MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Attorney General accuses Lula da Silva of a key role in Petrobras huge corruption scandal
Brazil's Attorney General Rodrigo Janot has asked the Supreme Court to authorize an investigation against former President Lula da Silva for alleged corruption. Janot accused Lula of playing a key role in the huge corruption scandal at the state oil company, Petrobras. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOh dear!
May 04th, 2016 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Chief Crook, Lula, is really under the cosh now.
Will he sing like a canary and dob all his fellow crooks (and Crookess) in the crap to get a lesser sentence or will he scarper off to Italy?
Or will he be suicide, ala Nisman?
To T.Hill - Ryr 147 on “Rouseff's bid for int'l support backfiring”,
May 04th, 2016 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0146 Jack Bauer
“So you spell out a litany accusations with not one iota evidence....”
You stupidity knows no limits. If you did some research on the internet , you 'd find evidence of Dilma's criminal record.....You can look it up for yourself, you lazy twat; And I'm not asking you to confirm anything, just look it up. Educate yourself.
Yr “For example Lula, except for your opinion, he was never even ben charged with anything”....
Protected by his two terms as president, plus Dilma's first, and the immense criminal PT network installed in the Federal Govt, he has, until recently, managed to successfully block most investigations, but things are changing.... Just fyi, as the headline states, today the Attorney General has asked the Supreme Court for his indictment, based on the PB scandal, as well as for his attempt , along with Dilma's, to obstruct Justice (the Lava-Jato); and don't forget, Rodrigo Janot's appointment (18 months ago) by Dilma was supported by Lula, so no-one can claim he is being influenced by , or trying to favour, the opposition. I suppose next that you'll tell us you know more than Janot, and that his request for indicting Lula is based on mere conjectures....
When Lula became a Union Leader in SBC, I worked at Ford Motor Co. (in SBC), so I was / am well aware of his origin/ history.
“Moreover you have no idea where I live....”
By what's been said on this forum, I take it you live in Canada. But you never reply to anything directly, do you ? always deflecting, repeating your stupid mantra about proof etc...admit - once again - that you are not familiar with the idiosyncracies of Brazilian politics, etc....Don't know where you get your info from , but besides being filtered through left-wing editorials, it appears to be very limited.
Get lost Hill....
2 Jack Bauer
May 04th, 2016 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dilma has willing acknowledged her active resistance to the dictatorship. It's interesting that there was no armed resistance to the coup until three years later. You keep feeding the line that the coup was organized to prevent Communism. There wasn't any such thing waiting in the wings, otherwise there would have been an organized resistance from the begining.
“Lula….I was / am well aware of his origin/ history.” I'm not asking you for a character reference. I'm asking you to provide something of substance rather than your conjecture. “…until he put one of his 'pinkies' in a lathe so that he could retire…His history of dirty dealings and corruption were already in the news 40 years ago…” Since you haven't then It must be because there is no evidence to support your claim. All I have to say is 'bullshit' and that totally kiboshes your presentation.
“By what's been said on this forum, I take it you live in Canada.” Sorry like everything else you post, again pure conjecture.
@3 T.Hill
May 05th, 2016 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Dilma has willing acknowledged her active resistance to the dictatorship.”
When her criminal file started circulating on the internet, she had no choice but to admit to it....and she bragged about it, as if she were a hero. There's a lot more for you to research if you really want to stop making a fool of yourself.....as early as 1961, the group which Dilma later became part of, was already in Cuba , training in urban guerilla tactics....keep on looking.
As to the LullaRat, while I never said his 'character reference' was proof of anything, it just makes it easier to understand why he turned out to be the rotten egg he is. But if you are waiting for proof, in the next few days, or weeks maximum, there is a strong probability he will be indicted for the crimes I mentioned above (#2). Obviously you do not have access to all that appears on the news, or do not know where to search the internet, but Federal prosecutors have found documents proving that he is the owner of the country home in Atibaia - the one he and his family use as their own - but which he claims is not his ;
Regarding the 'triplex' flat in Guarujá, what construction company, in their right mind, agrees to spend R$ 1 million in structural modifications, on furniture/ decorations and high-end equipment, at the future owner's request, without a firm commitment from that future owner ?....what are they now ? a charitable institution ? and of course, it's only a coincidence that Lula announced (last Oct) that he wouldn't be purchasing the flat, claiming it was too small (297 sq mt), only a few days after news of the suspicious deal leaked to the press.....his wife Marisa Letícia was frequently seen at the flat in it's final stages, personally directing the changes, but of course, the flat wasn't meant for the Silva family - the modifications were carried out for someone else, out of the kindness of her heart. You are full of it.
