MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 4th 2021 - 16:30 UTC

 

 

Lula da Silva and PT chief Hoffmann hit with fresh corruption charges

Tuesday, May 1st 2018 - 07:09 UTC
Full article 73 comments

Imprisoned former Brazilian President Lula da Silva, along with the current leader of the Workers Party he founded, was hit on Monday with fresh corruption charges by federal prosecutors. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • :o))

    REF: “hit with FRESH corruption charges”:

    GREAT!
    - And whatever in the world happened to the STALE corruption charges?
    - Did they [or anyone else] RETURN the stolen wealth?

    May 01st, 2018 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Terence Hill

    “And whatever in the world happened to the STALE corruption charges?” You’ll have to ask senator Aécio Neves as his recorded asking price is in the public domain.

    May 01st, 2018 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Enrique Massot

    If anybody had doubts that lawfare is in full force in Brazil as in Argentina and in several other Latin American countries, they just have to look at the “fresh” corruption charges dropped not only on Lula, but on combative Senator Gleisi Hoffmann, leader of the PT.

    The charges were conveniently issued just days before May 4, when the Supreme Tribunal is set to rule on whether those sentenced must remain imprisoned while appeals are resolved.

    The decision to hit Hoffmann is the reward she gets for being a loyal and effective leader in keeping Lula's prison at the forefront and denouncing it as a political maneuver.

    Democracy, as in the good ol' days, is going to be limited to the election of those that are cleared by judges born in the right place. Candidates of dubious (humble or similar) origins or with ambitions to change the status quo must abstain or risk being hit with various customized accusations.

    And we thought it was only the tanks and the rifles that kept the majorities at 'their place.' Nonsense. Judges are more effective--and cheaper.

    May 01st, 2018 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Jack Bauer

    I have NO doubts that the main crooks are already behind bars, or will be soon. As to the others, if total immunity is revoked, we'll be seeing some of them sharing Lula's cell...by Brazilian standards, a 5-star hotel, that costs the Federal Police, or rather the taxpayer, about US$ 85,000 per month....
    See Reekie has found another 'petoista' to moan about ...Gleisi, a “combative senator”...you forgot “corrupt”. Reekie, why do you insist on believeing what you want, disregarding the facts ?

    May 01st, 2018 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    What a pity Lula and Dilma chose to appoint 'judges born in the right place', then...

    Lawfare in Argentina: CFK charged with corruption and treason, Macri charged with nothing.

    Lawfare in Brazil: Lula convicted of corruption, Temer charged with corruption and obstruction of justice, former presidential candidate Aécio Neves charged with corruption and obstruction of justice... but only Lula is in prison. When are the other crooks gonna be sharing his cell?

    May 01st, 2018 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    @DT

    Excellent questions. The Brazilian government may appear to be scoring some points helped by friendly judges in its goal to put the country's most popular candidate out of the electoral race.

    However, their overuse of the same resources to now attempt to neutralize Gleisi Hoffmann could backfire just because it's so revealing.

    @JB

    Jack: We know your sympathies, so your full endorsement of whatever steps president Michel Temer or judge Sergio Moro take against Lula is unsurprising. However, as DT summarily exposed above, the Brazil government and a significant sector of its justice system appear more clearly every day engaged in lawfare, that is, use the law as a weapon against political opponents.

    The Brazilian process is so denuded of democratic principles it should send shudders through all those fighting for progress, not only in Latin America but in any country in the world, as not one is immune from the use of lawfare as a political weapon.

    May 02nd, 2018 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @EM

    At what point in time did you decide to become ostensibly “naive”? South American politicians have long used “the law” against political opponents. In some cases, notably argieland“, corrupt politicians had the advantage of being able to make ”the law“ first. It must feel odd to see your idols ”hoist by their own petard”. Most people will have no problem with it. Especially anyone who felt supportive of having corrupt politicians shot. If Jack Bauer is correct and the Brazilian taxpayer is paying US$85,000 a month to house Lulu, I would hope that those Brazilian taxpayers protest loud and long. I see no reason why they should be paying any more than US$2,500 a month. He is, after all, supposed to be undergoing punishment.

    May 02nd, 2018 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @JB:

    REF: “that costs the Federal Police, or rather the taxpayer, about US$ 85,000 per month....”:

    MORE strain on the taxpayers! So WHEN will these nice gentlemen/ladies be FORCED to return their illicit gains?

    May 02nd, 2018 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    “When are other crooks gonna be sharing his cell?”
    Don't know, but the sooner the better. Still not 100% clear how the revocation of immunity will affect politicians. If the STF doesn't twist and deform the original proposal, all politicians, with exception of pres, presidents of both houses & STF justices (these, of course !) should be tried in lower courts...just fyi, interesting stats on the main difference in processal 'speed' in the lower courts and in the STF : while it takes 1 year for an accusation to be accepted in the STF, and at least 2 (or more) years to be ruled on (rather optimistic...), in a lower court this time is reduced to 10 days / 6 months respectively....reason why Lula's case surprised people...they were accustomed to the lethargy of the STF, 'n the consequent prescription of crimes. Aecio's case, provided immunity is revoked, should be tried soon. Temer's immunity will remain while in office. Cabral (ex-gov of Rio), no longer having immunity, was condemned quickly.

    @EM
    What YOU don't want to see, is that if there are any 'friendly' judges in the STF, they are Lewandowski & Toffolli (declared 'petistas') and Gilmar Mendes (inconsistent, ruling in favour of the highest bidder)....and that the first two judges mentioned, were appointed by Lula/Dilma. Would seem to contradict your theory that the STF and Temer are conspiring to remove Lula.

    “Jack: We know your sympathies, so your full endorsement of whatever steps president Michel Temer or judge Sergio Moro take against Lula is unsurprising.”

    Reekie, differently to you, I can separate political preference (or 'sympathies') from 'crookedness'.....I have no 'favorite' crooks, regardless of party, or ideology they may profess, and when the law permits, I want to see them all behind bars...Aécio (PSDB), Temer (PMDB) etc
    As far as Gleisi is concerned, before you start defending her blindly (as you do re Lula), suggest you look into how the investigation got to her and her husband.

