MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
End of the line: ex minister and confident claims Lula da Silva accepted US$ 100 million from Odebrecht
A former finance minister and close confidant of Brazil’s Lula da Silva accused the ex-president of receiving bribes from contractor Odebrecht, adding to a list of corruption accusations that threaten Lula’s ability to run for president in 2018. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThere is always a SOLUTION to THE problem:
Sep 08th, 2017 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse +2https://i2.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1-ano-impeachment-Dilma.jpg?resize=580%2C412&ssl=1
Good to see that the truth is finally surfacing. It's about time the toad ordered his funeral...
Sep 08th, 2017 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Palocci, who was arrested a year ago….according to a spreadsheet delivered…”
Sep 08th, 2017 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I wait with bated breath, for real evidence to be revealed. I can tell you that such unsubstantiated claims would be barred in any of the countries that operate under the ‘rule of law’ as simply unsubstatiated prejudice. But under such an uncivilized system I can claim to be the Queen of Sheba and it must be the truth since nobody can refute it.
REF: “Lula da Silva accepted US$ 100 million”:
Sep 09th, 2017 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0USD !00 M ONLY???
Such a pathetically SMALL amount??
And how many more millions stolen [accepted] from who?
How evidence is properly adjudicated, other than in Micky Mouse jurisdictions thus.
Sep 10th, 2017 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0“n. evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something important in a trial. However, probative value of proposed evidence must be weighed against prejudice in the minds of jurors toward the opposing party or criminal defendant.”
Probative value legal definition of probative value - Legal Dictionary
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probative+value
@TH
Sep 10th, 2017 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0True - otherwise:
https://i0.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Janot.jpg?w=700&ssl=1
It sure looks bad for Lula to have someone so close to him turn on him.
Sep 10th, 2017 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Palocci has only confirmed what many others have said...regarding specific accusations, the timeline of events, and amounts of cash involved....I think Mantega will also spill the beans soon....he is not part of the hardcore PT (like Dirceu and Vaccari), and probably sees no point in sacrificing himself for the toad's cause...
Sep 10th, 2017 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More from the topsy-turvy kingdom were lawfare is invoked as a purely political weapon against those whom are believed to stand against the interests of the plunderers.
Sep 10th, 2017 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The MPF-DF (Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Brasilia) requested on Friday (1st) the acquittal of former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in the case of an alleged attempt to buy the silence of the ex-Director of Petrobras, Nestor Cerveró.
Investigators concluded that there is no evidence that he had participated in the criminal scheme. The MPF decision casts fresh doubt on the reliability of evidence obtained in Lava Jato plea-bargains.”
Brasil Wire, September 2, 2017
“In the past year, elected President Dilma Rousseff has been acquitted at least five times of the charges that led Congress to withdraw her from the post for which she had been re-elected in 2014. The most recent of these was today, with the news that the TCU (Court of Audit of the Union) absolved Dilma of having committed “any irregular act” in the purchase of the Pasadena refinery … in the face of the impossibility of claiming that such “fiscal pedalling” was a crime of responsibility, the only reason laid down in the Constitution for impeachment, lawyers Janaína Paschoal, Hélio Bicudo and Miguel Reale Jr. came to associate the purchase of Pasadena to a supposed “omission” of Dilma in relation to the “violations” at Petrobras. Since she was not President of the Republic at this time, the rapporteur Jovair Arantes opted to remove the refinery from the impeachment request in the Chamber and left only the pedaladas. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Zezé Perrella (“Helicoca”) used the refinery episode to justify Dilma’s departure.”
Brasil Wire, August 31, 2017
Jack, tell us is there any laws in Brazil? Seems no-one seems to know the laws if any.Surely no-one is above the law. Everyone seems to live by corruption in one way or another, the same could be said about Argentina or is it prevalent in all Latam countries.
Sep 11th, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@golfcronie:
Sep 11th, 2017 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If I may comment:
Q: Law in Brazil?
A: In VERY FEW words: It PROTECTS the CROOKS! Some fantasize, a few hope and the others pray; that the situation is GOING TO change [if at all] - GRADUALLY but SLOWLY.
