MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Rousseff's reelection campaign alleged irregularities, investigated by federal police
Brazil's federal police have opened a preliminary investigation into alleged irregularities in President Dilma Rousseff's re-election campaign last year. According to the media office of the federal police, the probe was opened on 7 October, following a decision by Justice Gilmar Mendes from the Superior Electoral Court to look into allegations of wrongdoing by the Rousseff campaign. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment ruleshttp://www.newsfultoncounty.com/world/news/0711216-brazil-court-reopens-rousseff-election-investigation
Oct 18th, 2015 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.newsfultoncounty.com/world/news/0711216-brazil-court-reopens-rousseff-election-investigation
http://www.newsfultoncounty.com/world/news/0711216-brazil-court-reopens-rousseff-election-investigation
http://www.newsfultoncounty.com/world/news/0711216-brazil-court-reopens-rousseff-election-investigation
http://www.newsfultoncounty.com/world/news/0711216-brazil-court-reopens-rousseff-election-investigation
Just a few of many articles.
Conqueror
Oct 18th, 2015 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh the bitch is in a death spiral. You reap what you sow. Finally a happy ending for a tale of deceit.
1,2 ,
Oct 18th, 2015 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It all started to go bad for her last year.
The World Cup overspending and construction fiascos, Brazil and SA losing to Germany and Europe for the Cup - I got so much joy out of seeing her sour face she couldn't conceal from the world when Germsny was announced the winner!!
She was counting on the joyous accolades from a SA football dominance - instead, a great let down for the people!
She's being held to account now for everything. Even her mentor, Lula, has abandoned her and in fact, thrown her under the bus, in order to distance himself.
Let them scratch each other's eyes out.... :-)
Happy days are just around the corner I think.
Oct 19th, 2015 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do all the judges wear bat wing gowns in Brazil? This guy only needs a bat-mask and he would be a dead ringer for Robin!
“Brazil's federal police have opened a preliminary investigation into alleged irregularities in President Dilma Rousseff's re-election campaign last year.”
Oct 19th, 2015 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just one more reason to impeach the fat bitch. The beginning of the end for fatty..
Please tell me this is the beginning of the end not only for Dilma, but for the PT as well... time for Brazil to pop this reddish, nasty zit.
Oct 20th, 2015 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess one should never count one's chickens before their hatched, and the beat goes on. So I hope this little gem doesn't cause any of this little cabal of wing-nuts to have a conniption.
Oct 20th, 2015 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Brazil's Supreme Court Freezes Impeachment Campaign in the Lower House of Congress
...Cunha would file the petition to disguise his fingerprints on the initiative, and then the opposition would proceed with the impeachment request in the plenary of the lower house of congress. ...Ministers Zavascki and Weber accepted the legal actions based on the argument that Cunha set new rules, different from what is stated in the Constitution regarding crimes of responsibility and the rules of the lower house..”
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2015/10/1693782-brazils-supreme-court-freezes-impeachment-campaign-in-the-lower-house-of-congress.shtml
@6 LatAmBurgher
Oct 20th, 2015 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In this country, where the Law is often perverted to attend the needs of the powerful, it is hard to prediuct the outcome, ie., will Dilma be impeached ? God only knows. She has committed offences which the Constitution considers criminal - such as having used funds from official banks (to the order of R$ 40 billion) to pay government commitments, in 2014. There's evidence she has carried on this practise into 2015 ; still under investigation are the accusations that part of her campaign funds came from money diverted from PB - but even if she's not impeached, she's already a lame-duck president, and her permanence in power is just going to make it all the more diificult for Brazil to recover its credibility, both domestically and abroad. A good sign though, is that the Federal Police are now focusing their investigation on Lula, and preliminary evidence would suggest he is nowhere as innocent as he claims to be. Time will tell.
8 Jack Bauer
Oct 20th, 2015 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“She has committed offences which the Constitution considers criminal”
The issues that Cunha and his accomplices attempted to raise have already been rejected by the Federal Supreme Court as unconstitutional. So are are you basing your statement on a additional claim?
