MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, March 18th 2019 - 21:56 UTC

Brazilian politics, football and bribes, so closely interlinked

Sunday, August 26th 2018 - 01:05 UTC
Full article 40 comments

When the former boss of Brazilian football was arrested in Zurich in a 2015 graft case that would see him sentenced to prison, his successor in the job didn't lose a minute - he got on the first plane to Rio de Janeiro and didn't look back. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • golfcronie

    Oh what a surprise!!!!, everything in Latam is subject to bribes.

    Aug 26th, 2018 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    chronic i.e pathological
    You don't think the Manchurian Candidate is subject to bribes? I've got some land in Forida to sell you.

    Aug 26th, 2018 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • golfcronie

    Terence, we are ALL subject to bribes, the question is do you take them or not.You scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

    Aug 26th, 2018 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    LEGALIZE taking/giving bribes - problem solved - PERMANENTLY!

    Aug 26th, 2018 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    chronic i.e pathological
    “the question is do you take them or not.” Obviously not, unless you are completely devoid of ethics like the Manchurian Candidate. Who's betrayal time of reckoning is fast approaching.

    Aug 26th, 2018 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Beware of Twinkletoes' offer to sell you land in Florida....he'll probably try to sell you some that's in the middle of the Everglades...

    Aug 26th, 2018 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Re your comment on “Argentina offering reward...”, sorry I didn't reply earlier, I was away all weekend.

    The thieving broker makes it seem very different to me; anyone anywhere can lose money on the stock market, but someone stealing your money is much worse and not getting it back - or at least seeing the thief punished - due to a bent judge is worst of all. :(

    I'm glad you were at least able to get your money back from Collor's gvmt; guess that was one of the ineffective attempts to end inflation you mentioned?

    “didn't the “people” have the right to know who he was ?”

    Perhaps, but shouldn't everyone have a right to privacy? Wiretapping someone to get evidence to use in court is one thing, but you say the recordings were never used as evidence. Do you really think the courts should release private conversations between family members, or with someone's lawyer, seemingly just to hurt their public image? It's also very easy to give a bad impression of someone that way, simply by being selective about what you include. We've seen it with reality TV shows like Big Brother, the editors can create an image quite unrecognisable to that person or their friends in order to introduce drama or to push some story line.

    What reason did the courts give for releasing the wiretaps, anyway?

    I've been trying to get better information. This site claims to reproduce Moro's order authorising questioning Lula under coercion, it mentions protests as the reason and says it is only to be used if Lula refuses to come voluntarily; I don't know whether he did or not:

    “If Lula was innocent why did he resort to immunity ?”

    Perhaps he isn't innocent, but on the other hand maybe he knows good and well that judges can be bought and being in the right is no guarantee of justice in Brazil?

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    The Collor plan was 1 more feeble attempt to fight inflation, as it ignored the root cause. The only word for it - 6% interest on a ‘forced’ loan to govt, with 1,400% inflation p/yr - is ‘confiscation’ (one reason why, afaic, presidential system puts too much power into one man’s hands.
    “Perhaps, but shouldn't everyone have a right to privacy?” In matters that are strictly personal, yes….but not to hide dirty deals under the counter which affect the people...and to escape the Law.
    The wiretaps were not used to incriminate Lula in the “triplex” case for the simple reason none were directly linked to it…the wiretap that got the PT’s knickers in a twist was the one in which Dilma conveyed a message to Lula, in a rather secretive manner, to get him off the hook without actually saying as much.
    No wiretaps to do with purely personal matters (and there may have been a few) were released, only those to do with the case at hand, and obviously incriminating. And it had nothing to do with attacking his ‘image’…they were trying to obstruct justice. His image wasn't on trial, so no harm done…d’you think that his followers were shocked at what they heard/saw ? Unlikely.
    Reason given for releasing some of the incriminating wiretaps, was to do with the ‘public’s right to know’.
    Lula was first summoned by Moro in Feb 2016. Besides Lula’s non-appearance, it was cancelled shortly before it was scheduled to start, due to confrontation between protesters, with several injured. Abt a month later Moro summoned Lula again. He refused to go voluntarily – part of his strategy to defy the Law - so Moro, in compliance with the Law, ordered him brought in, to the office of the fed police in Congonhas (domestic airport) because it was not too central, to avoid the repeat confusion of one month earlier... and Lula maintained his right to silence, answering only what he wanted to. So far, only Mendes, Tofolli 'n Lewandowski (last 2, petistas) are suspected of being bought and/or biased.

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Sounds like a particularly stupid plan, since as well as screwing people over, it would inevitably discourage financial prudence and planning for the future.

    “not to hide dirty deals under the counter which affect the people...and to escape the Law.”

    Using the wiretaps as evidence in court is what would stop Lula or anyone escaping the law. And if they don't reveal anything illegal then why should they be released? The ‘public’s right to know’ is bullshit, either the public should know everyone's private business or no one's. It's not up to the police and courts to decide whose dirty secrets to reveal and whose to keep hidden.

    I found an article listing the recorded conversations, and about the call between Lula and Dilma, it says:

    “Attorney General José Eduardo Cardozo said that Dilma's dialogue, contrary to the opposition's interpretation, was not giving Lula a document to get rid of possible police action.

    ”According to the minister, the president was sending Lula the document called term of office, for him to sign. That's because Lula, according to Cardozo, was having trouble attending the inauguration ceremony scheduled for Thursday (17).“

    It also says they were all released by Moro, doesn't mention any higher courts.

