We’re screwed: Trump has Marcos Jr. by the balls

I DON’T think any rational Filipino would doubt now that the US has information — or will manufacture information — unflattering to, at the very least, first lady Liza Marcos, regarding her whereabouts when the death by “cocaine effects” of billionaire scion Paolo Tantoco took place from the evening of March 7 to the morning of March 8.

While she can invoke diplomatic immunity from charges that may be brought against her, she has opted not to join her husband, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., on his working visit to the US from July 20-22. The only logical explanation would be that her involvement in Tantoco’s death is so serious that she wouldn’t risk being arrested there or even questioned by the police.

A spouse accompanying a head of state to meet with the US president has been de rigueur as a gesture of respect for the most powerful leader in the world. In the past 50 years, there are only four cases when a head of state’s spouse did not accompany him:

– In 1981, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wasn’t accompanied by his wife Jehan on his visit to the US in August, due to security concerns following an assassination attempt in mid-1980, which was proven a serious issue when he was assassinated a few months later;

– In 1994, Nelson Mandela wasn’t accompanied by his wife Winnie, the reason being they were separated, with divorce proceedings in progress;

– In September 2014, the wife of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Maryna, wasn’t with him. Grave security concerns were raised after Russia’s invasion of Crimea in February 2014; and

– In 2022-2024, during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s four visits to meet Presidents Biden and Trump, his wife Olena didn’t accompany him, because of security concerns, as Russia had invaded Ukraine in February 2022. The Ukrainian president was flown during these visits either in a US Air Force C-40 or C-17, escorted by F-16 jets to ensure his safety.

OFW

The Marcos government has not explained at all why the first lady couldn’t accompany her husband to the US, although it obviously hoped — believing that Filipinos are stupid — that her trip to Saudi Arabia from July 17 to 21, when her husband is in the US, would be seen as a legitimate visit to meet with OFW organizations. She preferred to visit OFW organizations, whose meetings could be scheduled at any time, instead of meeting Melania Trump?

The sole statement available on this issue was that made by the Palace mouthpiece, Claire Castro, in a July 17 interview with broadcaster Ted Failon, when she confirmed that the first lady would not accompany Marcos on his working visit to the US. When asked if the first lady would be part of the delegation, Castro simply replied, “Hindi po” (no), without elaborating further. She indicated she would seek more details but said the Department of Foreign Affairs would explain why. Castro’s statements were echoed in a Philstar.com report on the same date, where Castro offered no explanation beyond confirmation of her absence. As usual, the Palace press corps, for some reason, has been so timid, or so afraid to ask the Palace mouthpiece why the first lady preferred going to Riyadh rather than Washington.

Neither has the DFA said anything about the first lady’s absence in her husband’s trip to meet Trump and his wife, which, at the very least, is unusual and, at worst — because no explanation has been given — a snub.

The first lady herself has not said a word on the controversy, which the public is clamoring for an explanation. In April 2024, in order to address a less controversial issue than the Tantoco death — the escalating rift between her and Vice President Sara Duterte — she got her friend, the popular broadcaster Anthony Taberna, to interview her for an hour. Why doesn’t she do that with regard to the Tantoco issue?

The first lady’s apologists — like the PTV-4 board vice chairman who writes for this paper — want us to forget Tantoco’s death and its circumstances, to just “mourn his death,” and to trust in the professionalism of the Beverly Hills Police — which, however, has not been releasing details on the circumstances of his death. Obviously, the P40,000 he gets from PTV-4 is sufficient for him to turn off his intellect.

Conundrum

The first lady’s apologists are caught in a conundrum they can’t escape.

Incontrovertible is the fact that the first lady stayed in the Beverly Hilton hotel where Tantoco died, or in the Waldorf Astoria, which is just a kilometer away, and that she was the de facto head of the delegation to promote in Hollywood the Manila International Film Festival. Unchallenged is the fact that her assistant, also Malacañang’s deputy social secretary, was Tantoco’s wife, who would have been by his side at the first indication that he was having a medical emergency. Indisputable is the fact that Tantoco didn’t die instantly, as the cocaine’s effects were gradual — we don’t know how long — that weakened his heart, which the Los Angeles County medical examiner said had “probable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Not an established fact, but with very high probability: Tantoco’s wife, Dina, called the first lady for help or advice on what to do as soon as her husband showed signs of medical distress.

Now here’s the first lady and her apologists’ dilemma: I don’t think the first lady is so black-hearted as to not immediately go to Dina and her husband’s side to assist in whatever way she could. But if she did, why isn’t she telling the public what happened, especially as this would even portray her as a bold, caring first lady?

Is she afraid other eyewitnesses would contradict her account? Is there a totally different account of what happened? If she was there at the scene when Tantoco expired, the Beverly Hills police would have questioned her and others as they did. Why would they not even report this? Because if they did not include the first lady’s name, they would be committing the crime of perjury?

Intelligence

And if the US intelligence service has in its possession an account that wouldn’t be flattering to the first lady, wouldn’t Trump use this to blackmail Marcos into acceding to whatever he demands for the Philippines to give up in terms of trade arrangements and even our sovereignty in terms of allowing the US military to establish other temporary camps here?

Such an operation would transcend Philippine concerns, as Trump wants to use our country as his “sample” to threaten into submission other countries to bend to his tariff demands. Furthermore, the Philippines is critical — really now the equivalent of nine aircraft carriers ready for war in the region — in the US strategy to defend Taiwan, when China decides to take it over.

Already patriots have leaked confidential documents that show that the Marcos administration is ready to give in to Trump’s demands. One document, signed by Trade and Industry Secretary Ma. Cristina Roque, reads in its introduction to a list of what the Philippines will agree to in the talks with the US:

“President Marcos instructed that, ‘PH need US, PH cannot live without US,’ PH will sustain US strategic interests and go all out to support Trump administration’s tariff policy. PH will secure full and preferential access for US’ 6As — agriculture, automotive, Al-driven technologies, advanced manufacturing and alternative energy sectors, and assured access to PH’s critical minerals. PH need to ensure US’ farmers, ranchers, factory workers and business access to almost $500 billion in commercial benefits in the next 4 years. We are open to negotiate and make these concessions permanent.”

We’re screwed: Trump, because of the Tantoco-Liza controversy, holds Marcos by the balls. We are an American colony until 2028, until he steps down of course, or is made to step down.

---

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

Twitter: @bobitiglao

Archives: www.rigobertotiglao.com

Book orders: www.rigobertotiglao.com/shop

The post We’re screwed: Trump has Marcos Jr. by the balls first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.

We’re screwed: Trump has Marcos Jr. by the balls
Source: Breaking News PH