    May 02nd, 2018 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    @Conque

    Wrong, dear.

    Traditionally, the ousting of progressive Latin American governments democratically elected and the subsequent lesson-teaching to electors was a task reserved to the armed forces. The U.S. supplied training, intelligence, weapons and money.

    After the excesses of the 1970s and the subsequent reaction led to a temporary reprieve, electors chose progressive governments in countries such as Honduras, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil and Argentina.

    This, of course, caused sheer panic in the U.S. and among the privileged Latin American minorities. Pretty soon, a new strategy began to be used--one that would prove highly successful because it took the civil society by surprise and because judges usually enjoy some more credibility than generals.

    Judges have powers to investigate, accuse, detain and sentence a person. Nothing prevents a judge from acting with lightning speed--or let a case sleep for years, depending on the need. Using “confessions” from sentenced individuals in exchanged for reduced prison times to convict someone else is a simple and effective method.

    When the power of judges is unleashed in tandem with public controlled information through a friendly mainstream media, it becomes almost invincible. Why, may be asking the members of the powerful elites, didn't we think of it before?

    Right now, however, new excesses are being committed in the application of lawfare, particularly in Brazil and Argentina. Societies are in the process of creating antibodies to this new form of aggression and democratic curtailing.

    Keep tuned.

    May 02nd, 2018 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I don't believe what's happening in Brazil and Argentina is the same. From what I've seen I don't think Argentina has the same kind of systematic corruption that Brazil did/does, although it seems to be common enough there. It's much more noticeable in Argentina that only members of the previous government are accused, and no one from the current one. Even CFK was not charged with anything until her term as President had ended.

    In Brazil politicians from all parties have been charged, so I'd say as least some of the police/judges/prosecutors are really trying to root out corruption, unlike what Enrique thinks. Whether some are also biased for various reasons - well, it seems almost inevitable. And I'm not convinced the more powerful politicians - the ones who haven't made themselves unpopular like Lula - won't manage to wriggle out of it somehow.

    I guess if/when the STF really revokes the immunity, we'll get to see if things will really be different and how impartial or otherwise the courts are.

    May 02nd, 2018 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    @DT

    I agree that lawfare in Brazil and Argentina may have differences such as those DT pointed out.

    What both processes have in common, though, is the use of judges and corruption allegations to settle political differences.

    Ask anyone who has experienced corruption in Latin America. Corruption has been rampant from top to bottom--from president and ministers to the cop who stops you on the road, from the beginning of our history. Impunity has also been systemic, because bribes are distributed along the chain of command.

    Now, the “corruption” allegations used to weaken or topple governments or, as in Brazil, to put out of the race a popular presidential candidate are a recent phenomenon.

    Are some police, judges or prosecutors really trying to root out corruption?

    There are. But they are few, and at some point will be under pressure to act as they are told--or else. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

    “If/when the STF really revokes the immunity, we'll get to see if things will really be different and how impartial or otherwise the courts are,” notes DT.

    Alas, this statement shows lack of knowledge on Latin American reality. It's difficult to fathom the selfishness and extreme backwardness of the dominant classes in Latin American countries. They do not only care for their own privileges--they also believe in a God-given order in which the poor are kept at their place, submissive and uneducated. Any threats to change that order, e.g. giving a voice, education or participation to the poor are met with hate and violence.

    Brazil is a showcase of this. Lula, as president, softened much of his pre-election discourse. He did not use his office to attack the interests of the ultra wealthy, his idea being that all--poor and rich--could progress together.

    Lula is one of those personalities few countries are lucky to have.

    May 03rd, 2018 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @EM
    Not sure if you're talking to me or about me, but never mind...

    “Lula, as president, softened much of his pre-election discourse. He did not use his office to attack the interests of the ultra wealthy, his idea being that all--poor and rich--could progress together.”

    That seems very wise to me. Why wouldn't you want everyone to progress together? And on the practical side, he couldn't have handled the amount of opposition he would have got if he tried to tear down the rich. Plus, executing the Kulaks just never works out well for a country.

    “Alas, this statement shows lack of knowledge on Latin American reality.”

    That's a tad unfair. I said it would show things one way or the other. Obviously you think you know what will happen, so how about a wager? Would you be willing to bet Temer won't have been sentenced and imprisoned within, say, 3 years? How about Aécio Neves?

    May 03rd, 2018 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @EM & @DT:

    REF: “If/when the STF really revokes the immunity, we'll get to see if things will really be different and how impartial or otherwise the courts are”:

    NO band of crooks [NO network of racketeers] - even if they are NOT ruling any country - will be willing to give up their benefits, their privileges, their rights; unless there is some kind of a compromise - a give-and-take - an exchange of favors [in THEIR favor, of course]! Having said that: It's just a question of time to discover which loopholes were purposefully created [by the crooks & for the crooks] to profit from and to escape from any charges.

    May 03rd, 2018 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jack Bauer

    @EM
    “Judges have powers to investigate, accuse”. “Wrong, dear”: Investigations are conducted by the MPF & Federal Police...their conclusions are submitted to the judge, who then decides whether to accept (or not) the accusation. The “lightning speed” you refer to, presumably in comparison to the STF, is the norm in the two lower courts...differently to the STF ('current' jurisdiction for Congressional members), as explained in the 7th post above. What permitted Lula to be tried /convicted in a relatively short time, is the fact he is a “common” (?) citizen, and his case went to a lower court instead of the STF, where it could take 10 or more years to be addressed. Is that your gripe ?

    “Lula, as president, softened his pre-election discourse. He did not use his office to attack the interests of the ultra wealthy, his idea being that all--poor and rich--could progress together”

    Lula was already being 'courted' by Odeb & others before he was elected. Once elected he soon realized his rhetoric would not work so instead of fighting the business elite, he “used his office”, to JOIN them...and sure, Lula really did “progress”...the poor didn't.
    Suggest you learn how things work here - Brazil is not Argentina - and stop embarassing yourself.

