MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Temer wins the day with a divided vote. “The system needs stability” was the decisive argument
Brazil's top electoral court gave embattled President Michel Temer a big victory late Friday, voting to reject allegations of campaign finance violations that could have removed him from office. After four days of deliberations, judges voted 4-3 in a case that many viewed as a measure of whether Temer could remain in office amid a ballooning corruption scandal and single-digit popularity. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCompare this shameful process to keep the guarantee of the wealthy and the powerful with the enthusiasm to oust Dilma just a while ago.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0As time goes, the use of the big media and a judiciary made up of the most conservative elements of society in Latin America shows up more and more its ugly face.
The same could be said about your beloved Cristina who surrounded herself with yes people in the judiciary. Are you blind or is it that communism does not see anything good in people.Why keep knocking the rich, if it wasn't for the rich investing in the country it would be dead in the water.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1They make jokes about the “MEXICAN” Soap Operas. BUT this Brazilian variety is even more dramatic! The Last Episode will be to declare all the corrupt politicians as innocent AND everyone lives happily ever after!
Jun 10th, 2017 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/TSE-Inutil-580x375.jpg
Temer goes through due process... and the government deems it best to keep him on.
Jun 10th, 2017 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Enrique doesn't like that.
@Enrique
Jun 10th, 2017 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, there is quite a difference in their treatment.
It seems you think this is the wrong decision, so do you believe Rousseff and Temer are guilty of this charge?
@Reekie
Jun 10th, 2017 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Why d'you insist on giving your opinion on something you know f-all about, using two different measures to reach your brilliant conclusions ? Don't bother answering, as we have all noticed that replying to simple questions is not one of your strong points...not that you have any.
@ to all other posters,
To those closely following the more publicized events, as well as the backstage manouvres, the decision of the TSE was no surprise. Technically speaking, the judges had sufficient proof to condemn the Dilma-Temer coalition, but what we saw were the political considerations taking front row....this was expected, given the fact that neither indirect presidential elections (in Congress, within 30 days), or direct elections in 90 days, were good options for Brazil, especially not now that the economy has given its first, albeit modest, signs of recovery.....If Temer were ousted, Brazil would return to a situation worse than that which lead to Dilma's impeachment. Also, as expected, even hating Temer, Dilma said the result of the trial was fair...what else could she say, without admitting she too, was guilty ? Anyway, considering the current political instability (which is negatively contaminating the economy), the result was the best thing that could happen to Brazil.
A corrupt presiding over the Electoral Court. A corrupt presides over the Senate. A corrupt preside over the Lower House.
Jun 11th, 2017 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1A corrupt man wants to see normality within corruption. Poor Jack!
@TWIMC
Jun 11th, 2017 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm addressing this TWIMC, as trying to explain it to the Brasshole is probably a waste of my time, as he obviously does NOT understand English too well.
I was not defending Temer, as a person - who, I am quite confident is guilty of many of the accusations, and most of which were not taken into account during the trial - but simply what the decision taken by the TSE currently means to Brazil... many say bad with him, just as many would say worse without...it's a matter of being practical.
It is clear that the left-wing radicals would, and will oppose any president who isn't a 'petista'....but at least they can celebrate the fact the fat cow didn't lose her political rights, which she should have, 8 months ago...didn't hear the lefties complaining back then, when the Senate (in a highly irregular, underhand, last-minute manouevre) divided the vote in order to save her fat arse (or, her political rights)...
Anyway, IF Temer had been kicked out, there would be absolutely no chance of Congress approving the reform of the pension system, nor of the labour laws, essential for the country to balance the Federal budget.
In Lula's 2002 presidential campaign, he claimed that those two systems were obsolete, criticized the outgoing president for doing nothing about them, and admitted they were causing enormous deficits...and with his usual bravado, announced that he, the saviour, would push these reforms - and others - through Congress...but what did he, and Dilma after him, do ? absolutely nothing.