    And what about the call between Marisa Leticia and 'Lulinha'? How was any of that relevant?

    ”Abt a month later Moro summoned Lula again. He refused to go voluntarily”

    Surely you can find an article explaining this for me?

    RE the judges, the STF only judged Lula's HC. It was Moro and the TRF-4 that he had to worry about. Lula has 5(?) more charges against him, who will be judging those?

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    REF: “Politics, Football & Bribes, so closely interlinked”:

    By “oversight” [of course] somebody forgot to add what ELSE is also interlinked - such as:
    - The Political Parties
    - The Legal [law & order] System
    - The Crime Syndicate
    - The Churches [churches too???]
    - and too MANY Others

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “He refused to go voluntarily” That's absolutely false, as the appellant court censored Moro on that very basis, that Lula has always complied.

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Then surely you can find an article saying so?

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    The only wiretap of Lula released was the one where Dilma said she was sending ‘Bessias” (person of her trust) to deliver a document which confirmed him as her cabinet Minister, and only to be presented in case Moro ordered his arrest. The other wiretaps released did not include Lula, but probably executives ‘n corrupt politicians’ reps arranging bribes ‘n drop-offs; however, I repeat, no wiretaps were used as evidence against Lula.
    The public’s right to know that Dilma ‘n Lula were scheming for the latter to gain immunity from prosecution is not bullshit.
    Cardozo’s feeble interpretation of the dialogue is bullshit. If you understood Portuguese you’d need less than 5 secs to realize what Dilma was up to...‘n Cardozo, as Dilma’s lawyer, was trying to downplay it’s devastating effect (on Dilma). Dilma only started to cogitate naming Lula her cabinet minister after rumours of Lula’s imminent arrest. As Lula indicated he might have trouble to be at the last-minute scheduling of his swearing-in ceremony, Dilma called him…here’s a free translation of the transcription of the call, and don’t forget the context in which it occurred – “D : hello; L : hello ; D : Lula, let me tell you something ; L : tell me dear, uh ? D: the following, I’m sending Bessias, together with that piece of ‘paper’, just for us to have it, and only ‘use it’ in case it becomes necessary, it’s the appointment term, ok ? L : Uhum…that’s good, that’s good ; D: Just that. You wait as he’s going there; L : Ok, good, I’m here, I’ll be waiting; D : OK ?! L : OK, good ; D : Bye; L : Bye dear”.
    Cardozo, contrary to the opposition’s interpretation, said Dilma was not sending Lula a document to allow him to avoid arrest by the Feds....just “a document confirming his ministerial appointment”, because Lula might not be able to appear at his swearing-in ceremony 2 days later. So WHAT'S the difference and WHY the crazy rush ? the opposition’s interpretation sounds 100% correct. Need space to finish...

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    The timing of these events ought to tell us something. If Dilma or her staff announced that she had chosen Lula as a minister before she made the call, then that makes Cardozo's interpretation more plausible. Why say “in case it becomes necessary” if she had already decided it was? But if it was announced after the call was made, Moro's interpretation seems more likely. Trouble is everything seems to have gone down on the same day, Weds 16th March. Here's an article confirming Lula's appointment, from 11:22:

    and the one I linked earlier with details of the calls says ”Ligação foi feita às 13h32 desta quarta-feira (16),“ but not sure if that is when the call was recorded or when it was released.

    ”The public’s right to know that Dilma ‘n Lula were scheming for the latter to gain immunity from prosecution is not bullshit.”

    Maybe that one, but the others, not so much. The same article I linked before includes several conversations involving Lula; one with Wellington Dias, one with Rui Falcão, another with Jaques Wagner. And I found the conversation between Marisa Leticia and Lulinha somewhere else, but as far as I could tell it was just them complaining about protesters, and ML said something that was censored - not relevant to the corruption cases at all.

    I wish I did understand Portuguese. It's typical; I spend all this time learning Spanish and then I need to know a different language.

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Dilma's (or Lula’s ?) intention to appoint him as her cabinet minister was only discussed soon after the rumours that Moro might arrest him...only a coincidence ? and, as you point out, “Why say “in case it becomes necessary” ” ? 'n why be intentionally vague (‘piece of paper’ )?
    Camarotti's blog points out that Wagner would be shuffled to another post in order to accomodate Lula, as that would get him out of Moro's reach.
    The only released wiretap that negatively impacted their images, was the one where Dilma called Lula - to his mobile - to tell him ‘Bessias’ was on the way; The STF had authorized the wiretaps as he was already a suspect in other cases and had no immunity.
    Not really familiar with any other recorded conversations between them, or between Lula’s family members (which I don’t think I even mentioned).. Google the following article :

    “Lula estaria planejando não ir depor em Curitiba no dia 03 de maio perante Sérgio Moro. Fuga ou dor de barriga?”