    @DT
    “It's much more noticeable in Argentina that only members of the previous government are accused, and no one from the current one”
    Right, accusations against a president and his friends 'usually' only prosper after that president leaves office. While in office, they have the power to block investigations. When Macri leaves office, he'll probably face the same problem.
    “Total” immunity was finally revoked yday. Now, Pres, Ministers & congressional members only have immunity 1) while in office, and 2) against acts directly and strictly related to their mandates...which boils down to them being able to say what they want, but ordinary crimes such as murder, prevarication, corruption etc, go straight to lower court.

    May 03rd, 2018 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    @JB

    Yada, yada.

    “They could not do it otherwise.” Legislators could not avoid voting to impeach Dilma. Judge Sergio Moro could not avoid prosecuting Lula, disclosing his wiretapped conversations and putting pressure on a sentenced man to get a confession implicating Lula.

    Of course, we all know the legislators acted according to conscience as did Moro. It's too bad Lula accepted that apartment. Or did he? Well, according to Moro, he had no proof--but he had “conviction.” Good for him.

    Hey, you are much ado about the trees, but nothing about the forest. Why don't you say, 'I do not like Lula so I don't care about the means used to take him down?'

    Then we could begin having a rational discussion even if we differ.

    May 04th, 2018 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • :o))

    @EM

    REF: He had no proof--but he had “conviction“

    Please look at the whole picture [during about 15 years of his ”Hay-Days”] and not just a part of it [not just the tip of the iceberg], which is so overwhelmingly attractive to you. Maybe, Like Lulla, you too prefer to pretend knowing NOTHING! REF:
    http://www.contraovento.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000CHARGE-SPONHOLZ-2500.jpg

    May 04th, 2018 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    “When Macri leaves office, he'll probably face the same problem.”

    Depending who follows him, yeah. Macri has had a couple of scandals already that nothing has come of, they could yet come back to bite him.

    I saw the article about 'immunity' being revoked today. What counts as related to their mandate, though? Seems like corruption could be considered to fall under that. Also it said something about not changing court once the charges had been filed, does that mean charges that initially go to the supreme court will stay there even after the suspect leaves office? Sounds like that could weaken the measure considerably.

    It was interesting seeing who voted against it - the judges you mentioned: Dias Toffoli, Ricardo Lewandowski and Gilmar Mendes, plus Alexandre de Moraes, Temer's appointment. Why do you reckon he was against it?

    Even they only wanted to include all crimes committed during the mandate in the privilidge, instead of just the ones related to it.

    May 04th, 2018 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @EM
    “yada, yada” ?? is that all you have to say to defend your position ?

    “Legislators could not avoid voting to impeach Dilma”.......
    Why not ? the vote in the Lower House of Congress could have favoured her....but it didn't. So, with zero support, except from her party, time to kick her out.

    “Judge Sergio Moro could not avoid prosecuting Lula, disclosing his wiretapped conversations and putting pressure on a sentenced man to get a confession implicating Lula”....
    Do you really think the exposed wiretap had anything to do with his conviction ? it did NOT. The wiretap only exposed Dilma's failed attempt to appoint Lula as her Cabinet Minister (before they presumed Moro would arrest Lula - which he did NOT) and give him political immunity. The wiretap had nothing to do with Lula's “Triprekis”....
    And while we're on the “Triprekis”, it was ample proof and the testimony of dozens of witnesses that put the toad behind bars. My personal dislike for Lula and all he stands for,
    has absolutely no influence in his conviction.....learn to separate the facts.

    Before I can have a rational discussion with you, you need to learn the facts, to put your ideology aside and stick to the truth.

    @DT
    That's right, depends who succeeds him. The “related to their mandate”, does not cover common crimes, corruption, nor schemes to favour businessmen in exchange for 'gifts', as they are not part of their parliamentary functions. If caught in a mistake like spending unwisely, or taking a decision which in retrospect turned out to be wrong (provided it can be justified), or accusing someone wrongly, might be defensible. Has to be some honest mistake committed while carryring out their duty, and can be considered an acceptable mishap. Only the cases which are in advanced stages of conclusion will remain with the STF.
    Alexandre de Morais was not against restricting the privilege, but in favour of reducing the restrictions. The other 3 immy jumped on the bandwagon.

    May 04th, 2018 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I hope you're right that corruption is excluded, but not sure what is included then. The things you describe don't sound like crimes at all.

    RE the judges, I gathered that all but Mendes had voted already and he used the occasion for a long speech about all the other things that are wrong with the justice system. Also FdSP said Toffoli wanted to extend the change to all the authorities in the country, which I thought it already was being (except the President and a couple of other positions), so I'm confused:

    “Além disso, Toffoli propôs estender a restrição de foro especial a todas as autoridades do país. Segundo ele, a medida atingiria 16 mil casos, incluindo “um número expressivo” de casos relativos a crimes cometidos por prefeitos antes da diplomação. Gilmar Mendes se manifestou a favor.”

    May 04th, 2018 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @JB:

    REF: “restricting the privilege & reducing the restrictions”:

    It's just a play on words! Making the law as vague as possible, they are making it absolutely sure that there will now be many more loopholes than before, to escape from! Instead of making it impossible, now they have made it easier for the crooks to continue with their “Noble Deeds” [A mercenary becomes unlawful but still must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”]!

    To be fair; the Special Privileges MUST be abandoned totally - the SAME law for all [BUT will NEVER happen].

    Instead, as I always expected:
    https://i1.wp.com/blogdoaftm.web2419.uni5.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1949-1024x768.jpg

    May 05th, 2018 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “It was ample proof and the testimony of dozens of witnesses”
    While the truth is there is but one alleged witness, who is convicted, and thus testifying because of promises made by prosecutors. With absolutely no corroboration evidence.
    ”The evidence against Mr. da Silva is far below the standards that would be taken seriously in, for example, the United States’ judicial system.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/opinion/brazil-lula-democracy-corruption.html
    Which along with myself, and many others who are familiar with bona fide functioning legal systems. Also with the prima facia UN Human Rights abuses.

    May 05th, 2018 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @TH:

    REF: “for example, the United States’ judicial system”:

    Used a wrong example to a country [where the judges & votes] are bought and from where the biggest exports are drugs. So pl. go a bit slower on whatever you smoke, inhale, inject, drink, chew or whatever else you do.

