MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Mounting evidence against Lula da Silva at Brazil's Supreme Court
Brazil's Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended a meeting that was to decide whether former President Lula da Silva can be his successor's chief of staff. The delay came three days after the lower house of Congress voted to begin impeachment proceedings against President Dilma Rousseff. She is accused of using accounting tricks in managing the federal budget. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIf he escapes, let's call him “Houdini”! :o))
Apr 21st, 2016 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The idea that the fat cow rushed to appoint the LullaRat as Cabinet minister, in order to restore the economy is a load of bs........her rush was motivated by one thing, and one thing only - to allow the LullaRat to escape the claws of Judge Moro, and to have his crimes judged by the Supreme Court, where the Rat believes it would be easier to stall the process or to even subvert it completely. It is obvious that after 8 years of total mismanagement , absolutely no-one, would have the slightest capacity, or influence, to turn the economy around in a few days....so why the desperate rush to have Lula appointed, other than to protect him from Judge Moro ???
Apr 21st, 2016 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The LullaRat's crimes - mainly stealing, corruption, influence trafficking for personal gain - are serious and more evidence is surfacing daily, especialy now that Marcelo Odebrecht is negotiating a plea bargain....to save his ass he'll spill the beans on the LullaRat.
2 Jack Bauer “to allow the Lulla to escape the claws of Judge Moro” Which appears to be decidedly prudent given that the good judge doesn't abide by the rule of law and appears to to have displayed a remarkable propensity for bias.
Apr 22nd, 2016 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0”The rule of law
Lula’s detention and interrogation also raise questions about the way the judges, prosecutors and police involved in the Car Wash investigations are using their power. After Lula was interrogated, Supreme Court Justice Marco Aurélio Mello publicly questioned Judge Sérgio Moro’s decision to make the interrogation coercive, meaning that the police came unannounced to Lula’s residence and demanded that he accompany them to a secure location for questioning.
Aurélio Mello said that coercive interrogations were usually employed only when the suspect or witness refused to testify voluntarily, something that did not apply in Lula’s case. Moro, a federal judge and a key player in the Car Wash investigations, claimed his decision was taken to avoid public demonstrations for and against Lula – which happened anyway once the news broke.
Anti-corruption investigators have used other questionable tactics. Indefinite detention has been used to force people to testify, as in the case of Odebrecht CEO Marcelo Odebrecht, who has been held for almost nine months so far. Similarly, plea bargains can allow self-interested witnesses to shift responsibility to former co-conspirators.
Witness testimony has been selectively leaked to a willing media, which then exposes details of claims and counter-claims in a storm of publicity, doing little to help the due process of resolving these highly complicated charges.
As the Brazilian political scientist Leonard Avritzer argues, media-driven anti-corruption campaigns tend to demonise certain culprits while remaining uncritical of others. This is a serious problem for the rule of law, regardless of individuals’ guilt or innocence.
https://emergingequity.org/2016/03/08/brazil-looks-almost-ungovernable-b
In spite of the Allegations + Accusations + Proofs; NO Prosecution, NO Trial, NO Judgement, NO Verdict!
Apr 22nd, 2016 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0- NOTHING?
- WHY?
@3 T.Hill
Apr 22nd, 2016 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“to allow the LullaRat to escape the claws of Judge Moro” which appears to be decidedly prudent given that the good judge doesn't abide by the rule of law and appears to to have displayed a remarkable propensity for bias“.
”...decidedly prudent“...yes, very, in order to save his arse....which just proves Dilma's and the LullaRat's sordid motivation.
As to Moro being biased, only your opinion...however, pls tell me when 'n where he broke the Law....who has he sent to prison unjustly ?
Based on the evidence collected so far, why wouldn't the ”good judge“ - or any other one for that matter, involved in the investigation - come to the same conclusion ? As Moro has said all along, he is just following the evidence, very different to targeting someone and then looking for proof to back up the accusation.
As to your opinion that Lula's coercitive interrogation was not justified, may I suggest that you check the facts - after Lula's first interrogation by Moro, he actually did ignore a second summons, and went as far as saying publicly he would no longer comply if summoned again....he forced Moro's hand and got what he deserved...seems you missed that small detail. And soon after Lula's first interrogation, he was actually caught on a video, posted inadvertently by a PT congresswoman, saying ”eles que enfiem esse processo no cú”.....loud and clear, which clearly shows 'his' respect for the Law.