@golfcronie
Sep 11th, 2017 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are plenty of laws here, and a lot of them contradict each other, not to mention the loopholes, probably left deliberately to allow the legislative body to escape prosecution...the problem is that a significant percentage of the population believes it's 'smart' to break the law and get away with it, or that the law does not apply to them.
‘Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) and … Dilma Rousseff, now facing fresh corruption charges…As Oscar Vilhena, a leading human rights lawyer and dean of FGV Law School in Sao Paulo, wrote in the Brazilian daily Folha, “the legitimacy crisis that has devastated our political system seems now to have nested in one of the instances of the judiciary”. Other commentators were even more blunt; in the same newspaper, columnist Marcelo Coelho declared himself “utterly deflated” by the decision, arguing that it is not only the politicians but “the whole society that is now in a genuine process of demoralisation”.
Sep 11th, 2017 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lula’s conviction elicited more divided opinion, but also further tarnished the judiciary’s reputation as the only dependable pillar of Brazil’s democratic system. For the country to complete its meandering journey towards robust democracy and the rule of law, which began with the end of military rule in the mid-1980s, the judiciary must reform itself just as urgently as any other institution.’
http://theconversation.com/as-corruption-scandals-spread-brazil-struggles-to-uphold-the-rule-of-law-81280
@TH
Sep 11th, 2017 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting article, and I agree with what they are saying, but your quotes are rather misleading. You make it sound like Oscar Vilhena and Marcelo Coelho are responding to Lula and Dilma facing fresh corruption charges, when in fact they are talking about Temer (and Rousseff) being acquitted of taking illegal donations in their election campaign, something it's acknowledged there was convincing evidence for.
@JB
“the problem is that a significant percentage of the population believes it's 'smart' to break the law and get away with it, or that the law does not apply to them.”
Yes, especially the segment involved in politics or business!
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Your quotes are rather misleading. You make it sound like Oscar Vilhena and Marcelo Coelho are responding to Lula and Dilma facing fresh corruption charges, when in fact they are talking about Temer (and Rousseff) being acquitted of taking illegal donations”
You’ve misread the article as the author of the article expressly states: “The cases against Brazil’s most recent presidents have nevertheless left the country shocked – not just because of the allegations themselves, but because of the way the accused have been treated by the judiciary… But the crucial issue highlighted in these recent decisions is that of the impartiality of judges..The most controversial vote in favour of Temer came from justice Gilmar Mendes, known during the Lula and Rousseff presidencies as “leader of the opposition” due to his frequent attacks on their party, which he once called a “syndicate of thieves”.”
“You’ve misread the article”
Sep 12th, 2017 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0How so? Certainly the article mentions the cases against Lula and Dilma, but the comments from Oscar Vilhena and Marcelo Coelho that you quoted were clearly referring to Temer's acquittal. If you don't understand that, then YOU have misread the article.
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0In spite of your equivocations to the contrary, judicial bias is what the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) also preliminary believes. A view which I also share. So what is it about the author’s conclusion you disagree with? “The cases against Brazil’s most recent presidents have nevertheless left the country shocked – not just because of the allegations themselves, but because of the way the accused have been treated by the judiciary… But the crucial issue highlighted in these recent decisions is that of the impartiality of judges..”
@JB:
Sep 12th, 2017 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/OLIVEIRA-120917-Face.jpg?resize=580%2C348&ssl=1 | THE LOOPHOLES & THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WILL SAVE THEM ALL!
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have simply quoted what the author of the article has written. So regardless, the statements are no less relevant or in anyway misleading in arriving at the correct conclusion of the article.
@TH
Sep 12th, 2017 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In spite of your equivocations to the contrary”
What equivocations? As I said above, I agree with the author's conclusions. What I don't agree with is your misleading quotation of them. You did not simply quote, you removed a section in the middle that changed the meaning.
I know you never admit you are wrong, and I do agree with the substance of the article, so it is probably pointless to argue further.
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have simply quoted what the author of the article has written. So regardless, the statements are no less relevant or in anyway misleading in arriving at the correct conclusion of the article.