    May 05th, 2018 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Bonehead
    “Used a wrong example to a country [where the judges & votes] are bought” “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
    On the contrary the US legal system, while far from perfect, is light years ahead of the dysfunctional pretence of a legal system they have in Brazil.

    May 05th, 2018 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jack Bauer

    @Terry the LIAR, aka, Numb nuts
    Suggest you spare yourself the embarrasment - of making a point of showing how ignorant you are - and keep quiet.
    You keep on harping about “the dysfunctional pretence of a legal system they have in Brazil.....there may be some truth in that...but if it wasn't ”dysfunctional”, Lula would have been behind bars 10 years ago......like he would be if he'd pulled his tricks in the US...

    May 05th, 2018 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “Lula would have been behind bars 10 years ago….” You can continue with your doctrinaire mantra, but the following facts are indisputable.
    “The evidence against Mr. da Silva is based on the testimony of one convicted OAS executive, José Aldemário Pinheiro Filho, who had his prison sentence reduced in exchange for turning state’s evidence. According to reporting by the prominent Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo, Mr. Pinheiro was blocked from plea bargaining when he originally told the same story as Mr. da Silva about the apartment. He also spent about six months in pretrial detention.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/opinion/brazil-lula-democracy-corruption.html
    Such evidence would not have resulted in a conviction in any first world jurisdiction. So with the fact that your civil courts cannot complete even a simple probate claim that allows an heir to receive their lawful inheritance in less than twenty-five years. Would not make investors confident that any investment would be safe with such a malfunctioning judiciary.

    May 06th, 2018 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @TH:

    REF: “dysfunctional pretense of a legal system they have in Brazil”:

    That's what I meant wrt being the biggest Drug-Exporter too! So pl. go a bit slower on whatever you smoke, inhale, inject, drink, chew or whatever else you do.

    May 06th, 2018 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Jack Bauer

    @:o))
    The only dysfunctional thing around here, is Terry the Liar's head.....he repeats his lies incessantly in the hope that someone will believe him. He'd rather believe the word of a leftist newspaper than all evidence, the testimony of many witnesses - Leo Pinheiro being only 'one' of them - and the unanimous decisions in three courts....but let him show-off his extreme ignorance and his love for Lula, as it will not change the facts.

    May 06th, 2018 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “Terry the Liar's .....he repeats his lies incessantly”. Much asserted but you never meet your BoP. Whereas it is you who claims “It was ample proof and the testimony of dozens of witnesses” When in fact this is refuted by the New York Times report relying in part on Folha de São Paulo. Neither publication could be remotely considered a “leftist newspaper”. It is their evidence that clearly shows you are the only revealed liar, and endorses my assertion.
    “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
    “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Abraham Lincoln
    “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    May 06th, 2018 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jack Bauer

    Of course, I forgot that the NYT and the FdSP (as left-leaning as the toad) are better informed than the prosecutors and the courts, and that they don't need to meet their BoP....tut, tut...

    ”Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Franklin D. Roosevelt....
    Certainly doesn't...so why don't you listen to FDR ?

    See how your own crap condemns you ?

    May 06th, 2018 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • :o))

    @TH:

    Pl. don't get worked-up. Your idol + the rest of the crooks will be soon enjoying Freedom+Victory - VERY S00N!
    REF:
    https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/200-anos-do-Marx.jpg?resize=565%2C420&ssl=1

    May 06th, 2018 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “NYT and the FdSP (as left-leaning” According to whom, you and your local Bund? If what you claim is true you’ed be able to provide the proof. So we can set that aside as as one more of your innumerable porkies.

    May 06th, 2018 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @Terry L. Hill , “L” standing for LIAR
    And the FdSP is not ? according to whom ? you ? ...so, if what you claim is true you'd be able to provide the proof. So we can set that aside as one more of your innumerable porkies.

    And don't try to wiggle out of providing YOUR proof - that the FdSP is not - by coming back with your usual shit of 'who asserts has to prove'...as by questioning my opinion, you too have made an assertion.
    C'mon numb nuts, or are you going to change the rules in the middle of the game ? as you always do.

    May 06th, 2018 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “don't try to wiggle out of providing YOUR proof” I don’t have to provide any since I have made no assertion as to any particle bias. As you made the assertion it is your burden. Yet again you engage in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
    “Burden of proof is often abused in rhetoric and arguments.
    Shifting the burden
    Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.”
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

    May 06th, 2018 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    What does FdSP write that makes you see them as left-leaning?

    @TH
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    “These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. Factual Reporting: HIGH”

    May 06th, 2018 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “As by questioning my opinion, you too have made an assertion.” That is a deliberate untruth. What I have done is to provide evidence that your original assertion was a complete crock through, independent third party sources.

    May 06th, 2018 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    Over the years, and in contrast with the OESP, the FdSP editorials are “usually” sympathetic towards the PT and other lefties....not telling outright lies but indulging in half-truths. Ask anyone who was / is familiar with their line of reporting. Anyway, it's my perception of them, reason why stopped subscribing a long time ago.

    @Terry the “Truthless Liar”, aka Numb nuts
    Another wiggle, I see.....but if it makes your wee brain believe you've scored a victory, have it your way....makes no difference, to anyone.

    May 07th, 2018 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “Another wiggle, I see” Your the only one wriggling here. I”m following the rules as laid down under “Argumentation theory … Establishing the “burden of proof” – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance”. Since you can’t obey such precepts it is perfectly clear why, loser.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

    May 07th, 2018 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @TH:

    In spite of too many NEGATIVE factors which hamper the progress; the BIGGEST advantage which Brazil has:
    #1: A VAST number of ignorant masses
    #2: Many of them not even knowing that they are ignorant
    #3: Those who are knowledgeable; act helpless
    https://www.piadas.com.br/sites/default/files/lendas.jpeg

    May 07th, 2018 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Bonehead
    “Many of them not even knowing that they are ignorant” Which you exemplify perfectly.