@JB,
Jun 12th, 2017 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Technically speaking, the judges had sufficient proof to condemn the Dilma-Temer coalition..............”:
In spite of the seemingly serious justifications, the MAIN Unpublicized Motive clearly appears to be OTHERWISE - that of the Gradual Grants of Pardons to the Corrupt:
https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Venceu-a-Impunidade.jpg
WATCH THE DRAMA UNFOLD [gradually!] :o))
@:o))
Jun 12th, 2017 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure it ended up in 'pizza'.....to me that was clear before the trial even started....once again Brazil came up with a political solution for a judicial problem.....remember when Tancredo died ? he hadn't even been sworn in as president, so Sarney, as VP, could not have been, either....The law stipulated that new elections had to be held, but Congress found a way to ignore the Constitution, and allowed the corrupt Sarney to assume.
True!
Jun 13th, 2017 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Congress can always interpret the constitution differently or even change it - inclusive of changing the legal system in THEIR favor.
BUT the fact still remains - permanently:
REF: https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/OLIVEIRA-130617-Face-580x373.jpg
@:o))
Jun 13th, 2017 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0é ph*ddda, com 3 'd' de doer...e só quem vive aqui entende esse 'jeitinho' brasileiro.
Well, it's not an exclusivity of Brazil: :o))
Jun 13th, 2017 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.nationalreview.com/slideshows/cartoon-day
The probability that the Temer administration can provide “stability” is vanishingly small. #ForaTemer
Jun 14th, 2017 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “The system needs stability” [& sacrifice as well]: https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Reformas.jpg
Jun 14th, 2017 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Hippy
Jun 14th, 2017 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What exactly is 'vanishingly small' supposed to mean ???
What happens “IF”: http://plus55.com/brazil-politics/2017/06/brazils-president-michel-temer-indicted
Jun 15th, 2017 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0@:o))
Jun 15th, 2017 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good question....AFAIC, the only answer is more instability, both political and economic...dragging Brazil back to 2013/2014, and even further down the hole...While many have realized he may not be the option they like, they agree that the others are worse.
Jack Bauer
Jun 15th, 2017 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Dilma said the result of the trial was fair…” The proof of which is none existent, otherwise you would able to cite it. So babble on little brook.
And the country is: http://www.otempo.com.br/polopoly_fs/1.1485585.1497391751!image/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/main-charges-resize_620/image.JPG
Jun 16th, 2017 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0THill
Jun 16th, 2017 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Give it a rest...your insistence in defending the fat cow - and Lula - is becoming boring and without purpose. Dilma, in power, was a lame duck...now she's nothing. And why do 'I' need to cite the proof ? it's all over the news - for those who know how to access it. Funny thing though, your belief that Dilma is innocent, implies that you believe Temer is too.....but of course, you are entitled to your opinion, even though it is based on nothing other than what you want to believe. Your ignorance of local matters is understandable, given you've never lived in Brazil...so do us all, and yourself, a favour, and keep quiet. Thank you.
The - THE - Problem: https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Lula-Vai-dar-PT-2-304x420.jpg
Jun 16th, 2017 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@:o))
Jun 16th, 2017 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ééé....vai dar PT....na cadeia ! bando de FDP !
Jack Bauer
Jun 16th, 2017 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I’t’s not about others, it’s simply to show to all and sundry, who and what you’re all about. Thank you, for providing all that’s necessary to impeach your hyperbole. “Your ignorance of local matters is understandable, given you've never lived in Brazil.”
Is further evidence that you have no idea what you’re blathering about. Like all your conjecture it is based on what you wish the world was, and not what is actual reality.
@JB
Jun 16th, 2017 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To me it seems perfectly plausible that Dilma said the result of the trial was fair, since she was on trial too. But none of the articles I looked at mentioned her saying anything at all. So where did you see that? On TV or in some paper?
I suspect that if Dilma was still President now, they might have come to a different conclusion in order to get rid of her. It is truly not a good thing for justice to depend on political considerations, much less on popularity. Why should any Brazilian respect the courts now, knowing you can be let off if you are considered important enough in your job?