”The Federal Supreme Court is the highest court in Brazil and is entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the Constitution,[7] as well as functioning as a court of review. The Federal Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction to try and decide direct actions of unconstitutionality (Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade) of a federal or state law or normative act,[8] or declaratory actions of constitutionality (Ação Declaratória de Constitucionalidade) of a federal law or normative..CONSTITUIÇÃO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL [C.F.], On December 30, 2004, Congress amended the Constitution and established that the final decisions issued by an absolute majority of the members of the Federal Supreme Court would have a binding legal effect on the entire judiciary.”
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/legal-research-guide/brazil-legal.php?loclr=bloglaw
@9 Terence
Oct 20th, 2015 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was not addressing you, but since you have butted in, pls note : the “pedaladas fiscais”, which are a proven fact by the TCU - R$ 40 billion in 2014 alone- is an impeachable offence. As foreseen in the Constitution of 1988. Whether the Lower House, still presided by Cunha, decides - or not - to take it to the vote, is another story. If they do, and the majority are in favour of impeachment, it then has to go to the Senate, where again, it can be approved - or not. If it is, Dilma is out. The process starts and ends in Congress, where the Senate has the final decision, the STF will not get involved. And just fyi, Cunha is not the only Congressman (or group of Congressmen) who has presented a formal request for her impeachment, and Gilmar Mendes of the Supreme Court has already stated (last week) that an injunction (approved by one of the STF judges), may delay the process but is not sufficient to kill it.
Perhaps you dont remember the impeachment of Fernando Collor in 1992 - The same procedures were used to impeach him , regardless of the fact that he tried to get out it by resigning before the impeachment proceedings were finalized. The PT tried to impeach FHC during his 2nd term. Congress voted against it. Now it's Dilma's turn to face charges and to be subject to the same rules. Or, perhaps 'you' think that a different set of rules should be applied to a PT president ?
10 Jack Bauer
Oct 20th, 2015 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never imagined it as as a personal message, but if you post to a public forum you can hardly be expecting privacy, that is the the preserve of a private email.
“..is an impeachable offence. As foreseen in the Constitution of 1988” This is fascinating in view of the fact that Dilma's defense is she is merely following precedent. Help us all out a bit, where specifically is she in breach of the constitution, or are you simply shooting from the hip?
“The TSE investigation..can be appealed to the Supreme Court..” http://en.mercopress.com/2015/10/07/brazil-s-top-electoral-court-will-investigate-rousseff-s-reelection-campaign-for-alleged-irregularities
@11 Terence
Oct 21st, 2015 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“This is fascinating in view of the fact that Dilma's defense is she is merely following precedent. ”
So what you are advocating is that since previous governments have also broken the Law, with regards to this specific issue, that she should be given a free pass because “she is merely following precedent”.....Well, if we stretch this to all matters of the Law, then there is no Law. Your logic is remarkable.
I don't know why I waste time on you Terence, but in an effort to educate you regarding the Brazilian Constitution, here goes : in 2014, the Treasury delayed transferring funds to the public banks (BB, CEF), which are the agents through which many of the government's social commitments are paid. In view of the delay, the banks were obliged to use their own funds to cover the hole. In other words, a forced loan from the banks - which is strictly prohibited - to give the impression that government finances were under control....clearly important to Dilma in view of the impending presidential election.
Based on Articles 10 & 11 of Law nº 1.079 - Law of Fiscal Responsibility - this is not allowed. The TCU, after due analysis, simply followed the Law and declared the 'pedaladas' illegal. It's clear that the Government's intention was to avoid the real situation of their cash-flow coming out into the open. Besides the TCU's inevitable conclusion that the government had in fact disrespected the Law, there's also the fact that the government denied any wrongdoing, then denied the cover-up. She is guilty on both counts.
As if breaking Law 1.079 was not enough, Dilma also broke Law 8.249 - Law of Administrative Improbity . These Laws foresee : Indemnification of damage caused (deficit), loss of public office, loss of political rights for 3 to 5 years, etc. So, a president can be removed from office in accordance with the Law, but must govern within the Law. And in 2015, the 'pedaladas' continue..
12 Jack Bauer
Oct 21st, 2015 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you, for clarifying the the various issues.“So what you are advocating is...a free pass because she is merely following precedent”. I'm merely envisaging the various possible legal interpretations. Since their was no theft or fraud it is not a criminal issue, since there is no loss of public monies. So it is strictly an interpretation of administrative law, not in fact a breach of the the constitution as you claimed . So Dilma could rely on the PREAMBLE of the constitution which states ”equality and justice as supreme values of a fraternal, pluralist and unprejudiced society,“ for equal treatment before the law.
