MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Prosecution wants Temer included in Odebrecht payments investigation
Prosecutor general, Raquel Dodge, requested Brazilian Supreme Court justice, Edson Fachin, to include president Michel Temer in the list of those under investigation in an inquiry launched last year to determine Odebrecht's alleged payments to the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB) party in 2014. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesDodge not so dodgy as we think,eh Twinkle?
Mar 03rd, 2018 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The correct move, but it'll have little practical effect....Temer's luck will be decided by the STF, which might get around to examining the case and taking a decision, sometime in 2028...
Mar 03rd, 2018 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@JB:
Mar 04th, 2018 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “sometime in 2028”: You mean THAT quickly?
The whole investigation is a farce - with a bare minimum cosmetic, superficial & temporary dramatizing effect, just to thrill the Mass Media & thereby, the ignorant masses! If there is anything better as the result; it may be an additional benefit. But as we know better; things NEED to get worse befor getting better!
@JB
Mar 04th, 2018 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0His term is up at the end of this year. Can't the normal courts charge him for his various cases after that?
@DT
Mar 04th, 2018 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If his case goes to the STF “before” his term ends, that is where he'll be prosecuted...which could take years to produce a result. Don't have the exact numbers on this, but just to give you an approximate idea of the INefficiency of the STF, when it comes down to investigating / convicting politicians : Since 1988, the STF has investigated (very half-heartedly) over 500 politicians, handing down its first conviction in 2010, and a total of 16 ...3%..if you think that is fair, it must be because we have the most 'honest' Congress in the world.
The lower courts (1st instance) and appelate courts (2nd instance), over 150 convictions in 3 years...most related to the 'lavajato'. The Supreme Court Justices (STF) have not yet convicted even one politician related to the 'lavajato'. And a couple of Congressmen, who WERE convicted (of corruption, money laundering etc), were sentenced to a 'semi-open' regime, whereby they have to sleep in prison, but can go about their parliamentary “obligations” during the daytime...ever heard of such crap ?
Even when the STF eventually gets around to terminating it's ruling on the 'end' of the politicians' 'privileged status' (already 7 votes to 3, out of a total of 11, in favour of ending it, which means it's decided, but cannot enter into effect while being deliberately delayed by the 11th judge, a well-known ex-PT lawyer and party sympathizer, appointed by Dilma, under Lula's orders), Temer may already have been indicted by the STF, which means Temer will carry on enjoying his relative immunity, or impunity for sometime.
Best solution would be to charge him only after he ends his term....when he'd probably be convicted by Moro, in under 1 year.
@JB
Mar 05th, 2018 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's unfortunate. So whoever tries to prosecute Temer now (and the other politicians too?) could really be doing him a favour? That puts a very different interpretation on the charges that have been made against him so far.
It seems a little strange to me that it's the PT judge who is preventing the removal of the immunity, considering neither Lula nor Dilma are currently protected by it, whereas most of the top politicians in other parties are.
Are the judges for the STF appointed differently to the ones on the lower courts? There must be some reason for the former's notable lack of efficiency compared to the latter.
@DT
Mar 05th, 2018 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It seems a little strange that it's the PT judge who is preventing the removal of the immunity, considering neither Lula nor Dilma are protected by it etc....”
Indeed, and the various explanations that have been 'rumoured' just show that other than Toffoli, and a few close to him, no one really knows. One version says that he allegedly believes 'why end it for most politicians, but not all (?)', based on the fact that the Amendment to the Constitution - as presented - foresees that immunity would carry on for the president and his VP, presidents of the Lower House and Senate, and the head of the STF (while presiding); as a side effect, Toffoli would lose 'his' immunity. Another version is that he is delaying his ruling in order to give the politicians time to 'invent' some other form of 'protection' if their immunity, as it stands today, is terminated (many high-ranking Petistas have been indicted in the 'lavajato'. Another is that when he 'asked for more time' to analyze the matter, he was trying to avoid a standoff between Congress and the Judiciary, to prevent institutional instability...unlikely, as most 'petistas' favour the instability ; just to correct a previous statement, above :(“already 7 votes to 3, out of a total of 11”) - only 6 judges have already voted in favour of ending the privilege, so 5 to go, which means that the last five cannot change the final majority decision, but any one of them can delay it); but to wrap it up, as the elimination of the priviliged status (for practically 99% of all politicians) has to be implemented by Constitutional amendment, and the Federal intervention in Rio implies that no alterations can be made to the Constitution while it is in force, the new law will not become effective until 2019, even if Toffolli and the other 4 were to declare their decisions immy. Another side effect of the Rio intervention , is that the social security reform is put on hold.