Again, how the elites recover power after the exceptional Lula presidency? They don't have the votes, so in the past they used the tanks. Now, they use the judiciary and the big media.
Jun 17th, 2017 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Their motives were allegedly “corruption” but the investigations began catching up to Temer and company and they were in a bind.
And so it all ends well. Temer is kept in power because the elites need “stability.” To undo the social progress painstakingly brought up by the Lula government.
Hi, JB!
Jun 17th, 2017 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not exactly his fan but surely; he will make The Best use of the situation - particularly if the Other Crooks continue to fool around: https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Corpus-Christi.jpg
@EM
Jun 17th, 2017 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You never answered me; Rousseff and Temer were on trial together, do you believe they are both guilty?
And another question: you say Temer is undoing the social progress brought about by the Lula government, but is this true? Which policies brought in by Lula has he reversed?
Right now Temer is trying to reform the pension system, but as far as I can discover it was not created by Lula but by earlier presidents. Lula's most famous policy is the Bolsa Familia, which Temer has maintained, at least so far. Trying to find others... there's a scheme called 'Minha casa, Minha Vida' to provide subsidised housing for the poor. It looks like this is still going but has suffered cuts. Another called Mais Médicos to provide doctors in areas with shortages, many of whom come from Cuba. Temer agreed to continue it for 3 years. There is also a scheme to support poor students, which Temer is continuing but it has suffered issues with the money not being released (for which they are naturally blaming the previous administration).
It looks like so far Temer is mostly keeping Lula's social policies, although some have suffered cuts. The biggest reason people are suffering right now is the severe recession.
What do you think?
Hi, JB!
Jun 17th, 2017 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not exactly his fan but surely; he will make The Best use of the situation - particularly if the Other Crooks continue to fool around: https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Corpus-Christi.jpg
@DT
Jun 17th, 2017 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dilma's lawyers claimed the outcome of the trial showed that her impeachment was illegal, and that Dilma 'comemorated' the result (as reported on TV). As I said, how else could she react , unless she was prepared to contest the decision / confess her guilt ? And I don't recall having seen anyone from her corner complain about the result.
If she were still president, despite the information that surfaced soon after the election, and the quickly deteriorating economy, the opposition now, would only have more ammunition with which to get rid of her...just glad they didn't wait to see what might happen. Apart from her breaking the budget laws, her actions were criminal - she was aware she was pushing the country over a cliff, and kept going.
Looks like you are finally getting the idea of what can, and does happen in the high courts...it's the infamous Brazilian “jeitinho”, which can be relied upon to sort things out...sometimes in favour of the villains, sometimes against them.
@Reekie
“Temer is kept in power because the elites need “stability.” To undo the social progress painstakingly brought up by the Lula government”.
Wrong. “Brazil” needs stability....if that has to go through the 'elite' so be it, because it is their decisions that will pull Brazil out of the hole, or will dig the hole deeper. If the 'elite' doesn't feel confident in the path the political situation is taking, they won't invest...no investments, no jobs for the 'poor'...are you able to follow, or do I have to spell it out to you in greater detail ?
“Undoing the social progress 'painstakingly' made by Lula ” ??? where the hell did you get that from ? couldn't be further from the truth...you're just acting like the majority of those being manipulated by the unions into believing they are defending their rights - pure BS !
But give ONE example of 'social progress' being reversed...I insist.
Good or bad, only Temer has had the guts to tackle the long overdue reforms.
“For my friends, anything - for my enemies, the law,” Getulio Vargas. The historical origins of Lula’s persecution originate with a dictatorship. In any common law country such judicial behaviour wouldn’t be permitted as an “abuse of process. Such a blatant abuse is now refereed to also as ‘Lawfare’.