    May 07th, 2018 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @T LIAR HILL
    Hey Numb nuts, when some says 'good morning' to you - not that I think many people would bother to greet you - do you tell them to prove it ?

    May 07th, 2018 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @TH

    OMG! You did turn out to be intelligent after all! Your “idol” will certainly appreciate your valuable contribution!
    https://i0.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Postes.jpg?resize=580%2C400&ssl=1

    May 07th, 2018 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    For a person who loses every exchange and refuses to follow the requirements of Argumentation theory. “It is better to be silent and thought to be ignorant then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.” R. G. Risch

    May 07th, 2018 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @:o))
    Porra, você está insultando o coitado do jegue....uma 'anta' seria melhor.

    May 07th, 2018 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    Desculpa, belay that last post, you were an unintended consequence of post for JB, who certainly merited it.

    May 07th, 2018 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    I've seen PT supporters online complaining they are biased the other way, but such perceptions are pretty common.

    Why an 'anta'?

    @TH
    I was wondering why the heck you were replying to me. You'd get a lot further if you were generally respectful, you know. I think the NYT is a little left of centre but they're not mega biased or anything, no reason to think they are lying about Lula.

    May 07th, 2018 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    Please give yourself a shake, how can any reasonable person respect the gross improprieties that are JB’s stock and trade? In any event such blatant deliberate dishonesty just inspires well deserved contempt. The majority of major US publications are politically central i.e, liberal with only a few of the majors conservative.

    May 07th, 2018 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Not a chance, I'm tired enough already. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time someone disagrees with you, you assume they are deliberately lying, when it's far more likely they are mistaken, misinformed or simply have a different opinion. You're antagonising people for no good reason.

    May 07th, 2018 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “Every time someone disagrees with you, you assume they are deliberately lying” No when the party you are referring to does everything possible to avoid verifying what they assert. Then it confirms their not being truthful, there are dozens of sites that show what is acceptable and what is not. You may blindly support him because you're joined at the hip. The bottom line is he is a proven liar. You want to accept that, then bully for you, but don't feed me your BS as I know better.

    May 07th, 2018 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @JB:

    You ARE right! I'm so sorry and I deeply regret my mistake! I do HAVE to apologize to the Donkey!

    May 08th, 2018 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    I don't blindly support him. Didn't you notice that I'm not supporting him right now? But I'm more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt because he doesn't insult me in every post.

    Your problem is that you read rules for courtrooms and proper debates and think they apply everywhere. They don't. When people are chatting on a website it just isn't appropriate to ask for proof of every little thing. You certainly don't have to believe everything JB says, BUT even if you think he's wrong, even if it turns out you're right, that doesn't mean he's deliberately lying. You've made mistakes, so can anyone, and often the evidence is not clear and people can quite reasonably disagree.

    May 08th, 2018 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    “I've seen PT supporters online complaining they are biased the other way”.

    Of course you have. But it's more than 'just' perception. I think certain views can “objectively” be seen as either left or centre, or, more radical versus moderate (based on universally accepted facts, such as the differences between communism and democracy).
    And considering the PT supports movements like the Foro de SP, Maduro, and Cuba's “democracy”, I think it's safe to say that they are extremists, with authoritarian ideals...not to mention Lula's now presenting himself as the 'savior' of the mess he created, and turning 'petismo' into a fanatical cult. To be expected in underdeveloped countries.

    When Dilma was elected, she did not want to be called “a presidentE”, which is the ONLY correct form in Portuguese. So she invented “a PresidentA” (quite normal for her confused mind); but after a while, people changed the ending “enta”, to “anta” (“tapir”), local slang for 'total idiot'.

    Re Terry the LIAR, your “And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time someone disagrees with you, you assume they are deliberately lying”, says it all.
    On his terms you'll never win...if you say the sky is blue he'll demand you prove it.....what's his favorite quote on that ? “an assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...Hitchens” ??
    He does not know the difference between an assertion and an opinion....If I remember correctly, he started getting his knickers in a twist when I wrote that in the 'early' 60s, Brazil was being threatened by a communist movement (which I witnessed, first-hand), and that I did not condemn the consequent military takeover, and in retrospect I thought had been ok....the former was the general consensus amongst those who were aware of what was happening, and the latter was my perception.....but the LIAR became so upset.

    His pathetic conclusion, “...don't feed me your BS as I know better”, can be explained by Freud

    May 08th, 2018 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    “I don't blindly support him.” Then how can you make a statement like “when it's far more likely they are mistaken, misinformed or simply have a different opinion” When he has carte blanche stated as a fact “It was ample proof and the testimony of dozens of witnesses”. Whereas, The NYT clearly states “The evidence against Mr. da Silva is based on the testimony of one convicted OAS executive,“ So I can safely conclude you both are proven liars.
    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    ”Brazil was being threatened by a communist movement (which I witnessed, first-hand)“ Is shown shown to be absolute rubbish by the public record, further revealing what a complete and utter liar you are.
    ”The only credited source for the so-called ‘communist-threat’ is: “Making the rounds of Brazil's major industrialists, de Paiva was able to appeal to their interests by translating his visceral hatred of communism into a simple message they could understand: Goulart wants to take away from you that which is yours. In this way, de Paiva was able to drum up close to $20,000 a month in donations. … The denial of all political rights and the suppression of working class efforts to gain a more equitable share of Brazil's enormous natural wealth give the lie to the country's “economic miracle” that foreign investors proclaim. Whatever gains Brazil can speak of are realised by only a small elite.”
    Brazil and CIA by Peter Gribbin
    “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

    May 08th, 2018 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @Terry the Liar Hill
    You like to talk as if you know a lot about the early 60s in Brazil....you weren't even here, you only read reports sponsored by the frustrated lefties, giving their very biased record of events...
    So admit it : you really know F-all of that period in Brazil. Your arrogant and meaningless rhetoric convinces no one....but I'm sure it makes you feel important.

    The people you listen to and swallow their crap, are exactly those who got screwed when their dirty plans backfiredso they try to rewrite history to suit their lies...but YOU believe them.
    Again, it is not surprising why you are so selective in what you reproduce here, because you are a commie at heart and prefer to believe it represents the truth. It is only 'their ' version of events, without the slightest proof.....but it's strange you take their word for it, without demanding BoP.....they are full of crap, like you, so get over it numb nuts..