Lula's and Dilma's big problem, is that the Lava-Jato is bringing their plans to transform Brazil into a Bolivarian state - like VZ - to a halt.
It is very clear that the PT and its cronies will allege whatever they need to, to try to save their arses, and don't forget that today, Lulla is an ordinary citizen, without special immunity from prosecution... but there is proof that he and Dilma are working behind the scenes, in order to hinder / end the Lava-Jato. Obstruction of justice is a crime.
5 Jack Bauer
Apr 22nd, 2016 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unlike you I don't proffer an opinion unless it supported by a source, which in this instance is a Supreme Court Justice to wit: “Supreme Court Justice Marco Aurélio Mello publicly questioned Judge Sérgio Moro’s decision to make the interrogation coercive,” ”As to your opinion that Lula's (sic)coercitive interrogation was not justified,” Its not my opinion, the clue is its enclosed in quotation marks. But it is the writer of article Anthony Pereira who cites SCJ Mello's opinion on the matter, so what other conclusion based on his article could one form? So your addendum is at variance with the author and his source. So unless you can produce something other than your opinion the original stands a fortior.
The bad news is that there are no saints &/or patriots in the “Business of Politics”.
Apr 22nd, 2016 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For the name-sake; the never-ending inquiries are going on and on. Only a few of the “Privileged Corrupt” are enjoying their prison-sentences but a majority of them is not only Free but also is still In-Command!
Among many other nefarious activities, it is Highly Likely that through different actions [the corrupt among Pro or Against One Party or Another & those against one movement or the other] some potent forces are surreptitiously active behind the backs of their own fellow-countrymen; by “not-so-democratic” means:
- To use the media for Mass-Brainwash
- To negotiate among themselves for a greater Power-Grab
- To facilitate more corruption
- To cover their tracks & hide the facts or mix facts with fiction
- To limit the social media for restricting activities which do not favor them.
One needs to re-vitalize the olfactory senses ; for not yet being able to SMELL A RAT!
@6 T.Hill
Apr 23rd, 2016 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Unlike you I don't proffer an opinion unless it supported by a source....”
Well, I do presume that you are aware that an OPINION is a conclusion based on what one sees, hears, experiences....and does not need to be supported by someone else's opinion....I see that you carry on with the same blinker mentality.
But if you are prepared to take Marco Aurelio Mello's opinion as the gospel truth, then why don't you believe what the other Supreme Cort Justices - such as Gilmar Mendes, Celso de Melo and A.Toffoli - have declared ?
You are very selective, choosing to believe only that which fits in with your ideology.
8 Jack Bauer
Apr 23rd, 2016 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“An OPINION is a conclusion based on what one sees, hears, experiences.” The proof of which if it is not cited means its unproven and therefor cannot be offered as proof.
Like if any of your proffering was true you should have no problem proving it, the fact that you don't conveys that it's unlikely to be true. Thats why I meet my burden of proof and you don't.
@9 T.Hill
Apr 24th, 2016 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously we have very different ideas on what constitutes an opinion. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “judgement, or belief based on grounds SHORT of proof, provisional conviction, view held as probable”......therefore, to have, or to express an opinion does not require proof to back it up. Soon you'll be telling me I'm not allowed to think what I want ....
Have no idea why you insist ......perhaps because you are unable to tell the difference (btwn proof and opinion) ?
10 Jack Bauer
Apr 24th, 2016 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can think what ever want but unless you meet the burden of proof and provide the truth of your assertion. Then it's so much horse-feathers and nonsense, devoid of any substantial meaning. As relevant as scribbling on a public wash-room wall, so knock yourself out as that is the highest level of pertinence you're likely to achieve.
@11 T.Hill
Apr 24th, 2016 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0People are allowed to think whatever they want, without needing to “prove” a damned thing. Probably why you are such a stiff, malcontent person - you weigh yourself down with the 'burden of proof'......lighten up and permit yourself an opinion, after all , isn't one of the foundations of modern democracy, the right to 'freedom of expression' ?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!