Jun 18th, 2017 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“No judge in any civilized nation would act (in the way Judge Moro has).. (as)in this primitive inquisitorial system” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-euDLIfnM&t=7s “Geoffrey Robertson, became a barrister in 1973, and was appointed QC in 1988.” Geoffrey Robertson From Wikipedia. “He has argued many landmark cases in media, constitutional and criminal law, in the European Court of Justice; the European Court of Human Rights; the Supreme Court (House of Lords and Privy Council); the UN War Crimes courts; the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and in the highest courts of many commonwealth countries. *ww.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/profile/geoffrey-robertson-qc
“jeitinho brasileiro in Brazil”, “Jeitinho Land” might be a possible reason why such abuses are permitted. Such as atypical action as accusations without one iota of evidence. Which should translate into “no possibility of conviction”. The possible basis of such moral depravity? So we all can see why JB has absolutely no ethical basis as he’s driven by such a lack of constraints.
The Personal Interests & the greed for Power + Wealth are well above patriotism AND the need to improve the standard of living of the citizens: https://www.ft.com/content/c22e267c-5056-11e7-bfb8-997009366969
Jun 18th, 2017 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jack Bauer
Jun 19th, 2017 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Looks like you are finally getting the idea of what can, and does happen in the high courts...it's the infamous Brazilian “jeitinho”, which can be relied upon to sort things out.” So you yourself have admitted your judicial system is corrupt, therefore it is impossible for Lula to receive justice. Which means in such an event Brazil will become a pariah nation, and be queried at every facet of her international engagements. Such as at the UN, by those countries that cherish such ideals of fairness and the rule of law.
“Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare, consisting of using the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory. … Lawfare is not something in which persons engage in the pursuit of justice; it is a negative undertaking and must be defined as such to have any real meaning.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare
In my opinion, the ‘abuse of the legal process’ is the continuation of the coup. Who’s aim is to maintain the overthrow of democratic rule. Using an archaic law system originally based on the tenets approved by the Catholic Church.
In ANY case; THE truth of the matter - the Bottom-Line is:
Jun 19th, 2017 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/genildo-17.jpg
@JB
Jun 19th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, since they were accused together, she can hardly complain about them letting Temer off. However, I'm pretty sure simply being a bad president is not a crime, otherwise most of them would be in jail.
Is this 'jeitinho' the same thing that allows all the corruption? Doesn't seem like a very positive thing for Brazil. I'm sure bending the rules is easier, but there are more advantages in following them and forcing even the powerful to obey them. That way you can have some trust in your leaders and they are more likely to act in the country's interest rather than their own.
About the cold war, I think everyone was paranoid about communism at the time, but looking back it's not at all clear that Jango would have aligned the country with the USSR. IMO the US saw any country trying to have an independent foreign policy as siding with the USSR and likely to become communist, and acted accordingly, but this was mostly due to their own paranoia.
Migration from the countryside to the cities happened in many countries, if Brazil only had been able to industrialise quickly enough to create jobs for them, things might have turned out very differently.
And so income tax wasn't legally optional, it was just they had no way to make people pay? That makes way more sense. How many people paid it anyway?
@THill
Jun 19th, 2017 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“jeitinho brasileiro in Brazil”, ...”Which should translate into 'no possibility of conviction'. So we all can see why JB has absolutely no ethical basis as he’s driven by such a lack of constraints.“
Numbnuts, please note that I do not represent the Brazilian Justice system ; I just observe, therefore direct your infantile tantrum against the judges whose decisions hurt your feelings.
”So you yourself have admitted your judicial system is corrupt, therefore it is impossible for Lula to receive justice..”
You crazy ? How can I admit to something to which I've never said the contrary ? Again, you've rushed to conclusions to fit your narrative. While the Brazilian justice system is far from perfect, and certain recent decisions from high courts have been extremely lenient (i.e.,Dilma not losing her political rights at the end of her impeachment, and Dilma & Temer now being aquitted by the TSE), 'sometimes' they hit bullseye...as Moro has. No-one he has condemned up to now, did not deserve their sentence. And Lula will definitely deserve his. Your insistence that only Lula is being persecuted, or that he is the victim of a conspiracy, is pathetic. To you, everyone is guilty, except your hero...tut, tut...
