MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

• 

  :o))

  To save or not to save him, will be a POLITICAL rather than a LEGAL verdict. It will be based on the Personal + Political Benefits which the [mostly corrupt] Lawmakers will surely squeeze out for themselves. So What Else is NEW?

  Aug 02nd, 2017 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Jack Bauer

  At about 11pm (Wednesday), the Lower House voted to dismiss the charges against Temer. The PT and other lefties went crazy....sniff, sniff...Let's wait and see what happens next...

  Aug 03rd, 2017 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  DemonTree

  This just confirms what we all knew anyway, that Rousseff's impeachment had nothing to do with corruption. They use the law to get the outcome they want but ignore it when it's inconvenient.

  Aug 03rd, 2017 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  :o))

  Didn't I tell you so?:
  https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/genidlo.jpg

  Aug 03rd, 2017 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Jack Bauer

  DT & :o))
  The outcome of the vote was no surprise...my feeling is the same of that of many deputies who voted in favour of dismissing the charges, justified by the improving economic indices, but with the expectation that Temer settle accounts with Justice at the end of his term, when he loses political immunity. In view of his agenda, to pass the essential reforms in order to get Brazil back on track I have to agree with that logic.
  While Dilma's impeachment “ended up” being a political judgement (of her incompetent management of the economy, plus her blind stubborness to favour PT's party objectives), she DID break the law, in that she took illegal loans from Federal banks to cover the deficit -
  (in 2013, 2014 and 2015), without prior authorization from Congress. It it hadn't been illegal, why go to extremes to hide these transfers, then to deny they ever occurred, and finally, try to justify her actions by alleging she wasn't the first president to use this expedient....which is true - but the deficits caused by other presidents were a fraction of hers and, they managed to balance the accounts again within the fiscal year....
  One more : the alleged loans her daughter received from the BNDES (to become a successful millionaire enterpreneur, overnight), under totally irregular conditions, and not yet investigated, would indicate that she might not the 'honest joe' she makes out to be. Time will tell whether the Feds think it's worthwhile looking into or not.

  Aug 03rd, 2017 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  :o))

  The main question is:
  
  “As the result of a thorough investigation, IF there are sufficient concrete proofs; CAN he be LEGALLY accused of the crimes, tried, convicted & condemned?”
  
  IF the answer - beyond ANY doubt - is: “YES”; why was it strictly necessary to create an opportunity for him to escape [https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/sim-peq.jpg] through the Debate of the Crooks?
  
  OBVIOUSLY, his “fans” will argue that “The Debate” is according to the Legal Procedures, Regulations, Bureaucracy, etc, etc. But they overlook/forget that The Legal System too was created by the SAME/similar CROOKS! They may ALSO argue that he can still be tried “in the future”. But as he could escape now; why can't he escape after the next election?

  Aug 03rd, 2017 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  DemonTree

  @JB
  Would you feel the same way if a similar vote had taken place during Lula's presidency, letting him off corruption charges because the deputies felt he was doing a good job as president at the time and the economy was booming?
  
  As for Dilma breaking the law, sure, but justice is not just if it's not applied equally to everyone. This vote makes the real motives clear, and shows they basically used and abused the law for their own ends. There are two issues, one is the best policy for Brazil wrt reforms etc, and the other is respect for the laws and institutions of the country. In the short term it may seem best to go around the laws to get what you consider the 'right' outcome, but in the long term this leads to a lack of respect for them and encourages further corruption. IMO it is usually best for everyone to follow the rules and if this leads to a bad outcome, try and change them to fix the problem rather than bending or breaking them to get what you want.
  
  The Latin American countries largely copied the US constitution and institutions, but haven't achieved the same stable and mostly effective government. It doesn't matter how well written the laws are if no one follows them or respects them.

  Aug 09th, 2017 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Jack Bauer

  @DT
  No, I wouldn't…I saw through him while others didn't ; and I have made no secret of my support, with restrictions, for Temer, WHILE he is trying to pass the essential reforms through Congress…repeat, ‘“while” he is trying to pass the essential reforms through Congress”’. To try to compare my support for Temer, or for Lula, under similar circumstances, is purely rhetorical, because Lula never even tried to pass any effective reforms….besides, as I’ve mentioned before and see no point in repeating, Lula’s objective was quite different to Temer’s.
  The law that was applied to Dilma was specific for that of a president who committed specific illegal actions….that her trial took on political connotations was almost unavoidable, given that neither side was particularly interested in the proof, instead, attacking and defending her politically. As to the abuse of the law, as you call it, she DID break the law. OK, the motivation in accusing her and then to get rid of her was tainted by politics….which should not have – and didn’t, change the outcome….to the chagrin of the ‘petistas’. I agree that “on principle”, to circumvent the law to obtain the desired outcome” is not recommended, however, Dilma in the presidency dragged Brazil into the worst recession of its history….and her stubborn, populist policies were the main cause. Under the circumstances, the choice to put up with her, just because she was ‘democratically’ elected, is like shooting yourself in the foot. Might be good for you to remember that you are judging South American politics based on UK & European standards….what happened here, would never happen there. The reason why despite copying the US Constitution etc, hasn’t produced even a similar result in Latin America, is because the social mentality here is totally different to that in the UK, the US and /or Europe. You’ve got to be familiar with the Brazilian mindset in order to understand why the outcome is so different.

