MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Rousseff takes the stand on Monday, following the round of defense witnesses
Suspended Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff's former economy minister testified Saturday that Rousseff did not break any laws justifying impeachment, as her trial closed in on next week's climax. Rousseff is accused of taking illegal state loans to help bridge budget shortfalls and mask the true state of the economy during her 2014 reelection campaign. The president argues the charges are trumped up and amount to a rightwing coup. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIf what she did really is illegal; why is everyone beating around a bush for such a long time, to kick her out?
Aug 28th, 2016 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why are most of the crooks still free?
“The Brazilian constitution calls for the impeachment and removal from office of a president who breaches the fiscal responsibility law”
Aug 28th, 2016 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-rousseff-impeachment-idUSKCN0QG0BS20150811
You get such statements for example, from Reuters, but a check of the constitution shows this not case, as its silent on the issue. So for an interpretation under the fiscal responsibility law to amount to an application for impeachment. It would require a 'notwithstanding' clause in relationship to constitution, which is also lacking.
Should she be allowed to do what she did? I don't believe so, as it appears it was a deliberate deception. But, what ever censure is applied it must firmly stand on legal grounds, not political ones. As the constitution doesn't allow for a simple none-confidence vote. As such an option in the constitution was rejected, mores the pity as it would have enabled a perfectly legal solution.
More protection to the crooks - this is exactly what happens when the constitution and the laws are specifically written to protect the corrupt!
Aug 28th, 2016 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil is one of the highest taxed countries. Has anyone ever tried to learn - take good examples - from the other countries to reduce the taxes and improve the quality of life [standard of living]?
“You cannot act retroactively with a new interpretation of the law.”
Aug 28th, 2016 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really?
So you can break a law if no one has “interpreted” in that manner. This quote is highly illogical. Interpretation comes AFTER someone is charged with a law.
Or am I missing something?
4 Skip
Aug 28th, 2016 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand him to mean that their interpretation would enable them to apply the law they're relying on prior to its enactment. Whereas as there is a long history of jurisprudence that in large, bar such practices. I suspect something was lost in the translation process.
This: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/769306613844967425
Aug 29th, 2016 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0”“There is nothing remotely illegal,” Barbosa said. “You cannot act retroactively with a new interpretation of the law.”
Aug 29th, 2016 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Considering that many laws are ambiguous, and full of loopholes, it is not surprising that various interpretations of the same Law will arise. And judges will act in accordance with whatever interpretation they identify with, within reasonable limits of such interpretation. Therefore Mr Barbosa was only expressing his opinion, which shouldn't be given too much importance, considering that he himself, while aswering the questions in the Senate, declared he was not a lawyer, far less an expert in Constitutional Law.
But in this case, the Law and the Constituion are very clear regarding what can and what cannot be done concerning the Federal Budget and the fiscal target.
7 Jack Bauer
Aug 29th, 2016 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”But in this case, the Law and the Constituion(sic) are very clear regarding what can and what cannot be done concerning the Federal Budget and the fiscal target.”
Please make my day and show where she is in violation of the constitution. I have asked you this question at least three other times. I can tell what the result will be in advance. You proffering an opinion, but being completely unable to prove it. So you will remain an unrepentant liar.
@8 Tinker Bell
Aug 29th, 2016 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It has reached the point where “I” don't need to show you anything. If you had bothered to inform yourself properly , if you had been tuned in to all the impeachement proceedings in the Lower House over the last 3 months, and now in the Senate, you wouldn't ask something so stupid.....but I suppose it's just the way you are. Keep on defending the fat cow. That's what I expect of someone as stupid as you.
Your other comments are too bloody stupid to reply to.
9 Tweedledum
Aug 30th, 2016 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the confirming, that there has been no breach of the constitution. Since nobody has been able to indicate a breach. So all you've proved is you're simply an opinionated liar. “Keep on defending…” Sorry but unlike you I have no particular stake in the political outcome. My interest is the legal issues in a cause célèbre of which this is just another among many other legal abuses like Dreyfus affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair; California v. Orenthal James Simpson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair; Louise Woodward Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair; and the Steven Avery case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair;
Glad we found a place to include this powerful tweet by @AngelaMilanese: https://twitter.com/alexleff/status/770379855078621184
Aug 30th, 2016 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rousseff did not get a fair trial since her accusers were also her judges, many whom are in violation of the 'clean-hands' doctrine, and therefore should have been recused. Which is contrary to the UN UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS of which brazil is a signatory
Aug 30th, 2016 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”
So while there can be no interference in Brazil's internal affairs, how potently embarrassing backward she appears. When unable to even allow the basic tenets of fairness.