Moreover, in regard to the constitution she doesn't appear to have been in violation of SECTION IX - ACCOUNTING, FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY CONTROL; Article 71. External control, incumbent on the National Congress, shall be exercised with the aid of the Federal Court of Accounts,..”. Since there has been no “loss, misplacement...illegal expenses...damages caused to the public treasury;”
Further, she could claim reliance on her constitutional prerogative. “SECTION II - DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC; Article 84.The President of the Republic shall have the exclusive power to:
II. exercise, with the assistance of the Ministers of State, the higher management of the federal administration; IV. sanction, promulgate and order the publication of laws, as well as to issue decrees and regulations for the true enforcement thereof; X. decree and enforce federal intervention;..”
@13 Terence
Oct 21st, 2015 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's right, defend her 'til you are red in the face like a true petista, denying the obvious, which most of enlightened society has already given up discussing. That's why the PT is grasping at straws to try to save her. Obviously, the fact that the TCU, and now various renowned jurists have stated that Dilma has broken the Law - not just Ordinary Law, but the Constitution - means nothing to you, because you, the expert on everything, think you know better.
The outcome is anybody's guess, specially when the whole issue is shrouded in political arguments, which may or may not coincide with the letter of the Law.
But, as I said, trying to educate you is a total waste of time. Get lost.
14 Jack Bauer
Oct 21st, 2015 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have only noted one former disaffected lawyer, who has in part stated what you claim. On the contrary, I have shown opinions of constitutional lawyers, political journalists, and a former president from an opposition party who hold an apposing view. Mostly from a major São Paulo newspaper, Folha. Again you misquote the lawyer all he stated was “she broke the law not” not “the Constitution. You Fascists with your political agenda like play fast-and-loose with truth, ”various renowned jurists“ as yet unnamed and unknown. I don't buy into any ideologies, as none of them are a cure-all. It's only you politically naive dogmatists that believe one size-fits-all. What I do enjoy solving is legal conundrums. So in the end you exit with a flurry of insults, after I have destroyed your slanted ”expert” claimed interpretations.
@15 Terence
Oct 22nd, 2015 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you have found only 'one lawyer' , who “has in part stated what I claim”, you obviously haven't looked very far ; By now, it is evident that you are very selective, picking out only opinions that coincide with your (socialist) views, and then trying to generalize. I also read the opinions of people who defend Lula, Dilma and the PT...only problem ? After seeing the shit they have dumped upon on Brazil, I - as well as many dozens of millions of Brazilians, who actually live here - don't believe them. I really don't care what you think as it makes absolutely no difference to what has happened, or to what will happen.... whatever that may be.
Regarding your opinion that I am a fascist is proof that you see yourself at the other extreme, a socialist, and your only defence is to try disqualify my opinions. Doesn't seem to be working too well, does it ? But it's what socialists do, and as such, I've long given up expecting anything you say, to make sense. You have included yourself in the same category as the “brasileiro” ....Congratulations.
Ah, before I go, is my stating that ”trying to educate you is a total waste of time, an insult ?? Just a fact, and by the look of it, touched a nerve.... Neither am I 'interpreting' anything....am simply passing on the opinions of people who have the authority to claim what they do, and to which, well within your rights, you prefer to turn a blind eye. Don't make me LMAO.
16 Jack Bauer
Oct 22nd, 2015 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a liar, you claimed at post #12 “ ..Law of Fiscal Responsibility - this is not allowed...” When that law has no application to Dilma, as you can see. ”Federal Law no 1.079, April 10, 1950 (Responsibility of the Governors). Part II, Chapter 5, Regulatory frameworks and government auditing of public debt by Laércio M. Vieira http://www3.tesouro.gov.br/english/public_debt/downloads/book/Part2_Chapter_5.pdf
“Dilma also broke Law 8.249 - Law of Administrative Improbity ” Which is also untrue. There is a Law on Administrative Improbity (No. 8,429/1992); which also has no application to Dilma. “The administrative improbity law seeks the punishment of the illicit enrichment of public officials and of damages caused to the public coffers, as well as the restitution, to the public administration, of such damages; Anti-corruption enforcement and policies in Brazil: changing times bring a host of developments http://www3.tesouro.gov.br/english/public_debt/downloads/book/Part2_Chapter_5.pdf ”..jurists have stated that Dilma has broken the Law - not just Ordinary Law, but the Constitution..“ More porkies, as you cannot provide either a name or the effected part of the constitution. ”..trying to educate you is a total waste of time..“ You’re right about that, as when your attempted so called ”education“ is examined it’s shown to be a dishonest purveying of fraudulent information.