4 Jack Bauer
May 05th, 2016 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to have great difficulty staying focussed. Re: Dilma, so the coup originally was based on bogus grounds, and you have confirmed that there wasn't any armed resistance to it for three years. That resistance at least in beginning, went to great lengths to avoid causing any fatalities. So addressing your original assertions that Lula had a history of wrong doing including 'self inflicted injuries' remains in the realm of speculation. Likewise your claim of me residing in Canada, more conjecture. As to Lula's present state who knows perhaps you may be eventually proved right, but at the moment that is still speculative. So the only thing you've confirmed is your penchant for shooting from the lip.
@5 T.Hill
May 06th, 2016 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can't believe you're really that thick ....I never confirmed any such thing (“that there wasn't any armed resistance to it for three years”)....If you refer to the 1964 military takeover, pls note that the 'resistance' which started as early as 1961 , carried on, without interruption, up to and after ; just fyg - and check it out if you want - those 'freedom fighters', as they vainly call themselves, were already active in Brazil in 1961-62. When Janio resigned and Jango took over in 1962, they resorted mainly to bank robberies to fund their movement - the objective of which was to topple the govt and transform Brazil into another Cuba; but when the military kicked the communist Jango out, in March 1964, these so-called freedom fighters found themselves up against a far more powerful enemy.....and Dilma Vana Rouseff, daughter of a communist bulgarian immigrant , was attracted by their leftist message....
So cut out the crap about “...great difficulty staying focussed.”, and stop trying to distort what I have written..... get serious.
Regarding Lula's 'self-inflicted injuries', I'm not even going to bother discussing it with you ; it is public knowledge and even Lula never bothered to deny it...he had gotten what he wanted. “Realm of speculation” ? you are very poorly informed. But you think you know all about those events, despite the fact you have never lived here.....you know where I live - I make no secret of it, why do you ? why so ashamed of letting us all know ?
“shooting the lip”....when are you going to consult a dictionary and learn the difference between 'opinion' v. 'proof' ?
You insist on distorting the facts and are incapable of answering any question directly ....what is the matter with you ? You mentally ill ?
“As to Lula's present state who knows perhaps you may be eventually proved right,”....well, well, well.....who knows ? is that now also 'your opinion' ?
6 Jack Bauer
May 06th, 2016 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Can't believe you're really that thick” Aparently I'm not as thick as you, and you have just verified I'm not dishonest unlike you.
“The 'resistance' which started as early as 1961 , carried on, without interruption, up to and after ; just fyg - and check it out if you want” I did and there is nothing that confirms your claim. So the only thing confirmed is that you're shooting from the hip ends up shooting yourself in the foot.
“The first signs of resistance to this repression were seen with the appearance of widespread student protests. In response, the government issued the Fifth Institutional Act in December 1968, which suspended habeas corpus, closed Congress, ended democratic government, and instituted other repressive features.”
Timeline--November 1967 - opposition starts armed resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_military_government#Resistance
“Lula's 'self-inflicted injuries'…it is public knowledge” So another claim without any proof. Like your assertions about 'freedom fighters' is bullshit.
“..you are very poorly informed.” I'm well enough informed to prove that you are a liar. So its your usual diatribe based only on your opinions, as confirmed liar.
@7 T.Hill
May 07th, 2016 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your opinion, or your statements, are without the slightest foundation. Your allegations that I'm this, that I'm the next, are all based on your ignorance, that of a fool who speaks without any knowledge on the subject.
I've read enough of your crap to know that you'll never rid yourself of your leftist ideas , or your idolatry of the LullaRat and his gang.
8 Jack Bauer
May 07th, 2016 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your opinion, or your statements, are without the slightest foundation.” My accompanying citation utterly defeats your claim. So in two posts, you have been caught in two lies, nice going. You claimed specifically that there were guerrillas operating in Brazil prior to the coup. The Wikipedia entry I have posted clearly states “Timeline--November 1967 - opposition starts armed resistance.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_military_government#Resistance. I don't have prove anything since your the one making the assertions. Therefore the burden of proof is yours, so bullshit, and so thats the end of the matter, as opinions without proof are simply lies. As I have already proved.
@9 T.Hill
May 08th, 2016 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Wikipedia : “... is a free-of-cost encyclopedia with its articles being free-content; those who use Wikipedia can mostly edit any article accessible.” While it offers tons of information on an infinity of subjects, it is not necessarily always accurate.