  Aug 09th, 2017 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  DemonTree

  Yeah, but everyone thinks their own opinions are correct. The people who voted for Lula believe that his policies were best for Brazil. The people who would still vote for Lula despite his conviction are not much different to you supporting Temer staying in power (albeit temporarily) despite believing him guilty.
  
  It's true I look at things from a British perspective, but isn't this mindset of 'jeitinho brasileiro' a big part of the problem? As long as people think it's normal and okay to ignore the laws in order to get the outcome they want, nothing will change.
  
  You could change the constitution to allow removing an unpopular president, and people would be able to consider the implications and make sure it was democratic. But this won't happen since congress found a way around the problem - a bad way given that it did not allow the people any say.
  
  Or look at what Dilma did. If every president took loans from the Federal banks, should it even be illegal? Or if there is a good reason for it to be illegal, then why the hell were so many presidents allowed to get away with it? It's pointless having laws if you don't enforce them.
  
  It seems like Brazil is stuck with bad laws partly because people ignore them when it suits them, and they are stuck with bad politicians partly because they ignore the corruption when it suits them.

  Aug 09th, 2017 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Jack Bauer

  @DT
  Let me correct you : The people who voted for Lula “were lead to” believe his policies were best for Brazil. When you take a look at the type of people who support Lula, seeing them at protests in his favour, you usually get union leaders – who have very special interests in that Lula return to power - leading a bunch of ignorant people who in their majority are paid to protest and are bussed around by the PT to make appearances wherever necessary…most of them are semi illiterate, usually unemployed - thanks to PT populist policies - and unable to grasp what’s at stake, or even why they are there…they DO understand though, getting paid to protest. If the population of a country, on the whole, is pretty well educated, and informed, you get a different response to irresponsible politics…but here, ignorance is a major factor that benefits Lula . The ‘jeitinho’ is just a symptom of the bigger problem - when people believe that any action is justified to get what they want, no matter who they step on. But I go back to what I’ve said before, aren’t people intelligent enough to realize that they are in their present situation, because of PT failed policies ? Lula and his intentions are crystal clear…power for the sake of power. When Dilma was impeached, her popularity was about 8%, so, despite the accusation against her not being her unpopularity, I’d say that the majority of people got what they wanted. However, if the Constitution were to list “unpopularity” as a measure to enable getting rid of a president, things are apt to get out of control.
  Loans from the Federal banks, provided 1) accompanied by viable projections to balance the budget within the fiscal year, AND 2) authorized by Congress, are not recommended, but are legal….Dilma ignored both, and carried an enormous, and growing deficit from year to year. Brazil is a country with a million laws, very few are really enforced. Brazil’s problems stem from low levels of education and ignorance.

  Aug 10th, 2017 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  DemonTree

  You think Lula's policies were bad for Brazil. I still think some were beneficial, others not so much. It may well be the case that the biggest problem with Lula's terms was the things he didn't do, rather than the things he did.
  
  And I'm not convinced education explains everything. As I said to The Voice about Brexit, it's perfectly possible for a policy to be good for well-educated people, and bad for the ill-educated, or vice versa. Those people may well be voting rationally if they don't benefit from what you consider good economic policy, and do benefit from Lula's social programs. Anyway, Lula obviously had more voters than just the people who attend protests, since he was elected twice.
  
  Dilma was unpopular, but Temer is even more so (quite an achievement), so although most people might have wanted her to go, what they wanted was new elections, not Temer taking over.
  
  Sure you can't throw out every president who is unpopular, but 8% is kind of extreme. Venezuela has a way to do it, but unfortunately their President also believes in ignoring the law to stay in power.
  
  I'm sure I read that every president had done the same thing as Dilma, so did they all technically break the law, or not? Perhaps Brazil should get rid of any law that is not enforced, as they are clearly pointless. Get down to what you can enforce and then add new ones slowly as necessary.

  Aug 10th, 2017 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  Jack Bauer

  DT
  Beneficial how, if today there's no money to support his policies ? Lula failed to keep his promises on the reforms, most social programs he only expanded as they already existed, he headed the criminal organization that bled government and State-run Cos to fund PT’s Bolivarian project, he promoted hatred between classes, a tactic to gain support from the poor - which explains the social unrest…that’s not all, but it’s enough. If you weigh the ‘good’ v. the ‘bad’, the net result would be negative. The protests only started in 2013, after Lula was out. The lack of education may not explain everything, but along with the resulting ignorance, explains how such bad politicians manage to get re-elected…time & time again; not saying that countries with much better education aren’t subject to a bit of chaos, but never to the extent we’re seeing here. There’ll always be people who see things differently, but serious debate, instead of flagrant disobedience of the law and unwarranted street violence, is a far better option. It’s harder to manipulate those who can think for themselves. Temer’s popularity is measured by only those who expressly support him…this low approval rate does not count those who think he’s just ok, or those who aren't sure/ wish things were better…those against him are not, by any means, 100% minus those who expressly support him, and it’s no novelty that polls can be manipulated to obtain desired results. Talking about direct elections, or Temer not taking over, is like farting against the wind - besides not foreseen in the Constitution, it was the PT and its communist allies that started pushing for direct elections, now, as an attempt to save their publicly disgraced party…they aren’t thinking of Brazil. Once again, most presidents DID get loans to cover temporary deficits, AND with Congress’ prior approval…Dilma ignored Congress altogether and took the deficit to unprecedented levels…as we suspected end 2013 and found out in 2014.

  Aug 11th, 2017 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!