@DT
Dilma was not 'just' a bad president, she ALSO broke the law. The fact that previous presidents, including Lula, had broken the same law (but to a far lesser extent) is not relevant at this moment - what is, is that besides breaking the law, she tried to cover it up, she lied to the people to get re-elected and dragged Brazil into a recession...isn't that enough ?
The 'jeitinho' in politics is one of the customs I don't agree with, as it leads to exactly what we are seeing now.
Re Jango, would you have waited to see ? at the time the threat seemed real enough, and 50 years later, people who only read about it, tend to see it in a very different light.
I've no idea how many paid income tax, but knowing Brazilians, I'd say very few.
Jack Bauer
Jun 19th, 2017 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“How can I admit to something to which I've never said the contrary” Oh yes you did Bozo, you opined the following: “the idea of what can, and does happen in the high courts...it's the infamous Brazilian “jeitinho”, which can be relied upon to sort things out.”
”If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.” Mark Twain
“sometimes' they hit bullseye...as Moro has.” Since there has been no substantiated evidence provided against Lula and one of the most experienced human rights lawyer has a very different take on his conduct. “No judge in any civilized nation would act (in the way Judge Moro has).. (as)in this primitive inquisitorial system” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-euDLIfnM&t=7s
“Your insistence that only Lula is being persecuted,” I am in accord with one of the best known human rights lawyer on the planet. This is not my first rodeo I have followed many other cases since 1995. Without the political encumbrances that permeate your judgement.
“The 'jeitinho' in politics is one of the customs I don't agree with,” But its okay in the courts according to you. “the idea of what can, and does happen in the high courts...it's the infamous Brazilian “jeitinho”, which can be relied upon to sort things out.”
“Re Jango, …at the time the threat seemed real enough, “ No it didn’t since he proffered the following ”[Brazil identies itself] with the democratic principles which unite the peoples of the West“ but is ”not part of any politico-military bloc” speech to US Congress, New York Times 4/5/62.
@JB
Jun 19th, 2017 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think it's relevant that other presidents broke the law - that as far as we can see damn nearly every politician in Brazil was breaking the law - when we look at her impeachment. Because we know the people who condemned her weren't acting from any kind of moral outrage, or respect for the law, but merely found a convenient excuse to force her out. IMO this is one of the advantages of the parliamentary system, that when the elected representatives no longer have confidence in their leader, they can remove and replace them without resorting to dodgy legal manoeuvres.
And I don't think Dilma caused the recession, it was mostly due to the slowdown in China, just as the boom was mostly due to the growth of demand in China. The government can only react better or worse to these external circumstances, and I suppose you think Dilma (and Lula) dealt with it badly, but I don't know enough about Brazil to know.
About Jango, yes I would have waited to see, but I have the benefit of hindsight and I wasn't alive then. I prefer to err on the side of democracy though, I think it's necessary for voters to learn from their mistakes, otherwise they will just repeat them when democracy is restored.
Did your family pay income tax, and did you when you started working? I wouldn't be inclined to if I knew everyone around me wasn't (but I WOULD be inclined to if everyone around me was), that's why it's important for the government to enforce it.
@Terence Hill
“No it didn’t since he proffered the following...”
Do you believe all politicians are honest and truthful at all times, or just this one?
Are you old enough to remember these events? What did you think at the time?
DemonTree
Jun 19th, 2017 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, in view of the written historical record it kind of blows JB’s insinuations out of the water.
Supported by your words to wit: “but looking back it's not at all clear that Jango would have aligned the country with the USSR.
“Inconveniently, 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
@TH
Jun 19th, 2017 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, but that is with the benefit of hindsight. What did you think at the time?
Also what do you know about the Brazil Herald? Google isn't finding much. Does it still exist? And what did other papers in Brazil and the US say at the time?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!