Before the military took over - 1964 - I clearly remember the bank robberies, as they were until then, unheard of. But if you choose to accept what it says as the gospel truth, despite the fact that its contents can be edited, go ahead numbnuts. You are the one taking Wikipedia at its word....based on what ? someone else's opinion ? The only thing you have proved is that you are a not-very-discerning, gullible idiot.
10 Jack Bauer
May 08th, 2016 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I clearly remember the bank robberies” doesn't pass muster. ”Wikipedia …it is not necessarily always accurate. You can't find any published article to support your bullshit, and prove my source is incorrect. Then its further indication that you're an unrepentant liar.
@11 T.Hill
May 08th, 2016 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whatever tickles your pickle, Terry.
12 Jack Bauer
May 08th, 2016 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your busted, you must think this is my first rodeo and you're the first liar I've ever 'outed'.
“If it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary”
Mark Twain
“No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof.”
Henry David Thoreau
@12 T.Hill
May 09th, 2016 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your busted”....erhh, what ?? shouldn't it be “you're busted” ?
You're miles off target, but if it makes you happy.....
You know, I'm actually amused by reading all your bullshit...I'm amazed that someone can be so detached from reality.....and yet be so convinced he's smarter than everyone else. I'm sure Freud explains it.
But tell me, why all the grammar mistakes ? are you becoming flustered because no one takes you seriously ?
14 Jack Bauer
May 09th, 2016 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The application of legal principles is much more concerned with truth, which is an unknown commodity in your case.
“The law respects form less than substance, equity looks at intent, not at form” ”The law does not concern itself with trifles“.
”It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people's grammar were just plain annoying. Now there's evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS.“ illinois.edu/blog/view/25/76120
“Grammar Pedantry Syndrome” is a form of OCD in which sufferers need to correct every grammatical error.” twitter.com/uberfacts/status/218151002707206145
“A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, ... Asperger syndrome often have behaviour characterized by pedantic speech.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant
So you can attempt all diversionary tactics you want. It doesn't change the issue at all. So wiggle all you want but you can't escape your own words “I clearly remember the bank robberies” which you cannot prove, and so it didn't happen.
“A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.” Jean Chretien
“Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity. ”Michel de Montaigne
@15 T.Hill
May 09th, 2016 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All that, just to explain your grammar mistakes...instead of accepting the fact that you pissed out the pot, you try to justify your mistakes....the makings of a true liberal , socialist twit.
16 Jack Bauer
May 09th, 2016 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I clearly remember the bank robberies” which no one else can, and so it didn't happen. Whom made the error of lying a got caught?
@17 T.Hill
May 11th, 2016 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...which no one else can...”......really ? How many people have you spoken to who lived in SP at the time ?
18 Jack Bauer
May 11th, 2016 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Inconveniently, the US can point to nothing even remotely threatening done by the Brazilian Communist Party, and early in 1964, Russian leader Khrushchev refuses even token financial aid to Goulart, not wishing to tangle with the US over the country. Brazil Herald, 3/6/64” www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/soa/brazil.htm So the contemporary sources show what an utter lie your claim is.
@19 T.Hill
May 11th, 2016 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Inconveniently...bla-bla-bla”.....You insist, even when you've lost.
But this attitude, from blind Terry, fully expected.
Amazing. You (think you) know everything.
Are you a world renowned historian ?
20 Jack Bauer
May 11th, 2016 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a quote from the Brazil Herald numbnuts. So while I produce contemporary newspaper accounts, that absolutely refute your imaginary ramblings. You have not provided one iota of evidence, loser.
@21
May 12th, 2016 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So in your expert opinion, a quote from the Brazil Herald is the absolute truth while an article from the Folha de São Paulo is not. Read the Brazilian papers, not the liberal press....numbnuts
You have no evidence, other than selected reports by left-wing jounalists to support your distorted views. Tough titty Terry....YOU lose, AGAIN.
22 Jack Bauer
May 12th, 2016 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“While an article from the Folha de São Paulo” Becomes a proven lie as you, as usual, fail to provide any evidence of such a fact. Thus, failing to meet your burden of proof. While there is no burden for me to refute your assersion, thus its bullshit. So you can attempt to deflect all you want. But, at end of the day all we are left with is your empty unproven rhetoric, versus my unrefutable proof.
@23 T.Hill
May 13th, 2016 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know what you can do with your 'burden of proof', don't you , you supercilious prick ?
Tell me, why are you such an idiot ? were you hatched like that or do you have to make an effort ?
24 Jack Bauer
May 13th, 2016 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are the prime example of how not to present an argument, and also being schooled in the art of, how to put together a winning argument by your opponent.
Still waiting for you prove any assertion you've made, otherwise you remain just fullofshit.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!