    Says Lula was considering not appearing to testify on May 3rd (as the Feb summons had been postponed due to violent confrontations in front of the Criminal Justice building in SP). I well remember seeing Lula on the news (B4 May) in a tone of bravado, telling an audience of 'petistas' he wouldn’t go, and “who the hell does Moro think he is ?” Presumably this, and the previous confrontation between protesters is what led Moro to 1st, take him in under coercion, and 2nd, to CGS (the domestic airport), where protesters (fm both sides) would be less likely to go.
    As I’ve explained before, only the lower courts (Moro - 1st, and the TRF-4 - 2nd instance) examine the evidence….the higher courts (STJ ‘n STF) only rule on the HC requests after all appeals to the TRF-4 are exhausted, and no longer examine the question on its merits (evidence).
    As Lula has no immunity, the other 6 cases, depending on jurisdiction, will fall to Moro in Parana, and to 1st instance Federal courts in SP ‘n in Brasilia.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))


    Aug 29th, 2018 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “He refused to go voluntarily” That's absolutely false
    ”Moro accuses Lula of owning. But there is no evidence of Lula’s ownership,...Even if Lula owned the apartment, the renovation would not be unusual by Brazilian standards. Ex-presidents frequently receive gifts from empreiteiras, much as American politicians, once out of office, often take advantage of massive fees in exchange for brief public appearances and speaking engagements.
    Moro’s zeal ...and judicial rebuke. The March 4 procedure—in which Federal Police, ... questioned him at São Paulo’s Congonhas airport—was itself illegal, relying on a mechanism called “coercive conduction,” which is only applicable if a suspect avoids questioning at least twice.
    The Supreme Court has the power to discipline lower courts, and Judge Teori Zavascki came down hard. In light of the illegal wiretapping and leaking, he charged Moro with violating Article 5 of the Constitution, which governs due process. Zavascki also declared some of the taped conversations legally irrelevant and argued that public interest could not justify the illegal release of the taped conversations. The ruling is the gravest judicial setback for Moro since the launch of Lava Jato.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “only a coincidence”

    That's the most suspicious thing, more so than the call. The other likely explanation is that Dilma herself was under threat at that point and wanted Lula's support in government, but no reason both can't be true.

    What do you think the “in case it becomes necessary” means? In case Moro aranged Lula's arrest in the 1-2 days between the announcement and the swearing in ceremony? We know that didn't happen in the end, Lula was sworn in as planned, but the court annulled it.

    ”why be intentionally vague (‘piece of paper’ )?”

    Dilma said in the same sentence that it was the 'termo de posse', which looking at some examples of translations would likely be 'instrument of investiture' in English; the piece of paper that would officially make him a minister. Said between two politicians I'm guessing it's not ambiguous; does it have any other meanings?

    You can't say the other wiretaps didn't affect Lula's image, maybe they didn't change your view of him (can't get much worse) but might have influenced other people. And I don't think you did mention the other wiretaps, they were referred to by Geoffrey Robertson (the British lawyer who defends Lula) and mentioned in that Washington Post article I quoted earlier as unfair treatment Lula has received from the courts.

    I read your article, but it must be talking about a later round of questioning, because the coercive thingy was issued in March and even referred to in the May article when they say “It is speculated that Lula would be trying to provoke his own arrest, force the issuance of *another* coercive driving order against him, or consider a plan of escape of the country.” Shitty google translation, but it's obviously nothing but speculation, 'sources linked to the PT', nothing official or even a quote from anyone, let alone Lula himself refusing to appear.

    Thanks for the link, I don't have space to reply more.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “”refused to go voluntarily” That's absolutely false“....Then prove it.
    ”But there is no evidence of Lula’s ownership,.“ ..a mere technicality. He was caught b4 it could be transferred to ”one of his 'good' friends“ ...
    ”the renovation would not be unusual by Brazilian standards“...No? so the average brzln buys a new R$ 1 million flat, then spends another R$ 1.5 million reforming it ? Why not buy one of R$ 2.5 million straight out ?
    ”Ex-presidents frequently receive gifts from empreiteiras, much as American politicians, once out of office“....Really ? flats on the beach, country-homes, secret US$ 100 million checking a/c's administered by the ”empreteira“ ? 'n of course, for nothing.
    Naivety has its limits you know..

    ” Dilma herself was under threat at that point and wanted Lula's support ...“
    stop looking for hair on eggs and be a bit more realistic.
    ”..We know that didn't happen in the end, Lula was sworn in as planned,..“ what didn't happen was Lula's arrest...why ? because it was a 'rumour'. I agree Dilma must've been sh*tting her pants, 'n she tried to get in front of a situation she saw as a real possibility.
    ”the court annulled it”...not surprising, as it was seen for what it attempt to escape justice.
    The 'piece of paper' was the appointment doc, which would become valid the moment he signed it. Forget the translations, it has only ONE meaning. I said I wasn't familiar with the other wiretaps of 'personal' matters.
    It is common knowledge tt Lula's strategy, all along, was to defy /provoke the Judiciary (at all levels)...just a ploy to make him look like a victim...why didn't he surrender on April 6th (deadline to hand himself in, voluntarily) ? because he was hoping the Feds would go in and take him forcefully... just to reiforce the victim strategy.
    There is so much you don't hear about, far less see, so you aren't seeing the case in its full context. Out of context, things tend to be open to more than one interpretation

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “But there is no evidence of Lula’s ownership,.“ ..a mere technicality.”
    Give yourself a shake “a mere technicality.” Which translates into confirming the Boston Review's claim of “there is no evidence”. “He was caught b4 it..”
    How is this possible if there is “no evidence”? You just roll from one lie to another lie. “flats on the beach” a modest apartment, with far less than premium utilities, on a second rate beach. “It is common knowledge” Is not evidence it's simply your supposition.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “stop looking for hair on eggs and be a bit more realistic”

    Why is that unrealistic? She wasn't popular on her own account but relied on Lula's support, and a special impeachment commission was elected the very next day.

