MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil's corruption scandals reach Lula da Silva: probe into influence peddling
Prosecutors in Brazil have announced a probe into possible influence peddling by former president Lula da Silva, involving the construction firm Odebrecht which is one of Latin America's largest engineering company. The investigation will center on Lula's alleged use of his clout after leaving office to help scandal-ridden construction giant Odebrecht land billion-dollar contracts in Latin America and Africa. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI wonder if fatass dilma hears McCartney's song singing in her head?
Jul 17th, 2015 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Someone knocking at the door
Somebody ringing the bell
Someone's knocking at the door
Somebody's ringing the bell
Do me a favour
Open the door
And let 'em in
Soon!
Tick tock!
Jul 17th, 2015 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Better book that flight to Cuba, eh Lula?
I'm amazed. The federal prosecutor's office, 'apparently' , doing what they're supposed to do. Investigate everyone without fear or favour. Shouldn't he be in custody to avoid interference with evidence and witnesses?
Jul 17th, 2015 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is it possible that, despite terrorist Rousseff, Brazil has figured out that honesty is the best policy?
Lula is guilty of favor Brazilian companies? Congratulations, Lula, my vote is yours.
Jul 17th, 2015 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2015/07/dilmas-nightmare-venezuelan-crisis-spills-into-brazil/
Jul 17th, 2015 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it could give the Brazilian opposition new arguments for questioning the Partido dos Trabalhadores’ (PT) historic relation with chavista-Venezuela. On the other hand, staying away from the crisis may result in giving up the idea of regaining its image of a rising power — since it would not be fulfilling its role of the region’s provider of stability. Moreover, the Venezuelan crisis has already spilled over into Brazil and any attempt to keep it contained is futile.
Pretty soon Lula and Dilma may be behind bars where they belong.
:)
The Chief Crook of the Brazil Nuts party KNOWS exactly what went on and who, including himself, benefitted from it.
Jul 17th, 2015 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the prosecutor has to do is turn a few of the thousands of minor crooks who also know what went on and are prepared to give evidence.
Leaking like a sieve will soon be de rigueur.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
I'm in no way familiar with the idiosyncrasies of Brazil's definition of 'influence peddling.' As I'm more familiar with American ex-politicians who take up lobbying or plum -jobs with companies that are the beneficiaries of government largeness, the only legal requirement is their declaration of of their involvement. While anything is possible I would be extremely surprised if Lula was in fact culpable.
Jul 18th, 2015 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0”In fact, influence peddling is not necessarily illegal as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has often used the term “undue influence peddling” to refer to illegal acts of lobbying.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_peddling
The Brazil Law Blog: ”Prosecutors seem to be facing an uphill battle as Lula’s attorney claims the criminal definition of influence peddling is vague and difficult to prove. Compounding this is the fact that Lula was a private citizen holding no political office at the time prosecutors claim he was influence peddling. For his part, Lula firmly denies all allegations. Odebrecht also issued a statement saying there are no grounds for an investigation of any kind.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_peddling
@7 Terence Hill
Jul 18th, 2015 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you'd be extremely surprised if Lula was in fact culpable ? It's obvious you know NOTHING of the 'idiosyncrasies of Brazil's definition of “influence peddling”' ;
In Lula's case, while President, it was public and notorious that he spent most of his time travelling abroad, to places where 'democracy' in the true sense does not exist, or if you prefer, to countries governed by corrupt dictatorships. WHY ?? because birds of a feather flock together, and it's a well-known fact Lula only felt comfortable while visiting heads of State as ignorant and corrupt as he was/ is. It is only natural then, that after he left the Presidency in 2010, and having placed his puppet in office, to carry on with his personal project, and that of the PT, to install a block of socialist dictatorships all over South America. One of the key factors to succeed in this project, which is to perpetuate themselves in power, is to have the financial backing.....thus the political use of , and stealing from, Brazil's State-run companies (like Petrobras, Eletrobras), and especially the BNDES - which is where Lula will quite likely face serious charges. To complement his efforts towards this end, it would be good to gain support from other heads of State, like himself. Therefore, sponsored (under the counter) by these large contractors (mainly Odebrecht), he lobbied in their favour to arrange dozens of loans from the BNDES to these other countries, totalling billions of dollars, under extremely favourable conditions - not even available to Brazilian companies for local infrastructure projects - provided they contracted “Odebrecht” and others, to execute the projects, and into the bargain, overprice the costs in order to have millions syphoned back into Lula's and other politicians' accounts in fiscal havens. The fact that Lula 'the pauper' became president in 2003, and left a billionaire 8 years later, says it all....