http://www3.tesouro.gov.br/english/public_debt/downloads/book/Part2_Chapter_5.pdf
”The best way to win an argument is to begin by being by being right.” Jill Ruckeshaus, Saturday Evening Post, March 3, 1973
“.. the wretched conceit of a liar, in supposing himself clever enough to invent stories so ingenious that they shall, for any time, impose on people for the truth, and the still grosser folly in imagining, as he must do, that the world will, without investigation and analysis, take for granted anything he chooses to assert that
@17 Terence
Oct 22nd, 2015 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go ahead and spout your ignorance. You obviously think you know more than a judge from the STF, renowned jurists and lawyers whom, if you don't mind my saying so, didn't get to where they are by being naive idiots.
But you know what ? I don't care what you think, it's not going to change the outcome....but of course, since you are so well versed in Constitutional Law, perhaps you should offer your services to Dilma....“tudo farinha do mesmo saco”. One recommendation : don't get so upset, it's not good for your high blood pressure.
13 Terence Hill cont.
Oct 22nd, 2015 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0take for granted anything he chooses to assert that world more shrewd, more cunning, and as prying as himself what a conceited ass must the liar be! How superior over others in cunning must he not believe himself! What fools must he not suppose the rest of mankind!“ CHARLES WILLIAM DAY, The Maxims, Experiences, and Observations of Agogo
18 Jack Bauer
So at the end of the day your arrogant belief that your ”opinion“ will prevail over everything else comes to sudden end when faced with conclusive evidentiary proofs. So you have been exposed as a deliberate deceiver. ”..your opinion that I am a fascist is proof..“ absolute, as you are condemned out of your own mouth: 14 Jack Bauer; ”.....but there is still one thing that can save Brazil...i...the Military.....It's a matter of comparing the military, to where this damned PT government is taking us.....and I prefer the former.“
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/26/brazil-supportive-of-mercosur-as-long-as-it-does-not-turn-into-a-burden.
”..you see yourself at the other extreme, a socialist,..“ merely on the say so of a proven liar, I don't think so, you’re way beyond any creditable belief.
”.. spout your ignorance..“ is only applicable to you as your views are based entirely on your humble opinion. Whereas, a check on your legal assertions, has proved they are completely fraudulent. In which case, you have tacitly revealed you believe Dilma to be innocent, otherwise why would you proffer deliberately misleading evidence? ”..since you are so well versed in Constitutional Law..” apparently of a sufficiency to catch your manipulations, and to proffer possible scenarios that may be germane.
@19 Terence
Oct 23rd, 2015 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not only 'my' opinion , you moron....which I am entitled to....or, aren't I ?
I never stated what WILL happen with regards to fat Dilma...I have said what I would LIKE to happen to her, and have stated why, but you seem to have a problem in distinguishing the difference. You allow yourself to be ruled by people's quotes ('their' opinions), as if they couldn't ever be wrong; you just carry on like a broken record, demanding proof of what does not need any, trying to sound like an expert on Brazilian politics - although you do not, and have never lived here, at least not for any reasonable length of time.
Your accusations are laughable, such as “a check on your legal assertions, has proved they are completely fraudulent”. Calling me a fraud is saying that some of Brazil's top jurists are a fraud. What gives YOU that authority, oh 'brainless one ' ?
Besides reading a decent newspaper, I have merely listened to dozens of interviews of people who circulate in the midst of all the Brasilia politics, and whose opinions - for and against Dilma - I evaluate....to form my own....which I DO NOT NEED TO PROVE. What's your problem Terence ? Insecure ?