    “The 'piece of paper' was the appointment doc... it has only ONE meaning.”

    Well then, Dilma wasn't being vague at all, was she?

    Re the other wiretaps, you can read a bunch of them in the article above. Do you think Moro or the court was right to release them all, or should some of them have remained private? And here is the one between ML and Lulinha, surely there is no reason this should have been released?

    “Out of context, things tend to be open to more than one interpretation.”

    True, but your context is provided by the sort of articles that speculate on whether Lula might be planning to escape the country, based on no evidence whatsoever. Words and actions *are* open to more than one interpretation, but it's easy for the media to push a certain view and ignore other possibilities. Do you think the 'mainstream media' dealt fairly with Trump? If not then why do you think they have with Lula?

    “only the lower courts examine the evidence”

    I imagine they are not as well known or scrutinised as the higher courts. How confident are you that none of the judges are biased or bought?

    Re TH's article, interesting that FHC picked the 31st candidate on the list for chief prosecutor. He put Gilmar Mendes on the STF, too. He did well getting rid of inflation, but he sure wasn't strengthening Brazil's judiciary.

    And Zavaskci said almost the same thing I did about the wiretaps:

    “Zavascki also declared some of the taped conversations legally irrelevant and argued that public interest could not justify the illegal release of the taped conversations.”

    It's very unfortunate he was killed in a plane crash less than a year later.

    You're such a hypocrite.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Your just an ingratiator

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Me : “stop looking for hair on eggs, be realistic”; You : “Why unrealistic? “The other likely explanation is that Dilma..” ...Becos sounds like you’re looking for reasons to excuse her actions….she knew Lula was screwed, did what she thought appropriate to “protect” him…but it backfired. Accept it.

    Me :“The 'piece of paper' was the appointmt doc…has only ONE meaning.”…You : “Well then, Dilma wasn't being vague, was she?”…both D ‘n L suspected his phones were tapped, so she thought she’d be smart ‘n call it a “piece of paper”….why not call it what it was ? As Cardozo later did, while trying to justify her actions ? why the ‘vagueness’ ?

    The link of Marisa L’s conversation w/ Lulinha (who lives for ‘free’ in a flat in Moema, one of SPs most expensive neighborhoods - rent USD 10-11,000 / mth), in which she says the people who protested against the PT by banging pots, should shove the pots up their ass, is not important, but who gives a sh*t ? agree, not incriminating, but then why get so upset abt it ? becos it caught her in one of her finest moments ?

    My context is the full one, seeing all I can of what becomes public knowledge, and this included rumors of Lula planning to flee to Uruguay, but NO action was taken against ‘rumors’.
    If the media pushed a certain view, why presume it was all against Lula ? perhaps it was against his crimes, publishing evidence ‘n letting the public come to their own conclusions ?

    The MSM went after Trump quite a lot, but not being there, not knowing the details, believe that at times they were right ‘n others they exaggerated.

    “I imagine they’re not as well known or scrutinized as the higher courts”…the STF should deal only with Constitutional matters, but with Lula’s 80 or so appeals to the STJ/STF, not surprising they are in the limelight.
    Of all the Lavajato judges, only have reason to suspect 3 STF judges. Agree, G.Mendes is shit, ‘n his appointment (by FHC) was no doubt political. Like Tofolli & Lewandowski.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “why not call it what it was ?”

    That's what I was talking about with translations etc. Dilma's full sentence was:

    “Seguinte, eu tô mandando o 'Bessias' junto com o papel pra gente ter ele, e só usa em caso de necessidade, que é o *termo de posse*, tá?!”

    So what does 'termo de posse' mean? Sounds like it's the appointment doc, and if so Dilma was perfectly clear in the call.

    Re Marisa L: “why get so upset abt it ? becos it caught her in one of her finest moments ?”

    Exactly. It doesn't show any wrongdoing, there's no public interest in revealing it, it just makes her look bad. Everyone says things in a private conversation that they wouldn't want revealed in public, doubly so for politicians and their family members. Look, I don’t expect you to be outraged on ML’s behalf, but I think it’s a good rule that the police and courts should not reveal such things, and it reflects poorly on them if they do. We empower the police to do things that would otherwise be illegal (tap phones and record private conversations) so they can gather evidence of crime, not so they can damage people's reputations, or worse selectively harm the reputations of politicians whose policies they dislike.

    And speaking of that, this bit in Terry's article is disturbing:

    ”Moro is a student of anti-corruption prosecution and is influenced by Italy’s early-1990s Mani Pulite (“clean hands”) operation, about which he wrote in 2004. In his article, he claims the virtual extinction of the Italian Christian Democrats and Socialists as benefits of Mani Pulite.”

    If that's true, it means Moro has an obvious bias, and his treatment of the different figures involved in Lava Jato seems to confirm it. Besides that, in his zeal to convict the politicians, he's making plea bargains with the businessmen involved in LJ that let them off way too easily.

    And now I need more space to talk about the press and judges...