“I wait with bated breath... to be the Queen of Sheba and it must be the truth since nobody can refute it.”
Sep 12th, 2017 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Terence Hill
I have simply quoted something you wrote above. Clearly, this statement is perfectly relevant and in no way misleading as to the correct meaning of your comment.
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is what I intended to post. It is the substance and not form that is germane to author’s accuracy. So in what way have I mislead the view of the writer of the article to give a contrary opinion? Otherwise it is you who is simply being obtuse.
Will you admit now that omitting part of a quote can change its meaning? And leaving aside for now the question of whether it did in fact change the meaning, do you agree that you did omit part of the quote in your post?
Sep 12th, 2017 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Will you admit now that omitting part of a quote can change its meaning? Possibly if that was my intended consequence to do so, which was not . So thank for your failure to refute your irrelevant ‘nit-picking’ as it’s now confirmed.
Man, I never said you did it on purpose.
Sep 12th, 2017 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you didn't intend to be misleading just say so. There's no need to argue a bunch of nonsense and accuse me of all kinds of untrue crap just because you quoted something carelessly and don't want to admit it.
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your quotes are rather misleading… “ No that’s your slant. You’ll have to show where the requirement is that quotes must be in their entirety. “Accuse me of all kinds of untrue crap” Perhaps, in context of accuracy you could move from the general to the specific to indicate precisely what your complaint is.
There's no requirement that quotes must be in their entirety. There is a requirement that you don't omit something that changes the meaning, which is what you did. I explained how in my very first reply to you.
Sep 12th, 2017 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it was a mistake you should have just said so and we could have avoided this whole pointless digression. Maybe you also wouldn't have felt the need to accuse me of misreading the article, equivocating, disagreeing with the author after I clearly stated I agreed, being obtuse, and of irrelevant nit-picking. Is that precise enough for you?
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let’s cut to the chase here. Your real purpose is to act on your personal bias towards me, because I keep revealing the deceit practised by your fellow traveler. As you have rushed to his defence at every opportunity. Even though it’s a been shown his support for dictatorships.
“Argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”
Sep 12th, 2017 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does this fallacy sound familiar?
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It would be a fallacy if it were untrue. But, it is based on your futile attempts to amend the requirement that he who asserts must prove. In support of an admitted fascist. When I correctly pointed out that an adverse inference could be drawn from failing to do so. You claimed you could not, even though it was indicated by the Dept of philosophy at Stamford that expressed thoughts were not neutral. They had be true or untrue and could not be neither. Go on deny it, and I’ll show you exactly where you did this. So my claim of your personal bias stands unrefuted. Remember, your silence on his admissions is tacit agreement.
It is untrue, and it would be a fallacy even if it were true.
Sep 12th, 2017 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've now spent 9 posts arguing around the issue and accusing me of increasingly ridiculous things, and still failed to address the substance of my post. Which is, that Oscar Vilhena and Marcelo Coelho were responding to Temer's acquittal and not to Lula and Dilma facing fresh corruption charges.
Do you agree that is correct or not?
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you accused of a personal bias and it is proven, it cannot be a fallacy as it goes to cause and effect. What stands is what the author’s concluding point is, which is judicial bias. Your attempts to side-track on to minutia as to which specific cases does not have any bearing on the articles conclusion. So your irrelevancy is moot. As “Do you agree that is correct or not?” has already been answered there for it’s a redundant question.
My supposed personal bias has no bearing on the comments in question. And for the fourth time, I'm not disputing the article's conclusion, only your misleading quotation from it.
Sep 12th, 2017 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now answer the question.
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How and why is my quoting from an article misleading as you claim, then show how and why. Otherwise, it’s merely a nuance that has no effect what so ever. My point is there are three persons who’s treatment under the judicial system is open to question by author and he makes his case well. “Now answer the question.” See previous post.
This is becoming circular. I told you how and why in my very first reply, go and read it again.
Sep 12th, 2017 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But since you refuse to answer a simple and obvious question, it's clear that you know I am right, and are simply not brave enough to admit it.
