Springing to the defense of one's family is an honorable, laudable thing.
I mean, hey, it's a commandment right? Can't go wrong with them commandments.
Maybe though, just maybe, there are better ways to do it Mr. Arroyo, better ways to phrase it. I mean, I understand that you might find it difficult to keep from criticizing a less-than-totally-blameless witness bringing up allegations of corruption against the administration in a venue other than the courts of law and all...
... but hey, do you perhaps remember the last time a less-than-totally-blameless witness brought up allegations of corruption against the administration in a venue other than the courts of law? Sometime around, oh, 2000-2001 perhaps? Old guy, likes sunglasses, name rhymes with Tingson?
So. Three questions:
1) How can Lozada be faulted for testifying in the Senate instead of the courts, when it was the Senate who ordered him to appear?
2) Shouldn't the question we should be asking at this point be: "Is he telling the truth?" and not "Is he a nice person?"
3) How are Lozada's accusations less deserving of a hearing than Chavit Singson's?
And if you think the answer to number 3 is because the Impeachment was a judicial and not a political proceeding... well, then you probably didn't watch the same parts of the Impeachment that I did.