8 Jack Bauer
Jul 18th, 2015 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fortunately the standard of proofs has not yet been whittled down to the level your mere unqualified suppositions; and neither should it be as what you prepose is the judicial elements that were properly condemned at Nuremberg.
“the fact that Lula was a private citizen holding no political office at the time prosecutors claim he was influence peddling”
http://www.thebrazillawblog.com/investigation-into-lula-examines-brazilian-law/
Here's the definitive definition: 'Brazil's Criminal Code defines influence peddling as ”requesting, requiring, charging or obtaining, for oneself or others, benefits or promise of benefit, practiced by a public servant in the exercise of the function, which may attract sentence of 2 to 5 years imprisonment.”
Folha De S.Paulo
http://www.thebrazillawblog.com/investigation-into-lula-examines-brazilian-law/
So all you can proffer is your fantasies “...to install a block of socialist dictatorships all over South America. ...”. Please provide the prosecutor with your insights, just one slight problem not one iota of proof it's simply your conjecture. So sorry you'll have to go back to planning a military dictatorship takeover.
@ 9 Terence Hill, more like The Brainless One
Jul 19th, 2015 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Waffling again, NO actual thought on your part, NO actual reply to the content.
Fail, fail, fail.
No off you go again, much of the same.
Pathetic!
10 ChrisR
Jul 19th, 2015 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd be very careful of criticizing anyone or anything with your very shaky résumé, showing your morbid preoccupation with the use of firearms and and the desire to kill people, to wit:
#1. “extra-judicial killings are necessary when the normal course of the law is ignored”
en.mercopress.com/2012/11/26/sao-paulo-city-gripped-in-a-civil-war-between-organized-crime-and-the-police-says-top-judge
#14. “Are you allowed to shoot the perp as he is running away, ”
en.mercopress.com/2014/05/17/brazilian-police-tells-tourists-that-if-attacked-don-t-fight-scream-or-argue
#20 “If it were my decision, ALL drug dealers after one PROVED conviction would be shot by the police if they were caught with dealing quantities again. And I mean right there and then wherever they are. END OF” en.mercopress.com/2013/12/14/pot-fumes-mujica-calls-un-official-liar-after-he-accused-uruguay-of-pirate-attitudes
You are a really primitive troll, One more that infests this forum judging by all the droppings you leave around this must be the internet cave you all live in.
@9 Terence
Jul 19th, 2015 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In your #7, you admit ”I'm in no way familiar with the idiosyncrasies of Brazil's definition of 'influence peddling.'......so you know nothing, and by defending him, without any real notion of what goes on here, or how the Brazilian Justice system works, you aren't doing your brain much justice.
If you lived here, followed politics and simply observed with a keen eye all that goes on behind the scenes, you would not be so naive. But then again, you have the right to your opinion.
Since you mentioned 'Military dictatorship', let me clarify one thing : history is showing, much to the chagrin of the rabid socialists, that it was good for Brazil, despite the fact several hundred who rose up in arms against them either died or if lucky, were exiled. The option, in the height of the cold war, was to become a satelite for USSR interests, all facilitated by the then president Jango, a filthy communist. If you didn't live through it, your opinions are merely hearsay .
12 Jack Bauer
Jul 19th, 2015 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once more for you, I apparently understand a lot more than you. As I'm not blinded by a political agenda and have bothered to properly research the issue.
“the fact that Lula was a private citizen holding no political office at the time prosecutors claim he was influence peddling”
www.thebrazillawblog.com/investigation-into-lula-examines-brazilian-law/
Here's the definitive definition: 'Brazil's Criminal Code defines influence peddling as ”requesting, requiring, charging or obtaining, for oneself or others, benefits or promise of benefit, practiced by a public servant in the exercise of the function, which may attract sentence of 2 to 5 years imprisonment.”
