrelevant, but refusing to hear them does seem a little absurd.

The witnesses they declined to hear, include Chalerm and the head of the Thai accounting federation. All irrelevant because they had nothing directly to do with the rice pledging. They accepted the finance minister, the former commerce minister and the deputy commerce minister because they were involved with the rice pledging. Seems quite fair in the face of a legal challenge that is obviously design to stall and derail their case, rather than provide relevant testimony.

Her lawyers can call Chalerm and the others to testify in court later on, if they really think they can help.

[Valentine]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

Did your key get stuck when pressing the question mark?

I have not read any of this to be truthful but it shouldn't matter. If the NACC feel the need to investigate the allegations then they should be able to do it. It may or may not be true that they did not deal with issues correctly in the past, I don't know. But if it is true that they didn't then is a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

Sooner or later people have to let things take their course and forget about any past issues. Yingluck can afford the very best lawyers so she will have her defense in place I am sure.

In summary my point is the NACC do not need to justify their actions whilst investigating allegations of fraud, it is their sole purpose, and questioning their motivation is irrelevant because they would simply say "we are doing our job".

what allegation of fraud? provide link please

it's set-up - not even allowed to call witnesses she wants

whatever side you are sympathetic too this WREAKS of unfairness and 'politics' don't you understand there will be NO PEACE in Thailand whilst the Thai people look on at all of this hypocrisy and injustice? ordinary Thais are talking about this 'set-up' and even though they may get away with it short-term the Thais are not stupid (as the yellows would have you believe)

PS this was a direct lift from the document so not 'my' question marks

Good to see you fully understand the need for reform in order for Thailand to move forward. Hypocrisy & injustice has been rife in Thailand for a long time.

[Thai at Heart]

Not that I care one bit, but how can the enquiry decline testimony from a desired witness. Have they given a reason because it could be that the statements ate irrelevant, but refusing to hear them does seem a little absurd.

The witnesses they declined to hear, include Chalerm and the head of the Thai accounting federation. All irrelevant because they had nothing directly to do with the rice pledging. They accepted the finance minister, the former commerce minister and the deputy commerce minister because they were involved with the rice pledging. Seems quite fair in the face of a legal challenge that is obviously design to stall and derail their case, rather than provide relevant testimony.

Her lawyers can call Chalerm and the others to testify in court later on, if they really think they can help.

If that is the stated reason, then its fair enough.

[mikemac]

Not that I care one bit, but how can the enquiry decline testimony from a desired witness. Have they given a reason because it could be that the statements ate irrelevant, but refusing to hear them does seem a little absurd.

The witnesses they declined to hear, include Chalerm and the head of the Thai accounting federation. All irrelevant because they had nothing directly to do with the rice pledging. They accepted the finance minister, the former commerce minister and the deputy commerce minister because they were involved with the rice pledging. Seems quite fair in the face of a legal challenge that is obviously design to stall and derail their case, rather than provide relevant testimony.

Her lawyers can call Chalerm and the others to testify in court later on, if they really think they can help.

................................"Her lawyers can call Chalerm".....................................

But would you really want that bumbling oaf in your corner ? He would probably get 2-3 years added to your sentence and get himself locked up for being drunk and disorderly while in public.

He would probably be the only person associated with the Shinawatra regime that even the most ardent red flag waving supporters won't stick up for, even the trolls won't mention him &lt;deleted&gt;.