@DT
Sep 12th, 2017 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“This is becoming circular.”....you hit the nail on the head...as for the article which originated all the discussion, I only read it because you said it was interesting :-
”In Temer’s case, it was the opposite; despite overwhelming evidence of illegal donations to his 2014 election campaign – when he ran in coalition with the now-impeached Rousseff – he was acquitted by four-to-three on technical grounds often overlooked in previous cases.
This was a serious blow to the credibility of the whole court system. As Oscar Vilhena, a leading human rights lawyer and dean of FGV Law School in Sao Paulo, wrote in the Brazilian daily Folha, “the legitimacy crisis that has devastated our political system seems now to have nested in one of the instances of the judiciary”
For what it's worth, I agree with you….Oscar Vilhena was referring specifically to the TSE’s decision to acquit Temer (and of course, Dilma), when he said “…seems now to have nested in ONE of the instances of the judiciary.”
Unfortunately, there are people who would try to mislead the reader, by omitting parts of the article, and insinuating that the fresh corruption charges against Lula and Dilma are part of the same 'legitimacy crisis' of the judiciary. Removing part of the original article and then trying to make it look like that what remains refers to something else, is not very intelligent, or might we say , erhh, being “obtuse” ? ..naughty, naughty...
DemonTree
Sep 12th, 2017 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“since you refuse to answer a simple and obvious question” Which is untrue as it is already answered, I’m not repeating myself at your insistence, as once is sufficient.
Jack Bauer
“There are people who would try to mislead the reader” You must be referring to yourself as that is entirely your modus operandi.
“Why d'you repeat your silly claims ? it ain't gonna make them true…” The evidence from own post refutes your latest lie bozo as following three independent witness’s prove as in this deliberate lie JB “The only reason for receptacles - in 'public' bathrooms - is to throw the bulkier paper hand-towels … If he thinks he's proved I'm a liar - about anything - let him TRY to prove it.”
hp://en.mercopress.com/2017/07/12/brazil-former-president-lula-da-silva-found-guilty-of-corruption/comments#comment470703
“In common with most Latin American countries, the sewage system in Brazil can't cope with paper being flushed, so use the bin provided.”
//www.wheredoiputthepaper.com.
“Where Do I Put my Toilet Paper? ..a trash bin. And, yes, that's where you put the paper after you used it.”
//thebrazilbusiness.com/article/going-to-the-toilet-in-brazil
“Living in Brazil: Electric showers, toilet litter and other oddities ..that nasty plastic basket with everyone´s used toilet paper in it. I hate being gross in my blog, but it´s a gross thing, believe me. For some unexplained reason, Brazilian piping and sewage is not compatible with toilet paper so people never flush the toilet paper down their toilets. Instead, they provide little baskets, sometimes with lids and sometimes without, beside the toilet for the toilet paper. If you refuse to use them, as I did at first, you end up blocking their entire piping system.”
https://brazilphenomenon.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/living-in-brazil-electric-showers-toilet-litter-and-other-oddities/
So thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide conclusive evidence of your unmitigated lying. You readily supply much of the same cont
”Refutes your latest lie, bog roll receptacles (TH's mouth ?)...what else ?? perhaps 'minority parties' ?
Sep 12th, 2017 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So tks for giving me the opportunity to make a complete fool of myself, says TH.
@JB
Sep 12th, 2017 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It wasn't even that big a deal, but he made it into one by refusing to admit his mistake.
What do you think of the article in general? You mentioned the excessive salaries and benefits of the judges to me yourself. And I particularly agree with the conclusion that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done. There needs to be a better way to deal with judicial misconduct, and judges should not be judging people they are friendly with or supporters of.
@TH
Seriously, we've all heard more than enough of your loo roll obsession. And I'm certainly not asking you to repeat yourself. You refused to answer the question, yes or no. The fact you won't answer it speaks for itself.
DemonTree
Sep 13th, 2017 - 06:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Your quotes are rather misleading… “ They only possibly could be that if a citation was omitted, otherwise it’s just nit-picking as there is no requirement to to include the complete citation. Anymore than the writer of the original article “As corruption scandals spread, Brazil struggles to uphold the rule of law” included their original source in total. You’re asking me to proof-read their original contex research, give your head a shake.