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “he's making plea bargains with the businessmen involved in LJ that let them off way too easily.” Who are represented by his wife's law firm. ”Moro's wife, Rosangela Moro, is a supporter of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) of Parana state, an ally of Brazil's senate-imposed President Michel Temer. She's also an advocate for multinational oil corporations.
    Rosangela's connections are reason alone for her husband to recuse himself from any and all investigations dealing with the Car Wash scandal, as well as Lula, according to Carta Maior.
    Article 134 of the Civil Procedure Code orders the removal of a judge from any investigation when his or her “spouse or any other parent” has any personal or private relationship with any individual or group of people under investigation.
    Those who benefited most from Dilma's impeachment in 2016 and Lula's imprisonment two years later are PSDB and multinational oil corporations, both clients of Moro's wife“
    ”Sergio Moro’s wrongdoings go much further such as when he deliberately hid information to save members of the PSDB party (of which his father was a founding member). Also, together with his wife, who allegedly was taking bribes per the statement made by Tecla Duran, in which it was proven that Moro was ‘buying’ people to make statements framing Lula. Also, apparently, no one can find any evidence of Moro’s diplomas, already surrounded in controversy as explained in the link above.”

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    OK, Dilma did say 'termo de posse'....but listening to the conversation, you wonder why talk in such a roundabout way, hoping the other person would understand what you are trying to say without actually going into detail ? not that I think the manner in which the conversation was conducted is any less important, but what IS important is the fact that she was trying to protect him.

    Re ML, sure it makes her look bad, but then, why go to the trouble of tryng to protect the image of an accomplice crook ? however, as you said, nothing she did could worsen my opinion of her. Besides the police, we empower 'politicians' to do many things, but what do we get in return ? not what we asked for.

    Regarding the fact Moro studied anti-corruption prosecution, I do NOT see that as “disturbing” at all....instead of being a 'bias' I see it as a great asset....that's one thing in which we differ....only a person like him, with the necessary knowledge of how corruption works, is capable of seeing it for what it is...I don't agree one bit about “Lava Jato seems to confirm it...”....AFAIC, the investigation is affecting a lot of corrupt people who will do and say anything to protect themeslves...but finally, the law is being used effectively against them. That is how I see it. I am not advocating that Moro is 'perfect', as no human is - except TH of course - but Brazil is in need of judges who are not afraid to uphold the “LAW”...whether it translates (or not) into what people might, depending on the situation, consider 'justice'. The law should be applied objectively (without half-a-dozen interpretations), while justice is more of a subjective concept.

    We've talked abt this before, but if in a specific corruption scheme, there is such a thing as one person being 'guiltier' than another, to me the politicians, “elected” by the people, have a greater responsibility as they're dealing with taxpayer money, not theirs.
    NB: there are far more executives in jail than politicians.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    I don't know how they usually talk. Is Lula the sort of person to say 'termo de posse', or would he prefer 'papel'? As he's supposed to be a 'man of the people', I'd guess the latter. And people often adapt their conversation to whoever they are talking with.

    Re ML, the police should protect her image because she wasn't convicted of anything ('innocent until proven guilty'), and because as you say below they should uphold the law. The wiretaps should only have come out if they were relevant in a trial. If your politicians don't do what you want, that's a good reason to hold them to higher standards, not the police to lower ones.

    I thought it would be obvious I don't see Moro studying anti-corruption prosecution as a bad thing (quite the reverse), but that he thought destroying political parties was a benefit. Wanting to destroy parties you disagree with is the very opposite of fair and impartial, it's applying the law selectively for your own ends.

    As for upholding the law, a few days ago you said ”[Moro's] action (releasing the wiretaps) may not have strictly followed the Law, but AFAIC it was Justice.“ So which is it?

    Re the businessmen, I agree they may be less guilty, but their sentences need to be long enough to act as a deterrent.

    ”NO action was taken against ‘rumors’”

    Sure, but it can affect people's opinion, and make them see (possibly innocent) things in a different light. In the other thread you said experts can be biased, well, so can journalists and editors. For example, turns out Eduardo Cunha's wife is a journalist and TV presenter, and also a defendant in Lava Jato. I'm sure she and her friends in the industry aren't biased at all!

    The US media did Trump a great service, but I'm sure they weren't trying to. And you seem suspicious of the US 'MSM' in general, I doubt the Brazilian equivalent is more impartial.

    As for the LJ judges, my point is you know less about them, so you may not know if any are dodgy.

    PS. It's 'bonding'... ;)

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    It's ONE thing the corrupt are accepted+permitted [due to the absence of the honest politicians] to continue with their political career. But in spite of being incompetent; if they are elected [re-eleted] to be the leaders; it's not only regrettable but also utterly pathetic indeed! Justifying this fact clearly shows the ignorance+lethargy of the masses.

    Aug 31st, 2018 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    If Dilma wasn’t making an effort to be vague why didn’t she just say straight out “I’ve got yr ‘termo’ ‘n I’m sending it to you now”…but, why ‘now’, couldn’t it wait ? why ‘just in case’ ? that’s where her intention becomes clear. The wording takes on a special meaning when you consider the context in which it was said. Dilma rushed the document to avoid Lula’s “rumored” imminent arrest.

    Ok, sure ML had the right to her privacy, but on the other hand, it was divulged in a far larger context, one where she too was accused. But legally speaking, was wrong.

    Where did you get the idea that Moro “is out to destroy political parties” ? he’s not involved with the electoral courts, the only ones that can decide the future of a political party. Where’s he been selective ?
    The application of the Law, in the eyes of many, may not always reflect Justice…and to others, not strictly following the law can translate into Justice….that’s why I said “Justice” can be a subjective notion, depending on which side of the aisle you’re on. In the case of the ONE wiretap Moro released when he shouldn’t have, he didn’t follow the law, but he dealt Justice - as it prevented Lula from being appointed only to escape Justice...IMO.