@10 Tinker Bell
Aug 30th, 2016 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm starting to believe there is a total vacuum between your ears...nobody, far less me, confirmed anything - Are you really that thick ? you say you have no “particular' stake” in the outcome, which may be true, but yet your actions suggest the opposite...you are the 'unrepentant liar'.
While I think you should look for your own information, I'll give you a push in the right direction : Look up Law 10.028/2000 - and IF you are capable of understanding what is written there, you can offer your public apologies for being such an asshole.
As to your # 12, if anyone in this country ever got a fair trial, it's the fat cow. Your ignorance regarding the impeachment process becomes evident once again when you state “Rousseff did not get a fair trial since her accusers were also her judges,”... total bs. The accusation against the fat cow was based on the TCU’s 2014 end-of-year report, which exposed the Government’s total lack of respect for the Federal budget (LOA), duly approved by Congress a year earlier, and was drafted by 3 eminent lawyers/ jurists ; it was then submitted to the Lower House, which by a great majority, voted to accept it. After strict adherence to all steps foreseen in the Constitution, with all procedures being ratified by the Supreme Court - even with some minor alterations in procedure requested by the fat cow's 'defense' - the process finally reached the Senate….which is the body that will judge her. So, you are proved wrong - her accusers are not her judge. Amazed that you are unable to comprehend that. Not really.
As to your brilliant observation that Brazil is a signatory of the UDHR, it does not mean that the Brazilian Constitution is subordinated to it. And just fyg, the Constitution of 1988 , when written, incorporated the precepts of the UDHR, therefore the Brazilian Constitution the highest Law in the country, second to none.
13 Tweedledum
Aug 30th, 2016 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have never claimed that the Brazilian Constitution is subordinate to UNHR, in fact I have expressed the opposite. If you have a valid legal point to make, clearly state don't elude. Theres no requirement for me to prove your arguments, the only requirement is for me to meet my burden of proof, which I do.
The US constitution uses the expression “high crimes and misdemeanours” as the basis of impeachment. Misdemeanours is not in this instance used in the usual meaning “1. a minor wrongdoing:” Which originated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 “Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanours” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanours” were accused of offences as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.” http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
@14 THill
Aug 31st, 2016 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have never claimed that the Brazilian Constitution is subordinate to UNHR, in fact I have expressed the opposite.”
Well then, you are thick, because I never said you did...I merely pointed you in the right direction......but to no avail. Your loss.
You also went on to state that “Rousseff did not get a fair trial since her accusers were also her judges, .....” Once again, you were speaking out of your arse. Accusers and Judges were two completely separate and different bodies; but to expect you to know that would be giving you too much credit.
By the fact that you keep on spouting shit, proves you didn't bother to consult Law 10.028/2000....either because you can't understand Portuguese, or because you are incapable of reading Law. Doesn't really matter though.
Now, WTF does the US Constitution have to do with the fat cow's impeachment ? Just like you to avoid the issue and go off at a tangent.
And the rest of your crap is totally irrelevant to Dilma's impeachment.
The only thing you have managed to prove so far, is that you continue to be a moron....you are also pathetically stubborn, and unfortunatley that cannot be fixed.
And finally, the valid legal point has already been made, by the prosecutors and the Senate : the fat bitch is out. C'est fini !
15 Jack Bauer
Aug 31st, 2016 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I stated “I have never claimed that the Brazilian Constitution is subordinate to…” Your response “I never said you did.” You attributed the following to me ”Brazil is a signatory of the UDHR9(sic), it does not mean that the Brazilian Constitution is subordinated to it.“ Have you seen anyone about your apparent lapses? Where you obviously don't remember what you're talking about.
You're wrong, ”Accusers and Judges were two completely separate and different bodies“ The legal action was brought about by those that voted to enact the impeachment process, i.e., the body politic not an arm of the judiciary. Therefore, they formally stand as both accusers and jury.
”You didn't bother to consult Law 10.028/2000.“ Like I told you already you, if you are relying on an act then produce it, as it is your burden of proof not mine.