Jack Bauer
So thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide conclusive evidence of your unmitigated lying. You readily supply much of the same content as o saco de merda. Along with your ‘communist take-over’ for which there is not one historical record but we must believe because you say so. You are man who would lie about what he ate for breakfast.
Interesting arguments but the REALITY is that: With or without 100% concrete proofs; Basically, ALL are crooks [otherwise, they won't waste their time in politics] and the LOOPHOLES & the SPECIAL PRIVILEGES will save them - legally - ALL!
Sep 13th, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/OLIVEIRA-120917-Face.jpg?resize=580%2C348&ssl=1
@DT
Sep 13th, 2017 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with quite a lot of what's said in the article - in its original, UNtampered version of course - especially with respect to the TSE...as I mentioned before, the outcome of the trial was already a done deal, save Temer AND to save Dilma...reason why the PT, far less Dilma, objected to the verdict. Sure, the Judges in general earn too much, have scandalous benefits, but the chances of that changing soon, are pretty remote.
Where Lula is concerned, I believe the 1st instance courts are doing a great job....and expect the 2nd instance to carry-on the good work....the evidence is turning into proof as we speak , and as each day passes, more sh*t hits the fan.
TH seems to have learned something from Lula's lawyers...when there is no more defence, turn on the accuser and try to invert the roles.....too bad it ain't working for the 'saco de merda'...
@ :o))
Sep 13th, 2017 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some of them are in jail already, so they aren't all getting away with it.
@JB
What do you think of the judges hanging out with politicians, and at least appearing to favour one party over another? It certainly casts doubt on their impartiality.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Sep 13th, 2017 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Too bad it ain't working for the 'saco de merda’” You previously claimed they didn’t exist.
“The only reason for receptacles - in 'public' bathrooms - is to throw the bulkier paper hand-towels … If he thinks he's proved I'm a liar - about anything - let him TRY to prove it.”
“He who claims all bathrooms in Brazil, … have poop receptacles, can be dismissed for being an idiot”
'Allegans contraria non est audiendus (Jenk. Cent. 16): “He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other.” This elementary rule of logic expresses, in technical language, the saying that a man shall not be permitted to “blow hot and cold” with reference to the same transaction, or insist, at different times, on the truth of each of two conflicting allegations, according to the promptings of his private interest. Says the Satyr, if you have gotten a trick of blowing hot and cold out of the same mouth, I've e'en done“ with ye.' en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Legal_counsel
however, it is considered a fallacy to make contradictory claims. People call it arguing out of both sides of your mouth,“ The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide By Harry Phillips, Patricia Bostian.
Your the gift that keeps on giving and I’d hate to see your well deserved reputation as liar being in any way diminished.
@DT:
Sep 14th, 2017 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Some of them are in jail already, so they aren't all getting away with it”:
They get paid for being in jail and for not “blowing the whistle”. Hence they prefer to remain in jail [for the illusion of justice being done] and to keep the trap shut. Anyway; it's not an ordinary or a regular jail. Over there too; they enjoy ”special treatments, benefits and have privileges - just ask Sérgio de Oliveira Cabral Santos
Filho(http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/geral/noticia/2017-02/mpf-denuncia-sergio-cabral-por-184-crimes-de-lavagem-de-dinheiro)”!
@DT
Sep 14th, 2017 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding the two cases (so far) in which judges / prosecutors have been either accused of favoring politicians/ parties, or having met up with politicians under potentially suspicious conditions, only one - concerning Gilmar Mendes, in the TSE – looks true. The case of Rodrigo Janot (top prosecutor) having been seen in a local hangout, having a beer with a defense lawyer, appears to be the press trying to make something of it. He did not go there to meet anyone, the lawyer, like anyone else could've just turned up ; Gilmar Mendes however (in both the TSE & the STF), has given the impression he’s being paid off to rule one way or the other. IMO he should recuse himself from the case whenever he has even the slightest link to any of the accused…he was again, declared suspect when he accepted the ‘habeas corpus’ to let the owner of a Rio bus company (Joaquim Barata, accused of bribing and laundering money for the ex-governor, Cabral), out of prison…not sure if the president of the STF has already taken a decision on this.