Whether you like it or not, these people are far better informed than you are - and me as well, for that matter - and your constant attempts to discredit their opinions - with yours - is pathetic.
You see, you CAN believe what YOU want, and I couldn't care less what that is. I'm fed up of reading your biased views that have little or no foundation, so do me a favour : post all you want, but post some stuff that makes sense.
20 Jack Bauer
Oct 23rd, 2015 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If I'm a moron and I'm still able to run rings round you, then that must make you completely non-mentis compos. What I do is expose people like you in your true colours to the world, using your very own words to impeach you, ironic isn't it. You start out making certain statements against Dilma, and I'm able to prove it's so much drivel and you end-up hoisted on your own petard. “I never stated what WILL happen with regards to ..Dilma”. Nor did I claim you did, it's just another of your many imaginings. “Calling me a fraud is saying that some of Brazil's top jurists are a fraud.” is a straw-man argument. “Calling me a fraud..What gives YOU that authority” Your own words condemn you as I have previously shown your deception with the correct authoritative citations, re: post #17. ”You allow yourself to be ruled by people's quotes ('their' opinions),...your constant attempts to discredit their opinions - with yours“. Oh! dear ”however, it is considered a fallacy to make contradictory claims. People call it arguing out of both sides of your mouth,“ The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide By Harry Phillips, Patricia Bostian.
”One of the first businesses of a sensible man is to know when he is beaten, and to leave off” ...Samuel Butler
It looks like the Attorney General is preparing to move to remove Cunha from the presidency. After all the money seized in Switzerland not a moment too soon!
Oct 26th, 2015 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse 08 Jack Bauer “..focusing their investigation on Lula, and preliminary evidence would suggest he is nowhere as innocent as he claims to be...”
Oct 26th, 2015 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva have been exonerated of all responsibility in the Petrobras scandal in a report released this Monday by the parliamentary commission in charge of the investigation.”
“http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Brazilian-President-Rousseff-Exonerated-in-Petrobras-Scandal-20151019-0036.html”.
That should clear up some of the commonly held misconceptions.
@21 & 23
Oct 26th, 2015 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are the eternal expert. On everything. Thinks Terence. Enough time wasted on you. Now run off and play ......and don't forget to let the brasshole and Hippy play with your dolls.
24 Jack Bauer
Oct 26th, 2015 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess by comparision to you I would look like an expert. But thats the difference you rely largely on your uniformed opinion formed from 'filtered truth' secondary sources. Whereas, whenever possible I rely on primary sources as the most definitive proof. But, thats how you gather the knowledge required for the submission of university essays et al.
“Let me show you how it's done ... Loser!” Babe Ruth
“Losers are always in the wrong” Spanish Proverb
@25 Terence
Oct 26th, 2015 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Presumptious. Wrong, most of the time. A rabid socialist. A failure in life.
Get used to it.
26 Jack Bauer
Oct 26th, 2015 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If what you stated was true you'd be able to show the evidence of the same, funny how you can't show one instance isn't it. So by Ignoring the Burden of Proof, (http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm) by a fortiori argument, you've just confirmed you're falling back on your old stratagem of relying on porkies. Conversely, any casual viewer will see the forum is littered with your defeats. You can't present one instance where you have won an exchange, or where I have I have ever shown any preference for socialism.
I hate liars. I mean like, since when has telling the truth become so hard?
“Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth”. Franklin D. Roosevelt
”A truth that's told with a bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent. (William Blake)
“Once to every person and nation come the moment to decide. In the conflict of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side”. James Russell Lowel
@27
Oct 27th, 2015 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Evidence, proof, blah, blah, blah...porkies, quotes ? Sickening. Ignorant. Socialist twat. goodbye.
28 Jack Bauer
Oct 27th, 2015 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In answer to one whom asserts much but is unable to prove anything, thats quite a singular talent. LOL. So at the end of the day you have endorsed everything I have stated as correct, as you are unable to refute any of it, thanks. As the only way was by validating your original claim.
“If it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary” Mark Twain
Would you like some cheese and crackers to go with that whine?
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” - Mark Twain
“You can not argue with stupid but you can certainly play with it.” Donna Lynn Hope
“If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.” Kurt Vonnegut,
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” Euripides, Bacchae
A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts. Herbert V. Prochnow
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!