”What does the US Constitution have to do with the impeachment” Look at her, you think a lot of yourself don't you. I'm not merely writing for your edification. Since, historically the Brazilian constitution must base itself somewhat on its predecessors. Of which the US is an obvious one, and there is a dearth of information concerning Brazil's. It is simply shown by way of information why other constitutional impeachments are applied.
I'm impressed; I've never met such a small mind inside such a big head before.
@16 THill
Sep 01st, 2016 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The accusers were : Janaina Pascoal, Miguel Reale Jr, Helio Bicudo.
The Judges were : the Senate.
The Lower House : did not accuse her, simply voted in favour of the accusation carrying-on to the Senate.
Squirm all you want trying to get out of it, but you've shat yourself once again.....Like the time when you claimed the PT was a 'minority' party....
It wasn't then, but probably will beccome one, now.
I don't have to prove to YOU, what has already been proven to the whole of Brazil. Clearly you want to be mouth-fed because you're too f*cking limited to look for it yourself .
My question : “What does the US Constitution have to do with the impeachment” still stands, as your reply, once again, is miles off target.
Your reply : “Look at her, you think a lot of yourself don't you. I'm not merely writing for your edification. Since, historically the Brazilian constitution must base itself somewhat on its predecessors. Of which the US is an obvious one...”.
“...US is an obvious one...” Really ? and that's it ? because you say so ?
Just fyi, the 1st Brazilian constitution (1822-1889) was based mainly on France's and on the liberal monarchies of Europe. In 1891, the new (2nd) Constitution introduced Republican ideals , partially inspired by the US Constitution of 1779. The 1934 Constitution (the 3rd) was heavily influenced by the Weimar Republic, and in 1937 (the 4th) further influenced by the Fascists - it was nicknamed 'polaca' due to its similarity with Poland's.
After WWII, under pressure, Brazil decided to abandon the fascist constitution and in 1946 promulgated a new, more democratic one. The Military, in 1967, changed it once again, supressing many individual rights, in view of the historical moment Brazil was going through. Then the 1988 one, totally liberal.
If you concluded it was obviously based on the US Constitution, just because of the similarities of the impeachment process, you're a dummy
17 Jack Bauer
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since the impeachment component of the constitution is what is central issue, anything off that topic is neither here nor there. What is decidedly more important has been your inability to support your opinions. Not that I needed it, it was enjoyable discovering how little you really knew. You're driven totally by your prejudices, as is revealed by your continued personal remarks. Which is on accord with someone who is totally immature and irrational.
“You claimed the PT was a 'minority' party….” Oh dear the following must have it wrong too ha, ha. “The Guardian view on Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment: the political system should be on trial, not one woman; …But what is clear is that it is not only her career that has crashed, but the Brazilian democratic system as a whole. Dysfunctional to the point where corruption is virtually unavoidable and good governance constantly impeded,…The Brazilian constitution detaches executive power from the legislature but also, through the way it counts votes for congress, gives rise to a plethora of political parties. The result is that a president who has received a majority of the popular vote faces a legislature in which his or her party is lucky if it has 20% of the seats.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/12/the-guardian-view-on-dilma-rousseffs-impeachment-the-political-system-should-be-on-trial-not-one-woman
Only 31% more seats to become a majority, but unfortunately no one has achieved that.
@18 THill
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0When I think you've reached the limit of 'stupid', you go and surprise me by going a bit further.
My opinions are now , more than ever, based on fact. The fat cow's crimes were extensively debated by accusation and defense - and she lost.
Get used to it .
PT was never a minority party....it was only the 2nd largest out of 30 odd parties....the fact that they needed, like all parties, to form a coalition to be able to pass Laws through Congress, and to govern, is irrelevant.....but now, it doesn't matter anyway, as they are gone from Govt and their influence is greatly reduced ; especially because their main source of funding has now dried up. Sucks, doesn't it ?
Funny, when Collor was impeached in '92, no one called it a coup, or even suggested that the fledgling Brazilian democracy had suffered a blow....and what he was accused of, was peanuts compared to what the fat cow has been. Foreign journalists love to write sensationalist articles, defending their liberal views, and the idiots - like you - lap them up.
Dilma's well-deserved nightmare is not over yet.....the fact she retained her political rights is just going to be the start of another battle, this time in the Supreme Court. Isn't it also funny, that while Dilma and her more fanatical defenders (G.Hoffmann, L. Farias, V.Grazziotin) claimed all along that her accusers had torn up the Constitution, they conspired with Lewandowsky in the flagrant disrespect of article 52 of the same Constitution ? Looking forward to see the outcome in the Supreme Court.