TH won’t shut up, will he ? he obviously did not understand the “saco de merda”…they do exist, he is the living proof.
After watching Lula’s testimony to Moro (yesterday afternoon) , I see a very strong resemblance between TH and Lula …both are arrogant liars, uncouth, disgusting pigs, amoral, immoral…TH too, hates to be contradicted, and when he is, he resorts to his silly quotations, his legal mumbo-jumbo, even if it has no application in Brazilian Law, and generally makes a fool of himself…
On the other hand, when Lula started to talk about the other case in which Moro had condemned him, Moro politely told him to shut up (and that he would not discuss previous cases)…should’ve seen Lula then…just one more about the 'toad' - only 5 months ago he praised Palocci, saying he had been his close friend for 30 years, was extremely intelligent, 'n that he would never sqeal on him...yesterday p.m., he called Palocci a 'dirty liar'.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Sep 14th, 2017 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“TH and Lula …both are arrogant liars, uncouth, disgusting pigs, amoral, immoral” You have described yourself to the Tee and unlike you I can use your own gutter language as confirmation of your total lack of refinement. “Unemployment in recession-hit Brazil… Oct 31, 2015 ... take you fairy dress off and start fondling your dolls.” “Rousseff pledges … put on your new dress, be gay and frolic, and you might even manage to get yourself reamed.”; “Unemployment in recession-hit Brazil …Nov 05th, 2015 - 05:19 pm. ..your inflatable dolls never complain when you can't get the wrinkes out of your limp noodle, is what gives you this impression... they just fart when you squeeze them..”: “Desperate for funds Jan 20th, 2016 - 03:12 pm ..why don't you pull Long-Dong Silver out of your closet”
So when faced with your unconfirmed claims and my factual presentation, it isn’t rocket science. Like I said you’re the gift that just keeps on giving. So my thanks for confirming your well deserved reputation as liar is in no danger of being lessened.
@T “Lula” H
Sep 14th, 2017 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you stalking me , numbnuts ?? all I need to do is post something and you start typing away, from the misery of your useless life, trying to be a nuisance....poor wee fella, still offended by past nicknames ? shows that there must be a good deal of truth in them, to make you still hurt, to the point of not letting it go...but that is YOUR problem, not mine.
It's highly unlikely that anything that comes from you might offend me, so why don't you stop trying to ?..just a suggestion...
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Sep 14th, 2017 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No simply responding, what an ego you’re not that interesting. Its fun revealing what you really are, and not what you pretend to be. Tra-la, one big lying windbag, proof is irrefutably absolute.
@JB
Sep 14th, 2017 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does no one have the authority to do anything about Mendes, if it's so obvious? And shouldn't there be some rule for when judges have to recuse themselves, so it's not down to judgement which is easily fudged?
I found the video of Lula, though I couldn't understand it of course. He looked uncomfortable wearing a tie but I couldn't tell much from his body language.
Portuguese sounds very strange, a bit like Russian. I wouldn't know it was related to Spanish if I hadn't seen them both written down.
Think you're being pretty damn generous to TH though, comparing him to Lula. Lula was president twice and obviously very competent at some things, even if you do hate him.
I see Trollence Shill is back trying to derail the subject. I want to know if Lula will at least be able to afford a $100 million funeral. Ought to be able to get a an impressive tomb with half of that. ;)
Sep 15th, 2017 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0ici’mayahoo
Sep 15th, 2017 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0‘by his nickname imoyaro, which could best be translated as “potato bastard”.’ https://drinkinginjapan.net/tag/nomihodai/
I’ll be a little kinder as I will always remember you affectionately as Mr. Potato-Head.
“In politics, stupidity is not a handap.” Napoleon Bonaparte
Thanks for the reconfirmation
I may be wrong, but believe only the STF can declare him suspect…the rule does exist, it’s just that Mendes believes he doesn’t fit into it…reason why this issue has to be decided by the other 10 supreme court justices.