To reply last paragraph, need more space.
@JB
Mar 06th, 2018 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”as the elimination of the priviliged status (for practically 99% of all politicians) has to be implemented by Constitutional amendment, and the Federal intervention in Rio implies that no alterations can be made to the Constitution while it is in force”
A convenient side effect for the politicians, and Temer already announced it will last until the end of his term. I hadn't realised those judges were voting to remove their own immunity as well, that makes it kind of surprising 6 already voted in favour. It's really a poor system where any judge can hold up a decision though, despite not being able to change it. And I've got to agree it would be better to remove immunity for all.
I suppose the pension reform will now become a campaign issue in the next election. It's better for the people to have a say on it, but I'm sure they'll be very reluctant to give up something they've been promised, and paid taxes for. Brazil can't afford it, but maybe it could if the politicians hadn't siphoned billions away into off-shore accounts? They're hardly the best people to preach austerity.
Anyway, you can reply to the last paragraph now. This 2000 character limit is a right pain.
In short - and to put it MILDLY - The Constitution AND the Laws are created AND manipulated BY the crooks; FOR the protection & the benefit of the crooks.
Mar 07th, 2018 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0As long as the soap opera continues to entertain the masses; why not go on adding more and more chapters to it? Makes sense!
@DT
Mar 07th, 2018 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Certainly, but at least this time they didn't premeditate it...
The fact the Supreme Court Justices are agreeing to end their own immunity, is result of public pressure, and the fact that the prevalent attitude in society is that everyone has had enough of these immoral priveleges for the ruling class.
The pension reform will most likely be a big campaign issue, as to ignore it would be to show a total lack of familiarity with one of Brazil's main problems....but it does sound strange, because even the PT, which up to now has been radically against it, alleging impopularity (like most other parties too) in an election year, and because it - according to them (well understood) does away with most of the workers' rights (which is pure bull), will embrace the cause , and when /if approved, will claim they always supported it ..that's the type of contradictory crap we have become accustomed to listen to, coming from the PT and the other extreme-left parties.
Any lawyer can aspire to being a judge, but must first pass a bunch of official exams, accompanied by the OAB(Order of the Brazilian Lawyers), to become an assistant judge, presumably in the branch of law they've chosen...after that they go working their way up, where time, and 'notorious knowledge' of their specialization are factors which influence promotions, and again depending on whether they are State or Federal judges...in the higher State courts they're appointed by the governor, and in the Federal sphere, by the president. One of the problems with the STF, is that instead of only looking after, or ruling on Constitutional matters, it has become flooded with criminal and corruption cases, which should be started and ended in the lower courts, but reach it due to the system's absurd possibility of endless appeals, keeping the culprits out of jail for years..... And the political immunity, which stipulates only the STF can judge politicians in office...
@JB
Mar 07th, 2018 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if the PT was against the pension reforms before, they can just claim thair reforms are different, and fairer or something. It should not be hard for politicians to do. Your parties don't exactly seem to have a very fixed ideology anyway, apart from making themselves rich which they all share... if the politicians want the people to agree to reforms, they ought to cut their own benefits first. But what are the chances of that?