When comparing Brazilian democracy to that of first-world countries, I agree that it's miles behind - but it is unfortunately what you get when the largely ignorant and manipulated population elect crooks. And it's not much different in the rest of Latin-America.
19 Jack Bauer
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0“She retained her political rights is just going to be the start of another battle, this time in the Supreme Court”
What are babbling about its over there is no appeal possible to the Supreme Court.
”Constitutional Law elements 1982, Michel Temer
The courts can not review the merits of the case which led the Senate to blame the president. This judgment is made solely and exclusively by the political body.“
https://translate.google.com.br/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://jota.uol.com.br/o-que-michel-temer-pensa-sobre-o-impeachment-e-seu-rito&prev=search
What an ignoramus, you live in a major city, pontificate about an issue you have just shown you know jack-shit about. Read it and weep moron.
Regardless, of the popular vote if you only control 20% of the seats you're a minority government.
”mi·nor·i·ty gov·ern·ment noun a government in which the governing party has most seats but still less than half the total.“
”But it is unfortunately what you get when the largely ignorant and manipulated population elect crooks” Well you've certainly confirmed your contribution to that sentence.
@20 THill
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What are babbling about its over there is no appeal possible to the Supreme Court.
”Constitutional Law elements 1982, Michel Temer”.....
Wrong. So much so that several individuals as well as the PSDB, PMDB and the PPS have ALREADY jointly filed a process with the Supreme Court to review the Senate's decision to divide the vote. Two of the Supreme Court judges, Gilmar Mendes and Celso de Melo have also already declared their understanding that the decision was unconstitutional, and that the STF will now have to decide what to do....annul the Senate's decision or to ignore the Constitution. And I suppose you didn't see Temer's interview of yesterday (while in China) when he stated ”this is now a matter for the judiciary (STF) to decide“. the fact that the ”petistas' took excerpts from Temer's book, out of context....make them meaningless ; besides, it was published during the military regime, i.e., before the current Constitution (1988); what an idiot you are...
I don't know where you get your news from but it is plain that you are unable to understand the facts that have lead to this situation.
Your definition of 'minority party' is a load of BS....never applicable in Brazil where, with the existence of 30 or more parties, no single party will ever hold more than 50% of the seats in the Lower House and/or in the Senate, which in practise, precludes the possibility of a 'majority' party existing in Brazil. See how you are ridiculous ?
Your last sentence just shows that when confronted, mama's little Terry gets his knickers in a twist and becomes emotionally unstable......don't poop in your pants now !
21 Jack Bauer
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct only as far as to procedural irregularities. There is no appeal on the merits of the proceeding.
”...the judgment of the Senate is political. ...to allow this value judgment that the constituent gave this mission to the Chamber of Deputies (authorizing process) and the Federal Senate. Not the judiciary, which applies the rule to the case, according to the legal classification. ...
The response is as follows: the courts can not review the merits of the case which led the Senate to blame the president. This judgment is made solely and exclusively by the political body...the courts can not review the merits of the case which led the Senate to blame the president….
However, nothing prevents the president to a court injunction ... were procedural irregularities in breach of the Constitution…“
Constitutional Law elements 1982, Michel Temer
So absolute best she can do is merely delay the inevitable, it is essentially a political process not legal one.
”I suppose you didn't see Temer's interview of yesterday“ No but I read a quote from him that stated ”right or wrong, it's the senate's prerogative“. If the present Constitution impeachment particulars had differed from edition I cited, it should be a no brainer to show the variance. So I'm not relying on your assumption that the articles of impeachment have changed. As I haven't noticed any variance in my copy of CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL; 3nd Edition; 2010
Your definition of 'minority party' is a load of BS. Well, since I've clarified what I meant, that they were a ”minority government”. In spite of your nit-picking on the issue google defines it as ”mi·nor·i·ty gov·ern·ment noun a government in which the governing party has most seats but still less than half the total.“
The only person that has indicated an emotional response is you with your argumentum ad hominem. Which indicates the level of your frustration requiring you to engage in personal attacks.
By her performance in the Senate Dilma has made certain that either a PT candidate or, possibly, Marina will be the winner of the 2018 presidential election.
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0For anyone with some level of information, it's clear the destitution of Dilma Rousseff was a political process with clear intent.