    May 08th, 2018 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “You really know F-all of that period in Brazil.” What I do know is how to research the public record and show you as you really are, a con man, who's attempting to sell a bill of goods. Caught yet again as you can't produce anything from the main stream media that supports your fairy-tale.
    “commie at heart and prefer to believe it represents the truth.” Hardly, I can't stand extremists of any stripe like yourself.
    “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
    “or the wretched conceit of a liar, in supposing himself clever enough to invent stories so ingenious that they shall, for any time, impose on people for the truth, and the still grosser folly in imagining, as he must do, that the world will, without investigation and analysis, take for granted anything he chooses to assert that world more shrewd, more cunning, and as prying as himself what a conceited ass must the liar be! How superior over others in cunning must he not believe himself! What fools must he not suppose the rest of mankind!”
    CHARLES WILLIAM DAY, The Maxims, Experiences, and Observations of Agogos

    May 08th, 2018 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @JB:

    REF: “based on universally accepted facts, such as the differences between communism and democracy”:

    - Although different [opposite] views [theories]; perhaps, the basic intentions at least were good in principle
    - NO system is 100% perfect
    - What we see - everywhere - is the mockery of [misuse & misinterpretation of] the fundamental principles.

    May 09th, 2018 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @Terry the Brainless LIAR

    Thank you for confessing you weren't here in the 60s, which confirms, once again, you are a bullsh*tter .

    Your research of 'public record' is limited to leftist-revisionist crap, in which the facts are irrelevant and can be twisted to suit the commie narrative ; It is notorious that a significant portion of the MSM is left-leaning, and what makes it the sole owner of the truth?

    The fact that you don't submit their articles to your ridiculous standards of BoP, and swallow their biased claims hook, line and sinker , is a clear sign you are not particularly bright.

    The fact that you believe John Galbraith's brainless quote is the irrefutable proof that you are a communist, which makes it easy to understand why you are such a frustrated little man - just like many who lived under communism ; you have become accustomed to do as you're told, and cannot think for yourself..... reason why you always express yourself through other people's thoughts - thinking and logical reasoning are not your strong points.

    May 09th, 2018 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    If we define what we mean by left, right, and centre, then yeah we can place views objectively on that scale. But people won't be able to agree on the definitions, and in particular the centre is generally defined by what most people in a society believe. So ideas that are totally mainstream in Europe like the government ensuring healthcare covers the whole population, are seen as left-wing in America.

    'Presidenta' is what they say in Spanish right, but what was wrong with using 'Presidente'? Was Dilma the first female president of any Portuguese-speaking country? Surely there are presidents of clubs and stuff so they would already have decided on a word? I don't really understand it, most words don't have a gender in English and if names of professions etc do then I think feminists prefer using a gender-neutral term.

    RE Terry, “On his terms you'll never win...if you say the sky is blue he'll demand you prove it”. Yes, but if you wrote your opinions on Wikipedia instead he'd treat it as gospel (providing he agreed with you) because then it would be 'published'.

    @TH
    I wrote a reply to you but I don't have room, if you answer this then I'll post it.

    May 09th, 2018 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    Whats wrong with you Argentinians are you all ethically challenged? Yet, again you engage in the fraud of attempting to shifting the burden of proof. “The fact that you don't submit their articles ...” That's your burden as I have shown the evidence that refutes your original claim as to a communist uprising.
    So we are to accept the say so of you as a discredited liar. While the evidence in the public domain is to be ignored, again on your stay so. While you are unable to produce any evidence of bias against Peter Gribbin, or the Brazil Herald. What is the most significant is you can produce no evidence that what was published was untrue. Therefore, their claims stand as true, while your's fail as lacking corroboration, so lose you yet again.
    “John Galbraith's brainless quote is the irrefutable proof that you are a communist” Please you don't know who he was, nor do understand what he said.
    “John Kenneth Galbraith OC, also known as Ken Galbraith, was a Canadian-born economist, public official, and diplomat, and a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith

    May 09th, 2018 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @Terry the Hypocrite
    Here you go, as promised:

    “Then how can you make a statement like “when it's far more likely they are mistaken, misinformed or simply have a different opinion” When he has carte blanche stated as a fact “It was ample proof and the testimony of dozens of witnesses”. ”

    Firstly I was talking in general, not about that specific statement. But JB isn't a lawyer, and if he's familiar with any justice system it's going to be the Brazilian one. How would he know what standard of evidence would be taken seriously in the United States judicial system? He's looked at the evidence for himself and he found it convincing; that's his opinion, not a lie. You are entitled to disbelieve him and think the NYT is a better source but that doesn't mean he's lying.

    As for the number of witnesses, obviously the prosecution called more than one, I've seen others listed myself. Presumably the NYT thought Pinheiro was the key witness and the others weren't conclusive. Unless they gave details we can't know.

    RE the Communists, you are being highly selective in your sources as per usual, but you yourself linked to a top-secret memo from a guy in the CIA saying the threat of communist takeover was real and imminent, proving that some (important) people believed it at the time. It's quite possible the communists really weren't able to hold a revolution, but that people believed they could and acted accordingly. JB is speaking from his own experience, and what he saw in the papers at the time. Again that's not a lie, and I'm sure he believes what he's saying, just as you believe what you're saying, despite the fact a lot of what you say is bullshit.