“in the higher State courts they're appointed by the governor, and in the Federal sphere, by the president”
Sounds similar to the US system, though I think some judges are also elected there. In the UK judges are appointed by the Queen, but she doesn't get to choose who she appoints. Is Brazil also similar to the US in that the judges have very similar views and politics to the Presidents who appoint them?
'Notorious knowledge' sounds weird. What does that mean exactly? And are appeals never denied? That is what happens here, you can try to appeal a conviction but if there is no new evidence or reason to think something was wrong with the original trial, the appeal won't be allowed. At least it explains why the trials took so long; when I looked up those cases you mentioned in the other thread, I noticed there were many years between the crime and the conviction.
@DT
Mar 08th, 2018 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't worry, the PT will claim whatever it needs to convince its dumb electorate. Right, ideology is secondary to stealing, but they resort to it when it “appeals” to the voters, regardless of how impractical ; but the Bolivarian oriented ideology (”Foro de São Paulo”), openly supported by the PT and allies, is not just some harmless or insignificant issue, it's a serious threat to democracy...see VZ.
Politicians are loath to cut their own benefits...that is clear by the fact that many of them rejected the pension reform, which would start to put them, and civil servants (responsible for 90% of the humongous deficits), on equal footing with those in the private sector. Instead they voted to cut essential investments in health and education. And btw, the PT is opposed 100% to the military intervention in Rio, despite the fact that polls amongst the rich, and slum dwellers alike, show over 80% are in favour of it...
Given that the presidents will “usually” choose Supreme Court judges that they believe are sympathetic towards their political views, this does carry some weight in their appointment, but it's no guarantee that the appointed judge will be their lap dog… as they shouldn't be. Joaquim Barbosa, appointed by Lula, had no problem in ignoring his pleas (regarding the “mensalão” trial, 2007/2012), which got Lula very pissed off, and publicly calling him 'ungrateful'..
“Notorious knowledge”...not even sure if such an expression, or similar, exists in English, or if there is, I can't remember it, but it means being recognized publicly as being a foremost expert in a branch of Law. You know, like numb nuts...(LOL)..
Sure appeals are denied....Lula's appeals against his conviction in a lower court were not only refused by the appellate court (TRF-4), but ended in increase of his sentence by 3 years. His 2nd 'n last appeal, to the SC of Justice (one below the STF) was also refused a couple of days ago. New evidence cannot be introduced.
“Bolivarian oriented ideology... it's a serious threat to democracy”
Mar 09th, 2018 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure, though luckily for you Lula's government wasn't all that much like Venezuela's, even thought they were allies. But you didn't seem to think democracy was such a big deal when it was the military government in power.
“Instead they voted to cut essential investments in health and education.”
Wonderful. I wasn't expecting them to cut their own benefits though, obviously they will only do it if forced. Why are the PT against bringing the army in if it's popular, is it because of the history of coups and stuff? And lol at Lula calling Barbosa ungrateful, I'm sure the judges are supposed to be independent but the presidents don't have to like it.
RE 'notorious knowledge', I can't think of an exact expression in English either, but I understand what you mean now. Our resident 'legal expert' certainly is, inside his own head.
Why can't new evidence be introduced in an appeal? That doesn't make much sense to me. Like, what if someone is convicted, and then another person confesses to the crime? Or they find DNA evidence that proves they didn't do it. The judges aren't allowed to take it into account?
@DT
Mar 09th, 2018 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What can you expect from a Party that openly supports Maduro and VZ type democracy ? It is not irrelevant , and Lula only didn't manage to further his nefarious dream because Congress halted him. He tried, but failed....and that angers his most fanatical supporters, such as the MST, MTST, ..organizations that received funds (from the PT govts) for doing absolutely nothing, other than remain at Lula's beck and call when he needed to 'show' his 'power' at political rallys.....they are the ones who invade and destroy productive farms, despite the agribusiness being the main sector helping Brazil recover...
DT, you keep on thinking that times today, and in '63/64, are the same....can't you see the enormous differences ? which obviously demanded different soutions ?