Folha De S.Paulo
www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2015/07/1656959-brazilian-former-president-lula-da-silva-is-investigated-for-influence-peddling.shtml
So it appears from this definition that Lula is not culpable, and the investigation presumably is just a politically motivated 'fishing-expedition'. Since he was not at the time a public servant.
@13 Terence
Jul 19th, 2015 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For someone who admitted to knowing sweet f*ck all about “the idiosyncrasies of Brazil's definition of 'influence peddling.'”, it's amazing how, after a bit of research, you know it all.....good for you. Besides having access to the same info you do, and perhaps to other sources you don't, I was here and experienced it all first-hand.....I don't need people who didn't live here, telling me how it was, or wasn't , or just because the Feds still haven't put their hands on proof of Lula's guilt, that he is innocent...as you like to believe. You seem to conveniently ignore, that the leftist media is 'paid' (by the PT) to down-play anything which may tarnish his reputation....and although I don't think you deserve it, I'll give you credit that perhaps you know that sometimes it's extremely hard to prove someone's guilt, regardless of their rotten reputation.....look at Al Capone...no one doubted he was he was a murderer, but they only caught him due to crimes against the IRS.....and in Lula's case, when the whole government is bent on protecting him - and consequently themselves - it becomes all the harder...or do you also believe that “Justice” always prevails ?? But if you believe Lula is innocent, please do explain to me, how a semi-illiterate idiot, enters the presidency a poor man, but leaves with an estimated fortune of US$ 2 billion .....
14 Jack Bauer
Jul 19th, 2015 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm well acquainted with the fact that you hold a specific point of view and hold deep suspicions. In the end you may well be proven correct, but we deal in reality, otherwise we are left with a myriad of meaningless speculations. While your agenda may not allow to accept the 'presumption of innocence' the mainstream does.
You make a lot of claims, but they are unacceptable unless you present proof of them. So do yourself a favor, if you want to make point prove it, like a do, otherwise you're wasting yours and everybody else's time. Moreover, since it is you who is making the allegations against Lula, it you who bear's the Burden of Proof http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm. There is no onus on me under the rules of logic to refute your assertion.
@ 15 The Brainless One
Jul 19th, 2015 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah!
The old chestnut of the 'burden of proof'. How many times have you come up with that one in an attempt to deflect comment from yourself?
What a pity you do not understand what it means.
Why are you fixated with my knowledge about firearms and field guns?
How do you think the lawless in Brazil are going to be defeated except by the use of firearms: have you never heard of 'fight fire with fire'?
Have you ever made a single constructive post when others have seen through your feeble machinations?
Just what is it that you stand for except brainless waffle?
Do enlighten us.
16 ChrisR
Jul 19th, 2015 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The old chestnut of the 'burden of proof.” Is truism of logic otherwise any idiot could make any absurd claim. Just like you, and then require the respondent to disprove their claim. The rule is abundantly clear “...he who asserts must prove. An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. ...a simple assertion is not an argument...” So I understand exactly what it means, but, apparently you still don't.
You still have a problem with a second fallacy, that of an argumenta ad hominem. But I guess when you're bereft of a 'real' argument that's the only option open too you.
“fixated with my knowledge about firearms and field guns” I'm not the one with morbid obsession with weapons and killing people.
Have you never heard of the rule of law? Thats how societies are supposed to deal with lawlessness. “Have you ever made a single constructive post?” All the one's I made in response to you have blown your ludicrous assertions right out of the water. So if if you need anymore 'schooling' I'm more than happy too enlighten you.
@15 Terence
Jul 19th, 2015 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ While your agenda may not allow to accept the 'presumption of innocence' the mainstream does.”........the 'mainstream' ? they are the bloody problem !
It might be a good idea for you to realize that just because it may be very hard to prove that Lula is no more than an opportunist and a thief, does not mean that the taxpayers of this country have to “presume” he is innocent, until proven guilty....anybody with half a brain, and that probably includes you, if you made the effort, might see through the smoke screen the PT and the government have created to protect themselves.....it's the so-called 'aparelhamento do governo' ; In this case, in Dilma's 39 Ministries, besides the regular public employees, there are 113,000 people working, appointed by the PT and set on protecting their feud. These 113,000 pay back 10% of their salaries to the PT, and although maybe not illegal, it's highly immoral....why would they do it unless to return the favour of being appointed ?? and that's exactly why they do it, and the 10% , just fyi, represents R$ 20 billion per year....Dilma's 'ajuste fiscal' needs to save about R$ 70 billion this year, but do you think Dilma will do anything which would affect the PT's revenue ?? Even you know the answer to that .....Instead she reduced investments in Health, Education and Infrastructure....and you STILL believe their main objective is to act in the sole interests of the 'people' ???