    May 09th, 2018 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    “But that doesn't mean he's lying.” He stated verbatim “It was ample proof and the testimony of dozens of witnesses”. When the NYT states there was but one alleged witness, so thats an exact contradiction. Pinheiro was the only individual operating under clear coercion that so claimed, not one other witness allegedly could categorically confirm, they were all hearsay claims. In other words innuendo. So someone is lying and it isn't the NYT.
    “You are being highly selective in your sources as per usual” Since there really is a dearth of information on subject, and the little there is highly critical of the US there isn't much choice.
    ”Proving that some (important) people believed it at the time.“ How is that possible if there isn't the slightest smattering of evidence? All that you can conclude in such a vacuum, is they were merely self-serving statements. You must remember that many of these individuals had financial interests in the areas that they were directly guiding US foreign policy. Which is not necessarily in interests of most Americans.
    ”.. Kennedy’s response was urbane, liberal, and tolerant. ‘I think that the decision of your country about the means to achieve progress is your decision, ..this is a judgment that you have to make. What we are against is the negation of civil liberties ... ’
    Publicly, Kennedy acknowledged Brazil’s right to economic sovereignty; behind closed doors, he contemplated US support for an anti-constitutional, armed intervention in order to protect US economic and strategic interests.“
    The US Role in the 1964 Coup in Brazil: A Reassessment. Anthony W. Pereira. King’s College London, UK
    ”Despite the fact a lot of what you say is bullshit.“ If what I claimed was unsupported that could be true. But to give clarity to your assertion you'll have to provide specifics. ”As that which can be asserted without evidence ...”

    May 09th, 2018 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @Terry the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    “When the NYT states there was but one alleged witness”

    I don't believe they said such a thing, but if they did then they were wrong. This site, which is clearly on Lula' side, states that there were 73 witnesses, and unlike the NYT, they claim not a single witness provided concrete evidence linking Lula to the triplex:

    https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2018/01/18/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-lula-trial-10-questions-and-answers/

    That's an exact contradiction, since the NYT says there was one, Leo Pinheiro. And they weren't all hearsay claims, since several witnesses confirmed that Lula and his wife visited the triplex.

    Note I'm still not claiming JB is right, or that Lula is guilty. I'm saying JB isn't lying and the evidence against Lula was convincing to him, even if it wasn't to the NYT.

    Did you know that juries in trials sometimes disagree on what verdict to give? And it's not because some of them are lying but because there is seldom enough evidence to let us be 100% certain what happened. The members of the jury have to make their best judgement, just as we do, and like them we may not agree.

    RE the communists, you provided one piece of evidence yourself: the top secret classified memo from Ambassador Gordon to the US government, in which because it was top secret he would have no reason to lie. Yet you refuse to recognise this as evidence against your theory, which is why I say you are highly selective in your sources.

    nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB118/bz02.pdf

    May 09th, 2018 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    “I don't believe they said such a thing, but if they did then they were wrong.”
    “The evidence against Mr. da Silva is based on the testimony of one convicted OAS executive, José Aldemário Pinheiro Filho“
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/opinion/brazil-lula-democracy-corruption.html
    ”I'm saying JB isn't lying“ That point has clearly shown he is a liar, so you can engage in all the sophistry you wish but you can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
    RE:Ambassador Gordon
    Gordon spent all his earlier years in government with the resource industries, such as oils and metals. So all his opinions were shaped by their benevolences.
    Noam Chomsky has been critical of the coup, as well as his perception of Gordon's role in it. At an address delivered at Harvard University on March 19, 1985, he stated:
    ”So, in one case, Brazil, the most important Latin American country, there has been what was called an “economic miracle” in the last couple of decades, ever since we destroyed Brazilian democracy by supporting a military coup in 1964. The support for the coup was initiated by Kennedy but finally carried to a conclusion by Johnson. [Four hours after the coup, and before its ultimate effects were able to be seen Kennedy's ambassador, Lincoln Gordon, [called it] “the single most decisive victory for freedom in the mid-twentieth century.” We installed the first really major national security state, Nazi-like state, in Latin America, with high-technology torture and so on. Gordon called it “totally democratic,” “the best government Brazil ever had.”... Well, there was an economic miracle and there was an increase in the GNP. There was also an increase in suffering for much of the population.”
      Gordon violated all diplomatic conventions during his tenure, and clearly was in breach of international law by his involvement in the coup in Brazil.

    May 09th, 2018 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    The article I linked to clearly said that there were 73 witnesses, and not one provided concrete evidence. So please tell me which of those newspaper articles, both supportive of Lula, was lying.

    RE. Ambassador Gordon, I'm not claiming he was a good person, or used legal methods, or was right about what he said. It's all irrelevant, the point is he believed a communist takeover was likely, and so did the people in the US government who received his message, and so did plenty of people in Brazil at the time, JB among them.

    Earlier you wrote this: ”Proving that some (important) people believed it at the time.“ How is that possible if there isn't the slightest smattering of evidence?”

    Is it really such an alien concept to you that people might believe something with no evidence? It happens everyday, just look at religions if you want an example.

    May 09th, 2018 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    Re: witnesses the total was 73 that's correct, there was only witness that claimed it was Lula's under coercion that would not be accepted in any common law country, without corroborative evidence.
    US Ambassador Lincoln Gordon “Yet you refuse to recognise this as evidence against your theory” This isn't evidence it's based on the opinion of one individual. Which, if there was any objective evidence, he would certainly have provided it. Since he didn't we can assume there wasn't any.“
    ”The point is he believed a communist takeover was likely, and so did the people in the US government who received his message,”
    I believe it was a cynical manipulation of US foreign policy to gain an economic advantage for a few self serving individuals with a vested interest in obtaining Brazilian resources at fire sale prices.

    May 10th, 2018 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @Hypocrite and Liar
    So you admit there was testimony of dozens of witnesses, just like JB said. 'Ample evidence' is just his opinion, so it's clear he was not lying but merely disagrees with the NYT. The article in Brasil de Fato said there were NO witnesses who provided concrete evidence, are you going to accuse them of lying too?

    As for the communists, I didn't come on here to talk about them, but here is an essay by a professor of history explaining the Cold War background to the coups and military governments:

    http://resources.primarysource.org/c.php?g=767969&p=5508129

    You can believe what you want, but I find this more convincing.

    And remember again my point isn't whether Brazil or any other country really would have become communist, but whether at the time the US and the generals believed there was enough of a risk for them to take action.