The PT has traditionally been against EVERYTHING that is good, if it is not one of their initiatives....the '88 Constitution, the 'bolsa familia' when first conceived , the 'plano real', the intervention in Rio....in 2010, they were in favour of the law which prohibits people condemned in corruption cases, from occupying political posts, but today they are denying it applies toLula (??)....there is an enormous difference between what they say one day, and defend the next......they really believe they can twist the law to suit the moment...typical of those with tyrannical inclinations.
Lula has the right to be disappointed with Barbosa, but to criticize him publicly for not letting his cronies off the hook ??? not very presidential, but then again, Lula believes he is above the Law.
New evidence can only be presented in appeals referring to convictions of heinous crimes (murder, rape etc) ..in corruption cases, the appelate court only reviews the 'procedural' aspect of previous trials...Lula's appeal to the SCJ, denied few days ago, only confirmed all the previous trials (by Moro and the TRF-4) were carried out without any irregularities. Think that covers the DNA issue.
It is really simple and does not need a lot of rationalization and turning around the point.
Mar 09th, 2018 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Temer case is another example of how the justice's main function today is to be a tool to prevent the risk of undesirable characters from accessing positions of power. The dominant class have already experienced Lula once--they are determined to bar him from trying again.
Lawfare has replaced brute force--and it's not less efficient.
@JB
Mar 09th, 2018 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you keep on thinking that times today, and in '63/64, are the same....can't you see the enormous differences ? which obviously demanded different soutions ?”
I was born in the 80s, I don't know what the 60s were like. But how can democracy and free speech be important now if they weren't then? You seen pretty angry about the PT twisting the law, or Lula trying to pass laws to gag the press, but you don't understand why other people were angry about the military government doing those things, as well as taking power by force and outlawing most parties?
If Lula could hold a military coup then for sure you would see it as a provocation. Maybe you wouldn't do anything, but I think you would understand other people who did.
As for Lula criticising Barbosa, I agree, it's funny but it's not presidential. I guess the PT is just hypocritical, since they supported those things once they realised they were good, but all your politicians are pretty awful and say whatever they think will benefit themselves, it's hard to see much difference.
I looked up this MSTS, it's some kind of organisation that occupies buildings and demands home for people apparently: http://isa-global-dialogue.net/the-growth-of-brazils-homeless-workers-movement/ what does it have to do with the PT?
Brazil's justice system seems dodgy to me. Why are the rules different for certain crimes compared to others? Doesn't everyone deserve to have all the evidence considered, even if they are on trial for a less serious crime?
@EM
Supposing you're right, the PT was in power for 13 years. Why did they wait so long?
@EM
Mar 10th, 2018 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Temer case is another example of how the justice's main function today is to be a tool to prevent the risk of undesirables from accessing power”...
Not sure if I understand - if not mistaken, you hate Temer...IF so, and you claim that “Justice's main function today is to be a tool” to get rid of “undesirables”, presume you are referring to Lula...but using the Temer case as an example, and considering that the Attorney General's office, and the MPF (Federal Public Ministry) are doing all they can to get rid of him (indicting him on corruption charges), sounds a lot like you're defending him - do you then NOT consider him an “undesirable” ? (or yes, a 'desirable' ?).
Lawfare ? again ? you're sounding like Terry the Liar.
@DT
Comparing the importance of free speech in '64, and today, does not make any sense....back then we were running the risk of losing 'democracy', while 'today', there's no risk of free speech being endangered.
Being 'angry' as you call it, because the (possible) introduction of communism was halted, and considering the regime in the USSR, as versus the relatively “almost” total freedom represented by the military, I suppose boils down to whether the other 99% (the majority) wanted communism - they did not, and ended up with the next best possible option after 'total' freedom...the majority (presumably conscious of the 'risks' of communism, or speaking freely against the govt) was relativey satisfied with the solution, given the circumstances. But Lula, in a presumably “full democracy”, tried to implement laws censuring the press and its freedom of expression.
