Clintonian analysis

Senator Jinggoy Estrada seemed emphatic in his denial of the accusations against him for his supposed plundering of millions of government funds.  Speaking at the Pamantasan Lungsod ng Maynila's commencement exercises, the Senator gave a fighting, rousing speech dedicated to clearing his name.

Unfortunately, we have been taught by President Clinton, who said he did not have sexual intercourse with Monica, to parse statements very carefully.  If we go through the speech, it's possible that there were instances of careful massaging of the truth.  I'm not saying he did massage his speech - he could very well be innocent.  But here's what a naughty analyst applying the Clinton school of thought could interpret the speech as:

"I am very confident that in due time the charges against me will be dismissed." (In due time, meaning after this President goes and a new, friendlier administration is in power.  I've just spent the whole month analyzing timelines with my powerhouse legal team, and boy, with our defenses, we could be litigating 'til kingdom come).

"In the meantime, I just hope and pray that the people will let the wheels of justice take its due and legal course." (Guys, don't hurry it too much.  I need this process to extend beyond the elections of 2016.  And if no one exerts too much pressure, the grinding pace of justice will kill this).

"I never received or pocketed any amount from Mrs. Napoles, Mrs. Tuason or any other person associated with her or the non-government organizations."  Query: when he says "her", is he referring to Mrs. Napoles or to Mrs. Tuason? So, if he was referring to Napoles, that could mean that while he didn't receive an amount from a person associated with Napoles, he did receive an amount from another person associated with Tuason. Or vice versa.  Meanwhile:

(I didn't put those funds in my pocket! I put some in the pockets of my employees, I paid the credit card bills of the missus, and some went to my bank account.  So really, absolutely none in my pocket.)

"I did not steal a single centavo from public funds or my PDAF." (Interpretation one: That's because I stole millions of centavos, not just a single centavo.  Interpretation two: The money was stolen by somebody else.  I just received a commission from the proceeds.)

"I did not conspire with anyone nor took undue advantage of my position to enrich myself or my family using public funds."  Someone kill the speechwriter here.  Has he not heard of the "neither-nor" rule?  And, even more horrible, he should have used "I did not ..."take'" rather than "I did not... "took."'

But more to the meat of the matter, in Clinton-speak: (I did not take undue advantage of my position, I only took due advantage.  Everyone else was doing the same thing, so what I did was not undue).

"Before the graduating class of 2014 of this great institution and before all of you today, I deny all allegations against me." (That's because it's only before you guys.  I might sing a different tune once I'm sworn in before a court of law and testifying before a judge - but that will never happen.  I'm planning to invoke my right against self-incrimination, see, so good luck getting me to admit those allegations).

I could blame my lawyer's training for filleting Jinggoy's speech this way.  But I'd rather blame Clinton.