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dilma, as Lula, represented a new type of government in Latin America, one attempting to incorporate the large majority of the population to a modernized economy, ending a long history of dependency and exclusion.
With hiccups, those new type of governments are or were on the way to make deep transformations in countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador or Argentina as well as in Brazil.
The take over by the Brazilian conservative attempts to turn back the clock and return to the old neocolonial schemes of exclusion and dependency.
@22 THill
Sep 04th, 2016 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny, you haven't addressed your gross mistake in your #20, when you stated :
“What are babbling about its over there is no appeal possible to the Supreme Court.“
Already more than 10 lawsuits have been filed with the STF, exactly for this purpose. But keep on ignoring it.
””I suppose you didn't see Temer's interview of yesterday“ No but I read a quote from him that stated ”right or wrong, it's the senate's prerogative“.
Obviously you didn't see all of them, because he also stated that the divided vote (to favour Dilma) was no longer a political issue, but a legal one... (to be decided by the STF); Terry, you really need to inform yourself better.
As to article 52 of the Constitution, here it is ...I presume you read Portuguese:
Art. 52. Compete privativamente ao Senado Federal:
(...)
Parágrafo único. Nos casos previstos nos incisos I e II, funcionará como Presidente o do Supremo Tribunal Federal, limitando-se a condenação, que somente será proferida por dois terços dos votos do Senado Federal, à perda do cargo, com inabilitação, por oito anos, para o exercício de função pública, sem prejuízo das demais sanções judiciais cabíveis.
Please note the word “com” after ”perda do cargo“
In other words, if she loses her mandate, she ALSO loses her political rights...automatically. Very clear cut. No personal attacks . Nothing emotional.
@23 Hippy
Dilma's performace on the stand was pathetic....getting lost in her thoughts and resorting to the exact same answer to every question.....but it was also funny.
@24 Reekie
After being caught red-handed breaking the Law, obviously there was a good deal of politics thrown in to the process.....why shouldn't there have been, considering it was high time she was kicked out for her incompetence and having presided over the largest Brazilian company while it was ruined right under her nose ?
As to yr ”deep transformations” , why exclude VZ ? That's where Brazil was headed..
25 Jack Bauer
Sep 04th, 2016 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Funny, you haven't addressed your gross mistake in your #20,” It was a miner error, as only procedural irregularities can be addressed by the court not the merits. I addressed it in #22, but then “There's none so blind as those that will not see” 1546 (John Heywood).
”He also stated that the divided vote (to favour Dilma) was no longer a political issue, but a legal one..“ He prior to that wrote ”This judgment is made solely and exclusively by the political body...the courts can not review the merits of the case which led the Senate to blame the president….” So in your instance he is talking only about a procedural irregularity. As he has already stated ”...the judgment of the Senate is political. ...to allow this value judgment that the constituent gave this mission to the Chamber of Deputies (authorizing process) and the Federal Senate. Not the judiciary, which applies the rule to the case..“
”As to article 52 of the Constitution, here it is.“ Since myself or nobody else has mentioned it, you must be addressing for some imaginary person.
”After being caught red-handed breaking the Law” Apparently there is divided opinion on this issue. According to Voice of America News www.voanews.com/a/brazil-ousted-president-promises-strong-position-against-new-government/3492216.html.
@26 THill
Sep 05th, 2016 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stop making excuses for your mistakes...by claiming “it was a miner error”. (not “minor”?)
Regarding what Temer said, sidestep all you want, doesn't change anything.
When I transcribed Article 52 of the Constitution - not only for your (doubtful) benefit - you came back with “Since myself or nobody else has mentioned it, you must be addressing for some imaginary person.”.......So am I to presume that it wasn't Terence Hill that wrote the following in # 22 ? “As I haven't noticed any variance in my copy of CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL;”
But you're right, due to your lack of brain, I might as well be addressing an imaginary person.
Regarding the Voice of America News, you say “apparently there is divided opinion on this issue”.....strange, now you mentioned the word 'opinion' without the slightest reference to any 'burden of proof'.....
And just to clarify once and for all, despite your clinging like a dingleberry to Google's definition of 'minority party', such a definition is not applicable in Brazil....in countries with more advanced political systems, which have only 3 or 4 political parties , it's possible.