The MSTS, funded by PT govts, ignores the law - to obtain what they 'claim' to fight for (trampling on those waiting patiently in line for popular housing) - and promotes chaos (when ordered to, by the PT).
Why procedure, rgdng evidence, is different in murder 'n corruption trials, don't know - but perhaps becos the implications of a murder charge are more serious ?
So you know what I've been reading, here is what Wikipedia says about one of the laws passed by the military regime:
Mar 10th, 2018 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-5
It let the President suspend the national and state governments and take over their functions, censor the press and films, TV etc, banned all political meetings not authorised by the police, suspended habeas corpus, and gave the President power for fire any public servant, including elected officials, and take away their political rights for 10 years.
It sure seems a funny way of 'saving' democracy.
”Being 'angry' as you call it, because the (possible) introduction of communism was halted”
That's not what I'm saying. I would be angry if my government passed such a law, and not because I want to introduce communism. I'm sure many people in Brazil were too, who weren't even communist. Not everyone would think the danger was so serious, or worth giving up so much.
RE Lawfare, Terry doesn't know what he's talking about, but that's not true of the people he quotes. I'm sure in Venezuela's case that you would agree the law is being abused to persecute opposition leaders. And in Argentina, it's notable that only members of the previous government are being prosecuted, despite several examples of corruption being reported in the current government. In Brazil it's different because there is a real anti-corruption push and members of all parties are being accused, nevertheless that doesn't stop them pursuing certain people more vigorously than others, or even letting them off when it seems convenient (eg the campaign contribution trial that cleared Dilma and Temer, only after Dilma had been removed from the presidency).
It doesn't make much sense to me to have different procedures for murder and corruption trials, but it sounds like the whole thing needs modernising anyway. Portugal doesn't use that system any more, and I'm sure the EU would object if they did because of the high chance of bias.
@DT
Mar 11th, 2018 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, the infamous AI-5....created to fight terorism, much the same as the US's national Security laws, suspending certain rights in the light of terrorism threats ..as I said, different times, different needs. Look, the main point I want to make, is that the majority were relatively satisfied with the outcome in '64....if a few 100 weren't, which group should be respected ? the majority or those who rose up in arms ? simple as that. You are missing the point of what the real threat was at the time....stop comparing measures taken during a turbulent time (64), and those taken while a full democracy is working (now)...
“Not everyone would think the danger was so serious, or worth giving up so much....you are acting like an idealist, and not seeing things as they were...and I repeat, MOST were NOT affected - negatively - by the military.
In VZ, the law is not being used for anything....Maduro is his own law...he makes it up as he goes along. And, in case you haven't noticed, the opposition in VZ is fighting against installed tyranny, the same ''threat” Brazil faced in '64.
The vigor with which some Brazilian politicians are being prosecuted in Brazil , is proportional to their involvemet in corruption....wouldn't that be true in any civilized country ?
The campaign contribution trial which cleared Temer, also prevented Dilma from losing her political rights for 8 years, so she too, was 'rewarded' , if anyone was.
The truth is that the whole of Brazil needs reforming, every single system, as they are archaic and confusing.....tons of laws which contradict each other , but are loopholes for politicians to steal and stay scot-free. But when you see the type of people who pass the laws, it's easy to understand.
“created to fight terorism, much the same as the US's national Security laws, suspending certain rights in the light of terrorism threats”
Mar 11th, 2018 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are a LOT of Americans who aren't happy about those laws, and they are much milder than the AI-5. If the majority were so satisfied with the outcome, why did the military need to eliminate direct election of the president? Why did they need the power to throw out and disqualify opposition candidates? If it was just a few hundred people trying to start a communist revolution, and most of the population supported the military stopping them, then surely, the military's prefered candidate would have won the election anyway?
I can believe the majority preferred the military government to a communist takeover - supposing it would have happened, which we'll never know now. What I don't believe is that only communists objected to things like the AI-5.