    “ ..rumors of Lula planning to flee to Uruguay, but NO action was taken against ‘rumors’”. Rumors are what they are…both sides put them out, ‘n who can control them ? Just look at the “rumor” that Lula can run for president (?).

    Experts can be biased, so can journalists etc…I agree, so what’s yr point ? If they are TV commentators, let them express their biased views, but judges (presumably who you’re referring to) cannot.
    The MSM (most places) with few exceptions, is influenced at times by ideology, or by what gives them the greatest attention. Impartiality isn’t their strong point. I know enough abt the L J judges to believe the only ‘dodgy’ ones are in the STF. “Bonding” ? perhaps (tks), but the dictionary doesn’t make much of a distinction.

    Aug 31st, 2018 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I dunno, people aren't always the most coherent when they're talking. If she was trying to hide, she wouldn't have said what it was at all. Her lawyer gave an explantion for the 'just in case', but the rumours of arrest are more convincing, especially for the rush in delivering it.

    “he’s not involved with the electoral courts, the only ones that can decide the future of a political party.”

    Oh come on; if he puts enough of their leaders in jail, the party will be screwed. If he can generate enough bad publicity, by illegally releasing wiretaps, arresting people etc, then they will lose out at the polls, and be screwed. This is true whether they are guilty or not, and whether they deserve censure or not.

    Now maybe releasing the one wiretap was justice, because arguably D&L were trying to abuse the law themselves. But not the rest. Looking at events, it seems Moro has been far more eager in going after Lula and other PT figures than those from other parties. And why release the other wiretaps unless to damage Lula's reputation? It's not justice to do this for only one politician out of all the crooks; and it's also against the law.

    I'd be happy if the law was applied equally to all in Brazil, but if that's what you want then you have to really mean it. Like the Americans defending free speech rights of Nazis, it has to apply equally to people you hate.

    “so what’s yr point”

    I was talking about journalists, because they provide the info, and the 'context' you were talking about. And they can be biased, create and spread rumours; sometimes you get a clearer view of a situation by starting from scratch without any preconceived ideas.

    And the dictionary can't include everything, it just sounds wrong.

    Aug 31st, 2018 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Well, Dilma has never been coherent…she’d start a sentence and half-way through get lost. Her lawyer (Cardozo, her Attorney General) tried to explain the inexplicable, and only he & Dilma bought his bs. The “rush”, and the fact it was to be “delivered” is unheard of, even in Brazil. The maneuver was pathetically obvious.

    “Oh come on… enough of their leaders in jail” …are you joking ? Moro has convicted only Lula (only PT “leader” in jail) and the PT’s ex-treasurer (Vaccari Neto), and it was the TRF-4 that them to jail (not Moro – he cannot); Re PMDB, 3 ‘ex’-congressmen and 1 ex-governor are in jail, put there by other judges; Then there is Palocci (ex-PT minister) who spilled the beans on Lula, Andre Vargas (ex-PT congressman, kicked out of the PT) and a couple of other nondescript congressmen fm other parties.
    Unfortunately we are light years away from threatening the existence of party leaders.

    Polls show that the released wiretaps are having little or no effect whatsoever on people’s choices. The “rest” you refer to, have been condemned and no one, not even the PT, PMDB, disputes their guilt.

    “Moro has been far more eager in going after Lula…”…Sorry, totally wrong. Moro ”went after” no one. It was the STF that determined Lula’s triplex case (and 2 more) should go to Moro, after he was the judge designated to oversee the PB/OAS/Odebrecht corruption scheme, and Lula’s name started popping up all over the place. The judge doesn’t choose his cases.

    Are you still worrying about Lula’s reputation ? d’you still think he deserves any respect, after all he’s done ? that’s why I implied you seem to looking for ‘hair on eggs’, reasons to excuse what D&L did, as you appear to still not be convinced. Your concern for his reputation implies you’ve either forgotten his crimes or don’t believe he is guilty.
    So let’s agree to disagree, OK ? otherwise we’ll just keep going round in circles and get nowhere.
    “I was talking about journalists etc…”…here, we can agree.

    Sep 01st, 2018 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    “Dilma has never been coherent”

    Maybe that's normal for her, then. I can't tell anything from a translation: whether it's clear or ambiguous, whether it sounds natural or not. And even listening to the call could give a different impression to the transcription, but I just don't know.

    “…are you joking ?”

    No. I'm not saying Moro has destroyed the PT, only that he could do them serious damage despite not being involved with the electoral courts. Besides, only by convicting Lula their chances of winning the election have dropped from dead cert to unlikely, a huge difference. Of course you're right that if the TRF-4 had disagreed with Moro, then Lula would not be in jail.

    “Moro ”went after” no one.”

    I've read in many articles that other names came up in the plea bargains along with Lula's, yet little has been done to pursue them. The judge decides who to charge, and authorises the police to collect evidence with eg wiretaps, right? Plus there's this:

    “Moro had the document [listing 200 politicians who had taken Odebrecht's money] for more than a month before releasing it, indicating that, even with evidence of wrongdoing across partisan lines, he hoped to focus his efforts on Lula and keep the media spotlight on the PT.”

    And the article about Cunha's wife:

    That is probably one of the 'leftist' newspapers you complain about, but is what it says true?

    Re Lula’s reputation, I do disagree with you about Lula, but that's not the point. If I imagine it was some politician I really despise, then I wouldn't feel sorry for them, but I'd still think it was wrong; the courts and judges should uphold the law. Even if I believed it was justice in one particular case, I still think it's a bad thing, because if you allow judges to ignore the laws the result is almost certain to be greater injustice in the end.