    May 10th, 2018 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    “There was testimony of dozens of witnesses” Thats correct, but other than the alleged allegation of one witness, none could provide any evidence of wrong doing by Lula. “So it's clear he was not lying but merely disagrees with the NYT” That is incorrect, he stated “It was ample proof and the testimony of dozens of witnesses”. So he can provide no direct evidence and besmirches solely by innuendo, so he is revealed as clearly a liar. “NO witnesses who provided concrete evidence, are you going to accuse them of lying” Why? Since they cannot verify any wrong doing, they are merely peripheral.
    I am familiar with the history of the cold war, as I was part of it. I am also aware of the abuses and interference in Latin America by the US on behalf some of their companies. Which was not only criminal under international law, would have been criminal under US domestic law if practiced within their jurisdiction.
    “US and the generals believed there was enough of a risk for them to take action.” You are absolutely naive, all interferences in LA was solely at the behest of American companies, it was solely in the pursuit of profit, rigging the market regardless of the consequences.

    May 10th, 2018 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @The Hypocrite
    You just admitted he was correct about the number of witnesses, and considering Lula was convicted by two courts it's not unreasonable for JB to believe him guilty. If you don't think the evidence was good enough, take it up with Moro.

    And why wouldn't you accuse the BdF of lying, since their facts clearly differ from the NYT's? If you think they are not important enough to worry about, then why are you haranguing JB, who isn't a reporter with a duty to discover the truth, but just a random person posting his opinions on a website?

    “all interferences in LA was solely at the behest of American companies, it was solely in the pursuit of profit, rigging the market regardless of the consequences.”

    More hypocrisy from Terry the King of Hypocrites, completely ignoring the essay I linked to - written by a history professor - in favour of his own unsupported opinion.

    May 10th, 2018 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    “You just admitted he was correct about the number of witnesses” I had never claimed otherwise. What he is not correct about is “he stated verbatim “It was ample proof and the testimony of dozens of witnesses”. When the NYT states there was but one alleged witness, so thats an exact contradiction. Pinheiro was the only individual operating under clear coercion that so claimed,” “that would not be accepted in any common law country, without corroborative evidence.” “If you don't think the evidence was good enough, take it up with Moro”
    His defence has applied and been accepted by the UNHRC for his Human Rights violations. Which will take place once all domestic remedies have been exhausted.
    “And why wouldn't you accuse the BdF of lying, since their facts clearly differ from the NYT's?” I couldn't a less what your claimed perception as nuance differences are in press. I know what the number witness are as I have bookmark for his lawyers site. Again, what I take exception to is the deliberate mistaking of the facts by JB, so toddle off and kiss his ass again.
    “Completely ignoring the essay I linked to ...” Why would I rely on what your claim when I materials that contradict you.

    May 10th, 2018 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    'President' in English, as in Portuguese is gender-neutral ; Dilma's prostituting the language is symptomatic of her craziness. It's not a matter of “deciding” on a word, it's not flexible. .

    Thanks for posting ”RE the Communists, you are being highly selective in your sources as per usual, but you yourself linked to a top-secret memo from a guy in the CIA saying the threat of communist takeover was real and imminent, proving that some (important) people believed it at the time”...
    I was going to look for that, as for every article (the LIAR presents) denying communist influence in Brazil, there's one that says the opposite. And I was here, the LIAR wasn't.
    When the LIAR pushes the notion that L.Pinheiro was the ONLY witness against Lula, it proves he is not as well-infomed as he thinks he is....I've already mentioned several - of the main ones - by name, but we know the LIAR has to be mouth-fed, despite the fact that even when he is, he has trouble opening his mouth. What he can't understand, it's bzln law that applies to the toad. The LIAR backtracks and lies, it's his nature.


    @Terry the LIAR
    “Whats wrong with you Argentinians are you all ethically challenged? Yet, again you engage in the fraud of attempting to shifting the burden of proof.”......think you're insane. “ethically challenged” ??? you're the type of idiot, that when you lose an argument you resort to the last line of defence, “Ah, you're a racist”. I only pointed out that you have no idea what you are talking about.....get over it, numb nuts. I know damned well who JKG is, and if you want to elect him as another of your heroes, go for it, but if you support his quote then it's up to you to supply the BoF that it is true....or is it as DT pointed out, if it's 'published' then you believe it it has to be true ?
    I don't need to discredit or prove evidence of bias against Gribbin, he writes his opinion, I post mine. No one needs to prove an opinion...it's what they think...end of story.

    May 10th, 2018 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “That when you lose an argument you resort to ...” If that was true you'ed be able to show the when and the where. Since you can't meet your BoP it means your lying or delusional.
    “I don't need to discredit or prove evidence of bias against Gribbin, he writes his opinion” on the basis of a factual narrative of history.
    You write your's on the basis of approval of a military dictatorship. He's an expert, you're decidedly not, end of story.

    May 10th, 2018 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @Terry the LIAR
    Your arrogance will never be enough to hide your bullsh*t. As they say, the best method of defence is attack....only problem is that you are so obsessed with your BS that your attacks are at best, pathetic. Stopped taking your pills, again ??

    May 10th, 2018 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    Sometimes you do have to decide on a word, if it's for something that never existed before. Eg we said firemen for years because they were all men, so when the first woman joined was she a fireman, a firewoman or what they eventually adopted, a firefighter?

    Anyway, I realised it doesn't matter if Dilma was the first female president of Brazil, because they must have called presidents of other countries something, long before that. But languages do change; if enough people start using a new word then it will soon become correct. I guess a President is in a good position to force a change if she wants... I wonder if Dilma's will stick?

    As for Terry, his comment on Argentineans is clearly prejudiced, maybe even racist, and he's just proved my point that he is highly selective in his sources. He chooses his evidence solely on whether it agrees with him, and disregards anything that does not, no matter how relevant and reliable it is.

    Besides that he's just getting incoherent now. Real facts are that there were 73 witnesses and the NYT thought only one of them gave convincing evidence of Lula's guilt. Without a title in Lula's name, and given that he never lived there, i presume most of the evidence was circumstantial, which can be enough to convict people in common law systems like the UK, but is less convincing. However, if the NYT say it would not have been enough evidence to convict him in the US, I'm inclined to believe them. Unlucky for Lula that he's being judged in Brazil, but it's a problem for the whole Brazilian justice system if the standards are not rigorous enough.

    May 10th, 2018 - 09:52 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!