Another piece of info, or rather, question : why does Brazil's government need to be TWICE the size of that of the US ?? Wake up Terence ! if not, just go back to sleep.
18 Jack Bauer
Jul 19th, 2015 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“'Military dictatorship', let me clarify one thing : history is showing, ..., that it was good for Brazil, ...'presumption of innocence' ...the 'mainstream' ? they are the bloody problem !” No let me clarify things. You are an individual that prefers a a dictatorship to democracy, and would flout 'the rule of law'. Give yourself a shake, I believe that is the most insufferable arrogance I've ever come across. How you have the audacity question the mores of anyone else is beyond me.
The rest of your paranoid tirade has no supporting citations. Moreover, you are such an amoral person, without proof I wouldn't believe anything told me.
So I will continue to only make assertions that I can prove, and I'll leave you to your proof-less inane ramblings.
@ 17 Terence Hill aka The Brainless One
Jul 20th, 2015 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you believe what you post then all I can say is you are suffering from delusions of grandeur.
20 ChrisR
Jul 20th, 2015 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Another great unwashed, unqualified, humble opinion. But wait! thats what all your posts are about. So in the circumstance delusions of grandeur would be solely applicable to you, who is too important to even do a modicum of research on an issue; and posts nothing but rhetoric totally devoid of facts. Especially when a number of your posts regale us with how superior your decision making skills are in comparison to others. In addition, someone who is preoccupied with killing human beings is, oh what is that word again, oh yeah a psychopath
@19 Terence
Jul 20th, 2015 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0personal opinions of each other aside, think what the hell you want. If you choose to believe all the government propaganda and what appears in the controlled press, go ahead. Do an 'ostrich' and stick your head in the sand. Sooner or later someone will see your vulnerable point, but by then it'll be too late - for you.
22 Jack Bauer
Jul 20th, 2015 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't worry on my behalf, my companion is completely familiar with media bias as she has worked as a reporter in the print, radio, and television. The majority is not pro the present government.
So I don't accept anyones statements, unless I can reasonably verify them. As the rational way, is to be a healthy sceptic; which is preferable to having your head up your ass.
@ 23 The Brainless one
Jul 20th, 2015 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“my companion is completely familiar with media bias as she has worked as a reporter in the print, radio, and television”
So she has learnt to obfuscate the facts and lie almost as good as you?
A match made in 'hell' then?
'Love' from an atheist!
Ha, ha, ha.
@23 Terence,
Jul 20th, 2015 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, if your companion is completely familiar with the media bias, I would expect you to be better informed.
But , regardless of proof - or the lack of it - of Lula's guilt, answer me this : Regardless of condemnation or acquitall in a court of Law, the result of which can be subject to undesirable external interference, or undue influence, what is your feeling about Lula, is he being judged unfairly by public opinion ?? in your opinion, is he innocent ?? Just YES, or NO.
24 ChrisR
Jul 20th, 2015 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You just keep stepping on those rakes, as you've just revealed your complete ignorance of professional journalism. My goodness, is there no end to the subjects you know absolutely nothing about but insist on passing your uninformed and unsupported opinion. My what a gigantic ego you have . LOL
25 Jack Baue
“is he being judged unfairly by public opinion” I have no idea as I don't know of any current polls. http://www.quora.com/Brazil/What-do-Brazilians-think-of-Lula-da-Silva
But, according to the Brazil's Criminal Code he is innocent as he was not at the time a public servant. “Lula was a private citizen holding no political office at the time prosecutors claim he was influence peddling” http://www.quora.com/Brazil/What-do-Brazilians-think-of-Lula-da-Silva
@26 Terence
Jul 21st, 2015 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quit sidestepping the issue...surely you have an opinion...because if you don't , what the hell are you doing here ? The fact that so far, nothing has been proved against Lula, is that , one : he's covered his tracks very well ; two, he can count on Dilma, the PT and the STF (dominated by PT appointed judges) to protect him...so much so, that Dilma has asked all her PT Ministers to defend Lula...why ? to defend him from what, if he's not been indicted ? Or is he afraid that if the government doesn't do something about it, shit will hit the fan and they all will be in the middle of it ?? who starts to defend themselves before they've been formally accused ? only someone who has something to hide. But I insist, what is your opinion of Lula ? do you believe he is innocent ? YES or NO.