    Sep 02nd, 2018 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))


    [CONTD from Brazilian Supreme Court confirms the constitutionality of outsourcing]:

    In THAT case, the whole country will be completely at a loss, if nobody is there to milk it dry?!?!

    As mentioned earlier; no one can ever believe that democracy exists in a country when, years after years, more than two hundred million clowns

    Sep 02nd, 2018 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jack Bauer

    “…not saying Moro destroyed the PT, only that.....” Disagree 100%. Only Lula and the PT are responsible for the wear & tear they’ve undergone. Why d’you presume/imply Lula knew nothing abt the PB corruption scheme, or that it was invented ?
    Might be good to remember it was “Lei da Ficha Limpa” (sanctioned by Lula, 2010) ‘n the TSE that buried Lula…his popularity is no motive to ignore his crimes ‘n to pardon him.
    I'm sorry, but you’re sources are biased articles with a leftist spin to them. The fact the PT is upset (to put it lightly) - resorting to absurd (impracticable) measures - is their fault, now they must pay.
    Who else has ever so insistently defied the institutions, placing themselves above the law ? AFAIK, only Maduro ‘n Ortega.

    Most of those whose names popped up with Lula’s, and then spilled the beans on him, ARE in jail...besides Lula, 3 or 4 PMDB bigwigs are in jail ; regarding the 200 + politicians under suspicion, I repeat : only the STF can judge their cases, and has a 20 yr backlog, so if they’re being benefited by the STF’s slowness, that’s another story.

    You always ignore Lula had no political immunity, ‘n like the others, were judged in lower courts, where justice moves much faster.
    You insist Moro has it in for Lula…You choose to ignore the very incriminating evidence against him. Can’t help that.

    Now 5 courts have condemned Lula…are they all biased & anti-‘petista’?

    Yr link : 1st of all, Joaquim Carvalho is a ‘petista’ ; 2nd, Cunha’s wife was accused of not declaring a foreign a/c, supposedly funded by corruption. They couldn’t satisfactorily prove she knew it was funded by corruption, so she was only fined by the IRS Her husband (ex-prez Lower house, PMDB) cleared her / took the blame – he’s in jail ; ML was charged but died B4 going to trial. As such, couldn’t be acquitted, and the case was dropped. Never ‘liked’ Lula, but only started to ‘hate’ him after the “mensalão”. But what do you really ‘know’ about Lula’s history ?

    Sep 03rd, 2018 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    “Why d’you presume/imply Lula knew nothing abt the PB corruption scheme, or that it was invented ?”

    I wasn't intending to imply that. I did say originally “This is true whether the PT are guilty or not, and whether they deserve censure or not.” *IF* Moro really said destroying political parties was a benefit of the Italian anti-corruption investigation, then I think it's a problem whether or not Lula is guilty, because it means Moro is not impartial.

    As for who else has defied the institutions; the military governments, obviously, but it seems to be common enough even among the elected ones. Temer has done a good job avoiding justice so far; he must be praying Meirelles or Alckmin win the election, because while I don't know about Bolsonaro, I can't see any of the other candidates protecting him.

    And another thing. Several PT bigwigs were convicted in the Mensalão, but some of them must have had immunity, so what happened?

    “Now 5 courts have condemned Lula…are they all biased & anti-‘petista’?”

    Not necessarily. The STF only looked at the HC, and presume they ruled according to the law. Same with the electoral court, the rules are very clear: he's been convicted by the second court, and therefore is ineligible. They were not asked to judge his guilt or innocence. What was the 5th court?

    “They couldn’t satisfactorily prove she knew it was funded by corruption”

    Like they couldn't find Lula's name on the deed to the Triplex? Yet they managed to build a case against him. I suppose there were no leaks about this, and not too many articles either. Did you know she'd been tried and acquitted before I linked to it?

    Re Lula, I only know the basic overview of his history. But even if I was really sure he was guilty, I'd still be concerned about bias and oppose releasing the wiretaps.

    Sep 03rd, 2018 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “*IF* Moro really said destroying political parties was a benefit of the Italian anti-corruption investigation”...1st of all, when he studied the MO of the Italian mafia and the 'clean hands ' operation, he wasn't thinking of Lula, or the PT...'n 2nd, did he say such a thing ?
    Anyway, Moro's personal convictions didn't influence the outcome...evidence did. The rest is speculation, spread by Lula's sympathizers.

    “Temer has done a good job avoiding justice so far”...this shows you have not been paying attention to what I've said, more than once; Temer, “as president” can only be tried by the STF, or be impeached, by Congress. If Congress chose not to, because it was bought (like under Lula), is something else. When he loses immunity, he's screwed, imo.

    You talk about Temer, but forget the backstage deal between Temer & Lula (2007) that kept the latter from being impeached (Mensalão). Dilma was accused of breaking the Federal budget law, which was proved beyond doubt, and then the whole thing, despite her crimes being impeachable offenses, became politicized....which in no way, excuses her breaking the law.
    The PMDB bigwigs, were kicked out of the party, lost immunity and were condemned in the PB scandal. Fyi, Jose Dirceu, Lula's “most ever” right-hand man, was condemned in the mensalão, again in the PB scandal, but is free for the moment thanks to a highly supicious HC (STF).
    The STF can not refer to evidence presented in lower courts to to judge HC's, only check if the procedures (in lower courts) followed the law. The 5th and last court was the TSE, ruling he is ineligible, based on Lei da Ficha Limpa, and as a result of his conviction (for bribery/money laundering) by the TRF-4.
    “Like they couldn't find Lula's name on the deed ”....DT, listen : it is TOTALLY different. In Lula's case, it was just a mere technicality, as shown. What can't you understand ?