27 Jack Bauer
Sep 05th, 2016 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Stop making excuses for your mistakes...by claiming “it was a miner error”. Since the president who is also a constitutional lawyer has written ”The courts can not review the merits of the case which led the Senate to blame the president… nothing prevents the president to a court injunction ... where there are procedural irregularities“ So what he is stating is the 'facts' of the trial are beyond review. So only procedural errors are reviewable, that is the form and not the substance. ” As I haven't noticed any variance in my copy…“ Is related in very narrowest sense to the preceding issue. Expanding the scope to Article 52, which has never been raised by me and has nothing to do with the application of rules for the review of an impeachment. It relates to consequences of a conviction. So strive all you want but they are not my words, so your attempted sophistry is a failure. As I correctly stated Temer's summary is still correct as to the scope of an impeachment in spite of your claims to contrary.
”Minority party', such a definition is not applicable in Brazil.” It may well be, but since Brazil doesn't hold jurisdiction over the English language I will continue to use the words that the rest of the world uses appropriate to the situation.
@28 THill
Sep 06th, 2016 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First of all, Temer wrote his book 6 years before the 1988 Constitution ;
Second, the STF will be reviewing the decision to divide the Senate's vote in to two....and two judges of the STF have even indirectly welcomed the opportunity.
Third, with regards to Article 52, the fact that you deny having opened that door when you stated “As I haven't noticed any variance in my copy of CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL; 3nd Edition; 2010” , is totally irrelevant, but why did you even mention you ”haven't noticed any 'variance' in your copy (of the Constitution) etc”, when what matters is the current wording of Article # 52 (as in my # 25), and the Senate's interpretation of it in the final vote of the impeachment process, when the defense resorted to other, lower laws - this is simply, and exactly what is causing all the discussion.
So your interpretation of what is written there, makes no difference at all.
Going back to the 'minority party' issue, who in hell ever said or even suggested that Brazil holds jurisdiction over the English language ? Your Alzheimer's progressing ? We were talking about the PT , and I , the virtual impossibility of such a definition being applied to Brazil's political system - NOT the English language. And maybe you haven't noticed, but Brazil is NOT the rest of the world.
29 Jack Bauer
Sep 06th, 2016 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As I haven't noticed any variance in my copy of CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL; 3rd Edition; 2010” Was in support of ”The courts can not review the merits of the case“ stated by Temer, and to rebut the following. As you claimed ”excerpts from Temer's book, out of context....make them meaningless ; besides, it was published during the military regime, i.e., before the current Constitution (1988)“ So restate, any appeals are only on procedural irregularities not on the merits of trial. Article 52 does not address what is appealable or not, so it's off topic.
”Going back to the 'minority party' issue“
It is noted your further dishonesty in raising the words 'minority party' when I have since amended them to 'minority government' to correctly reflect my intent to wit: ”Your definition of 'minority party' is a load of BS. Well, since I've clarified what I meant, that they were a ”minority government”. In spite of your nit-picking on the issue. Google defines it as ”mi·nor·i·ty gov·ern·ment noun a government in which the governing party has most seats but still less than half the total.“ That is what the world at large calls such a government. The fact that you have to resort to subterfuge, indicates how little conviction you have in merits your argument.
@30 THill
Sep 06th, 2016 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Say what you want, but the fact is that several lawsuits have already been filed with the STF, and the judges will now have to rule whether the Senate's decision (to divide the vote into two ) or article 52 of the Constitution (which dictates impeachment procedure) will prevail. Don't you read the news ?? No use beating around the bush, that is the issue, plain and simple.
Minority Party : So to point out your failings is now “dishonesty” ? and 'nit-picking' ? well, I beg you pardon, “Your Highness”, you can amend your prior statements all you want, but you can't unring the bell. What you wrote is filed away for posterity, to remind people of your haughtiness....
So you amended “party” to “government”, to “correctly reflect your intent to wit” ? laughable, feeble excuse....couldn't you come up with anything better than that ? Anyway, your admission is ample proof you shat out the pot, and if anyone here has resorted to “subterfuge”, defined as “the attempt to escape censure or defeat in argument by evading the issue”, it looks a mighty lot like you. You are the one trying to evade the issue , with your futile 'amendment'... just admit it and shut-up.
31 Jack Bauer
Sep 06th, 2016 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Blather all you want, its unimportant how many injunctions are brought on 'procedural irregularities.' The judgement on the merits of the impeachment is written in stone, as I have already stated. Your admission is ample proof of your sophistry in attempting to evade the fact that the previous government, was a 'minority government'. So your deliberate fraud is revealed.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!