“you are acting like an idealist”
Maybe. Some people are idealists. This sort of law is basically asking people to give up one thing in order to prevent something worse from happening. So it's a cost-vs-benefit, and not everyone will think the cost was worth it (the cost in this case was not being able to choose your own government, as well as the other restrictions).
“The vigor with which some Brazilian politicians are being prosecuted in Brazil , is proportional to their involvemet in corruption”
Now that I don't believe. It's true that Dilma was also rewarded by being let off in the campaign contribution trial (where they more or less admitted that were both guilty), but I don't think that would have happened if she was still President, and they knew she can't stand again anyway.
As for VZ, I don't think Maduro has quite reached that stage. He at least tries to look like he is following the law, and since Chavismo has been in power so long, most of the supreme court judges were appointed by him or Chaves and will do what he wants.
@DT
Mar 12th, 2018 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0We’re talking of nearly 60 yrs ago, in the middle of the cold war, and you keep on judging the reality of the 60s as if it were today ? IF a 'LOT' (how many ?) of Americans aren’t happy about the NS laws, to me they’re either too damned sensitive or don’t take the terrorist threat seriously. Why do you think that the US has been more successful than Europe in preventing attacks ? “Direct elections” ? the 1960 election put J.Quadros, a nut case in the presidency, with Jango as his VP - the commie who started cozying up to the USSR, so I’d say the military didn’t trust the civilians. Neither did I…and just look at what they’ve accomplished today. What the population thought of the AI-5 ? it was a law of exception, passed to deal with the few 100 that resorted to extreme violence. If the population, as a whole, was afraid of it, why didn’t they unite, in the millions, to protest ? what that few 100 or 1000 wanted, was irrelevant. I had nothing to fear from the AI-5, and I was no different to the majority in just wanting to get ahead in life. Idealists are not necessarily bad, but when they disrupt public order in the attempt to impose minority views on the majority, that’s it. My opinion. Ok, sure “not EVERYONE will think the cost was worth it (cost in this case, not being able to choose your own government, as well as the other restrictions)”, but the majority DID accept the ‘cost’. There’re always going to be people who don’t agree with government but that doesn’t mean they have no choice but to impose their policies through violence. Isn’t that yet clear ? take a look at the MST …systematically resorting to violence when their absurd ‘demands’ are not met, and always reacting in the most ignorant, primitive, violent manner…is that what you are advocating people should do to be heard ? IF Dilma was still president ?...a BIG IF…and she IS free to run…but who wants her ? So you “don’t think Maduro has quite reached that stage” yet…well, let's agree to disagree.
“Why do you think that the US has been more successful than Europe in preventing attacks ?”
Mar 12th, 2018 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think they have been. Europe has anti-terrorism legislation too, and I'm a lot more familiar with Britain's laws than America's. They are stuff like enabling mass surveillance of phones and internet connections, and letting suspects be held by the police for longer without charging them. Worrying because they could be abused for other reasons by a dodgy government, but they clearly would be useful in catching the terrorists and stopping attacks. Compare to the laws in the AI-5, which don't seem to be aimed at stopping the revolutionaries, but exactly at keeping the military in power against the will of the majority and preventing them electing someone like Quadros or Jango again.
That's why I don't believe the military had majority support (the same majority who elected a 'nutcase' as president?), although evidently some sections of the population supported them.
Anyway, AFAIR we were originally talking about who would object to the military government (other than communists), and why, and I guess that has been answered: idealists, and they didn't all protest violently either. Some famous writers etc went into exile according to Wikipedia. And I don't think you can say the majority did accept the cost; sure they put up with the military and were probably happy about whatever development happened, but when they had a choice they elected very different people: Quadros before the military took over and Lula afterwards.
By the way, I don't advocate for violence at all, but for that reason I think free speech, democracy and the right to protest are very important, as they allow people to advocate for and affect change without violence.
And RE Dilma, I thought after being elected twice she could not stand again immediately? But regardless she certainly won't stand as long as Lula hopes to.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!