Sep 15th, 2017 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By Lula’s body language it was easy to see he was not comfortable, and many times lost his line of thought…especially when he had to come up with a good lie. As usual, contradicted himself a couple of times, which he tried to fix, but none of the prosecutors – or anyone else - believed him, except of course his incompetent lawyer, Zanin. At one point Lula referred to one of the women prosecutors as “my darling”…both the woman and Moro immediately ticked him off…politely of course, but still making Lula look like an idiot.
Well, if you were listening to Lula, it sounds like anything but Portuguese….he doesn’t know the difference between singular and plural, neither how to decline verbs….and with his voice sounding like it’s coming from his rear, it’s almost as hilarious as trying make sense out of what Dilma says…
Well, my comparisons between the two idiots are limited to bad personality characteristics.
Lula was competent in fooling the idiots and at stealing...but didn't know when to stop...TH doesn't fool anyone, doesnt know when enough is enough, and probably couldn't even arrange a piss-up in a brewery, far less steal anything worthwhile.
You see above, with imoyaro ? TH is the kind of idiot who asks the question, answers it, and then breaks his elbow trying to pat himself on the back...laughable.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Sep 15th, 2017 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Who asks the question…” No I didn’t you’re deluded, go back the post again nobody asked a question. You’re blinded by that over-sized ego of yours obstructing your view.
“Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair.” ― George Burns
NUMBNUTS
Sep 16th, 2017 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't say “you asked the question”.............I said you're the “kind of idiot that asks the question,....”, etc....pqp.....é burro paca !!!
You are more stupid than I thought.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Sep 16th, 2017 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I said you're the “kind.. that asks the question,.. answers it,”
Which of course you are unable to provide any proof of, as it has never happened”
You by your failure are further revealed as liar, and furthermore endorsing your characterization as both Proof-less and Truth-less
“You are more stupid than I thought.” Thats the biggest oxymoron period, because your thinking processes are pretty primitive at best and decidedly limited.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx
Proof ? don't need to provide anymore, you 'bosteiro'....despite being boring, just need to read your stupid posts.
Sep 16th, 2017 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Sep 16th, 2017 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for confirming my previous post by reaching your highest capacity, as at the end of the day you have nothing of note to say except to reveal yourself as a intelectualmente e mentalmente prejudiced. The proof of which is utterly confirmed in your writings.
@JB
Sep 16th, 2017 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, so his colleagues would have to vote to take him off a case? That's not ideal, for obvious reasons.
I wouldn't expect Lula to be comfortable in the circumstances, especially when Moro has already convicted him once. And his lawyer is paid to believe him, or at least pretend to...
“if you were listening to Lula, it sounds like anything but Portuguese”
Heh, I've sure I couldn't tell the difference. I don't know how to conjugate a single verb or how plurals work in Portuguese. Do people speak very differently in the different states in Brazil? I'm guessing that the language is different in Portugal, anyway. Is it easy for people from different sides of the Atlantic to understand each other?
Not much point arguing with TH; he either can't understand when he is wrong, or won't admit it. Either way it's a waste of time.
DemonTree the slavish follower
Sep 16th, 2017 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“He either can't understand when he is wrong” You’re’s is hardly an objective opinion, but I understand you’re blinded by your adoration of the recipient of your post. Happy sucking.
@DT
Sep 16th, 2017 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0His colleagues may not be the ideal solution, but that's how it is...ah well, the STF could always consult Terry the ‘bosteiro’...he could offer his “immense knowledge” of Brazilian law, and some silly quotes, to find a solution.
Consensus amongst several prominent criminal lawyers is that Zanin is technically limited, and is not doing a good job…in his favor, the fact that Lula is virtually ‘defenseless’, and that no smart lawyer would ever accept his case. Apparently Zanin was pushed into it by Roberto Teixeira, his father-in-law and also a criminal lawyer...but he is one of Lula’s closest friends, and his name has popped up in several plea-bargains, accused of being in cahoots with Lula in many of his dirty deals - one of them, to 'hide' the toad’s ownership of the 2nd flat on the same floor of his SBCampo condo, which the toad alleges he only rents, but does not have one single receipt to prove it… Questioned by Moro (3 days ago), Lula again blamed his dead wife, saying she had taken care of the rent contract, and that he knew nothing about it. The person who appears as owner on the title deed, testified he never negotiated anything, nor received 1 cent.