    Sorry DT, but I think it's useless to carry on about Lula. Seems you've already made up yr mind.

    Sep 03rd, 2018 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • :o))

    You guys seem to be vehemently against the corruption & lawlessness which historically+culturally ever-present!

    In other words, you all are against the very livelihood of ALL the politicians!

    I'm sorry but with all your good intentions; your words happen to fall on the DEAF ears of the Brazilians. You are welcome not to believe or not agree. But watch the reaction [a total lack of it] of the beloved Brazilians!

    Sep 04th, 2018 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    The article claimed Moro said that, I haven't read his book. And certainly his personal convictions will influence him; evidence is seldom 100% clear.

    “this shows you have not been paying attention to what I've said”

    Not true. I know Temer has immunity, I was referring to the fact there have been several votes in congress on removing it and allowing him to be prosecuted, all of which he has survived. Whether because he's bribing them, knows too much dirt, they supported his reforms or just think the alternative would be worse, who knows. And he might well be screwed after, but it depends who wins the election, and whether he can get a highly suspicious HC like Dirceu. But what happened to Dirceu, and Cunha too? They had immunity but have both been convicted, was it by the STF?

    Re the courts, there was Moro (1st instance), TRF-4 (2nd instance), the STF and the electoral court (TSE), so what was the 5th? But my point was that only the first two looked at the evidence and condemned Lula, the latter two addressed other legal concerns.

    Like you said earlier, I think we should agree to disagree on Lula. I wasn't trying to argue more about him, but hoping to convince you it's important for courts and the police to follow the law, even if the suspect is likely guilty.

    Sep 04th, 2018 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “evidence is seldom 100% clear.”..... in 'some' others, it's very clear. And, in a case where there's so much incriminating evidence, I don't see how personal convictions come into the what “you” are suggesting is that IF Moro were a leftie, he would probably not have condemned Lula...right ?

    “Not true. I know Temer has immunity.....” Ok, and I remember informing you about it. The fact Lula “survived” in 2007, I suppose is not far as you're concerned ?

    Temer's fate DOES NOT depend on the outcome of the election...don't be so naive....who is going to give him a pardon ? not the courts, despite the fact that suspicious HC's are being requested - and sometimes granted - all the time. Dirceu was convicted first by the STF in the 'mensalão“....and again in the PB scandal, after losing immunity. Cunha, as I think I've already mentioned, was prosecuted /convicted after losing immunity. Finally !

    The courts were : Moro, TRF-4, STJ, STF, and now the TSE. Out of 27 judges, 22 voted to convict and /or maintain Lula's conviction. The fact that only the first two examine evidence is what the Constitution dictates...a Constitution elaborated by mainly leftist politicians...ironic isn't it ? In the US, where justice is fairly quick and efficient, the first conviction takes you straight to prison, not free to do what you want while appealing.

    You talk about how important it is for courts to follow the law, with which I don't disagree - the police are another story - but nowhere can you pinpoint where the law was not followed, in any of the courts in which he was convicted, or appealed to. If anyone went ”outside“ the law, or the established rules, to try to make a circus out of the trials, it was always and only Lula and his lawyers. Fact is, Lula got a fair trial and was convicted. Fact that he does not want to accept this, and keeps attacking the insitutions, is as they say here, ” conversa p´ra boi dormir”, or, BS.

    Sep 04th, 2018 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Lula's case is definitely not one where the evidence is 100% clear. If he had a deed in his name, without having paid the full price, or if he had moved into the triplex... that would be much more convincing.

    I don't know what Moro would have done if he were a leftie, do you think he would have decided not to prosecute Lula?

    “who is going to give [Temer] a pardon”

    He doesn't need a pardon though, does he? He just needs a post in government so his case goes to the STF and takes years. He's 77 now, if they ever do get to a trial he'll be too old to go to jail.

    Re Dirceu and Cunha:

    “the Chamber of Deputies plenary, on September 12, 2016, voted 450-10 in favour of stripping Cunha of his position as federal deputy for breaching parliamentary decorum by lying about secret offshore bank accounts.”

    So that's how Cunha lost his immunity, and Wikipedia says Dirceu was expelled from Congress on 30th Nov 2005, but he was convicted by the STF anyway, so they can move faster sometimes? I found this article about Dirceu, the headline turned out to be a bit premature. ;)

    Re the courts, I'm not saying it's a problem that the higher courts only examine legal issues, just that it's a bit misleading to say 5 courts condemned him when only 2 have looked at the evidence. As for US justice, it's only quick and efficient insofar as it's not just. Less than 10% of cases go to trial, the rest are 'persuaded' to plead guilty with plea bargains, or the threat of long pre-trial detention when they can't afford bail. They even have a special name for giving a guilty plea without admitting you did the crime: an Alford plea.

    How was the law not followed? By releasing wiretaps, by keeping the executives in jail for long periods of time before conviction, possibly the 'coercive questioning' of Lula. When you say the police are another story, do you mean you don't think it's important for them to follow the law?

    Sep 04th, 2018 - 09:57 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!