27 Jack Bauer
Jul 21st, 2015 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Based on all the available evidence, i.e. statute and current posted legal opinions, by both lawyers and American mainstream press, so I'll say it yet again, Lula is innocent. By the standards of “the ordinary reasonable person” I have no reasonable expectation that they wrong and he could be convicted. But, then I'm not impeded by a political agenda. You on other-hand do have a political agenda, as you abhor both democracy, and the 'rule of law'. Since you are so far removed from the definition of a “reasonable person”, your speculations are not persuasive.
@ 28 The Brainless One.
Jul 21st, 2015 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, you are so far removed from anything like a brain, nevermind an intellect, I am amazed you can type a response!
29 ChrisR
Jul 21st, 2015 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your just a sore loser, take your beatings like man because your out of your depth, the problem of having a massive ego, isn't the same as being smart. You're the one who mentioned my intellect, so it must get under your skin, good.
@ 26 The Brainless One
Jul 21st, 2015 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you've just revealed your complete ignorance of professional journalism.”
GOTCHA! I knew you would not resist yet another unfounded jibe!
One of my maternal uncles was Editor, The Shropshire Star, at the age of 24, the youngest ever.
He was, without doubt, the biggest liar you could ever meet. But, you see, he could make anybody believe him the first time, until they realised the truth. He lasted as long as it took the Editor-in-Chief of the group to catch him out: he then went on to manage the PR department at a large London Authority where his delightful manner and master of lies got him through the rest of his working life.
For your information an opinion poll in the UK about what professions are trusted came up with reporters, et al, in the penultimate to bottom place. Only lawyers were held in less esteem.
So when your 'companion' tells you there's nothing going on between her and her boss I would be reluctant to believe her.
The truth is of course that you have never held a position of authority in your entire life, how could you with the demonstrable inability to make a decision on anything? I would certainly never employ someone in any of my businesses that has such a limp wristed attitude as you.
As regards me mentioning your lack of intellect you do realise that it is symptomatic of your inability to decide anything, don't you?
You try hard to impress but those on here can spot your type in a second.
@28 Terence
Jul 21st, 2015 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have convinced me....you have convinced me that talking to you is like talking to a wall. You insist on your verbal diarrhea about 'innocent until proven guilty”, which only makes sense in a court of Law. Other than that, any feeling, or perception, is valid . Most normal people form opinions, one way or the other, they don't sit on the fence and talk nonsense. To you, the definition of a 'reasonable' person, is one that agrees with your bs.
So please do me a favour, DON'T bother replying.
31 ChrisR
Jul 21st, 2015 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What an idiot all you've confirmed, is that your from a family of liars, and then you make a gigantic leap in stupidity and impugn a whole profession out of-hand. Next, you compound your imbecility in trying to foist some, as yet unnamed poll, as being a definitive arbitrator of truth. Give yourself a shake, the worst transgression a journalist can do is damage their credibility, as their finished. You shouldn't credit everyone else with having the same low-standards as yourself.
Oops! that damned rake again, thats just to remind you not to let that big-head get in the way of your rather limited smarts.
The truth is you could never, ever have afforded to employ me, some weeny little nobody. As to authority, I handled crews that were sometimes two-hundred personnel and met every dead-line. Which makes your seventeen employees rather small scale in the scheme of things, so I don't need your attaboy.
@ 33 The Brainless One
Jul 22nd, 2015 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So YOU were a boss! Did you screw your 'companion' while she was with someone else? I bet that was how she got promoted, isn't it?
Frankly you are lying through your teeth if you performed then like you perform now.
But, it doesn't matter how many you SAY you controlled, they were never YOUR employees were they? You all worked for someone else, didn't you? You have never had to ensure your workers got their wages / salaries, have you?
You must think everybody on here are stupid if you think they believe this bullshit. BTW, your family already has a liar in it: try looking in the mirror.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!