Most regions have their typical accents - some differ very slightly, others quite a bit…but it’s mainly those in the lower classes who come from the northeast, that are notorious for speaking badly.
In Portugal, besides the pronunciation being quite different - in that they shorten words by swallowing the middle syllables - many of the same words have different meanings…for ex.: ‘rapariga’ in Brazil is a whore, in Portugal it’s a young girl ; ‘puto’ in Brazil is a male prostitute, in Portugal a young boy ; “bicha’ in Brazil is a male homossexual, in Portugal it’s a queue…
Very true, TH is just a waste of time. Not surprising that the only other poster who sucks up to him, or used to - because he hasn’t been seen for a while - was the idiot under the name “Brasileiro”...peas in a pod.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Sep 16th, 2017 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“TH is just a waste of time” Says you whom I have continually revealed what a liar you are in your attempts to mislead readers who are not familiar with Brazil. Unfortunately, for you I have the knowledge to show the truth.
Likewise, several years of legal research on commercial data bases involving issues from many jurisdictions makes it a breeze to verify your fraudulent claims.
Your unproven knowledge on Brazil seems to be restricted to 'receptacles', not much more. You are worse than a sticky fly.....get back to eating your lump of sh*t...
Sep 16th, 2017 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Sep 16th, 2017 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“knowledge on Brazil seems to be restricted to 'receptacles’,” Which was more than enough example to prove you were a liar.This was the time you asked me show my familiarity with Brazil. Which you promptly claimed could be mined from the internet. That Brazilian bathroom etiquette I explained was false. Only shutting up when five citations proved your lying.
If Zanin is a bad Lawyer, Lula should get someone better. Even if it's a difficult case, I never heard of lawyers being afraid of a challenge... they get paid either way. Unless it's another corruption thing and there's a risk of Lula's lawyer getting blackballed?
Sep 16th, 2017 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suppose Lula will say his wife took care of the rent because he had no head for figures? You'd think a politician ought to have some clue about things like that, but no, they don't care.
It's the ruling classes in any country who decide what the 'correct' version of their language is. So the Portuguese guy in Brazil is just speaking a different dialect, but the guy from the North East is talking badly, and has to learn the standard version if he doesn't want people to think him stupid. Objectively they are both speaking their own dialect.
LOL at the different meanings. Portuguese must think everything is rude in Brazil, and a minefield whenever they talk. Do you get TV shows from there, like we do from America and Australia?
I could never work out what Brasileiro was talking about, or what the heck his links were supposed to mean. Either he's REALLY incoherent, or more likely he speaks really bad English.
@DT
Sep 17th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't think any prominent lawyer would accept Lula's (lost) case... they know he's far from
innocent, as he claims. Regardless of the high fees (stolen money), what respected lawyer would risk their reputation ?
No, Lula is blaming his wife for the things he can't answer truthfully (without screwing himself) because she is dead and cannot speak for herself...you've got to remember we are talking of a person who turned his wife's wake into a political rally...he will do ANYTHING, no matter how low, to push the narrative that he is the most honest person in Brazil. Despite his hate for reading - a result of being semi-illiterate - he seemed to have no trouble adding up all the bribes.
The correct version of the language in Brazil has nothing to do with the 'ruling class', it's simply the result of what came from Portugal, adapted to Brazilian culture over the years, by the scholars of the language. There are no Portuguese dialects in Brazil, there are people who speak correctly, with good diction, and those who do neither. The fact that the northeast has always been the poorest region - in just about every imaginable aspect - is what has produced the wrong and sloppy way in which they speak.
Through cable TV we get TV shows from all over the world, mainly from the US, a few from the UK and from Australia, New Zealand.
'Brasileiro' is not a highly educated person, which is obvious by the way he forms his sentences. His lousy English was the result of translating his rotten portuguese through Google, or something similar.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!