▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ⟶
THE LIFE TRAJECTORY of Brazil’s former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”) has been extraordinary. Born into extreme poverty, Lula left the presidential office in 2010, after serving two terms, with an unprecedented 86 percent approval rating, seemingly destined to enjoy almost universal respect on the world stage and to be remembered as one of modern history’s greatest statesmen. Similar to the post-office path of Tony Blair and Bill and Hillary Clinton, Lula, since his term ended, has amassed great personal wealth by delivering speeches and providing consulting services to global power centers. The moderately left-wing party he co-founded, the Worker’s Party (PT), has now controlled the presidency for 14 straight years.
Demonstrators parade large inflatable dolls depicting Brazil’s former President Lula da Silva in prison garb and current President Rousseff dressed as a thief, with a sash that reads “impeachment,” in São Paulo, Brazil, March 13, 2016.
Photo: Andre Penner/AP
Lula himself has recently been implicated in the criminal investigation (known as Operation Car Wash), briefly detained by the federal police for questioning, accused by the former Senate leader of his party (turned informant) of “commanding” a massive bribery and kickback scheme, eavesdropped on by judicial investigators who publicly released recordings of his telephone calls, and charged formally with receiving and hiding improper gifts (including a house and a farm). As a result, his approval ratings in Brazil have dropped precipitously.
But thanks to entrenched support from Brazil’s ample poor population, those ratings are still higher than most other nationally prominent politicians (most of whom are fighting off their own corruption allegations), and it is widely believed that Lula will run for president again at the end of Dilma’s term — whether that’s in 2018 as scheduled or earlier if she’s impeached or resigns. Nobody who has watched Lula’s career — including those who want to see him imprisoned — can be dismissive of the prospect that he will again be Brazil’s president (a new poll released today shows Lula leading the 2018 presidential race along with the evangelical/environmentalist Marina Silva).
Lula vehemently denies all accusations against him and regards himself as a “victim” of Brazil’s still-powerful plutocratic class and its dominant media organs, which shape popular opinion. He insists that the targeting of PT is due to the inability of these elites to defeat the party in four straight elections, and their fear that Lula will once again run and win. Two weeks ago, The Intercept published a long article reporting on the scandal and the dangers it poses to Brazilian democracy, which I wrote with Andrew Fishman and David Miranda; last week, we published a condensed version in an op-ed in Brazil’s largest newspaper, Folha de São Paulo. The realization that impeachment is being led by, and would elevate, politicians and political parties facing far more serious corruption charges than those aimed at Dilma is spreading, and has stalled the momentum of the pro-impeachment campaign, which, only weeks ago, seemed close to inevitable.
On Friday, at Lula’s Institute in São Paulo, I conducted the first one-on-one interview Lula has given since the emergence of these recent controversies. We discussed various aspects of the corruption scandal, the impeachment campaign, the accusations against him, his and PT’s political future, and the role of Brazil’s dominant right-wing media in inciting a change of government. We also discussed his views on several other hotly debated political issues, including Brazil’s new anti-terrorism and spying law, the drug war, the heinous conditions in the country’s prison system, LGBT rights, abortion, and the role of corporate donors in Brazilian elections.
Conducted in Portuguese, the 45-minute interview can be watched with English subtitles on the recorder below; a full transcript in English follows:
This transcript has been edited for content and clarity.
GLENN GREENWALD: Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you for the interview.
LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA: Good morning.
GREENWALD: Let’s begin with the Operation Car Wash investigation. In 2008, Wall Street’s fraud and corruption created a terrible financial crisis. It generated extreme economic suffering for many countries, including Brazil, which continues through to today.
Most incredibly, not a single big businessman went to jail or suffered legal consequences for these crimes. It created the perception that the wealthy and powerful are above the law. Only the poor and disenfranchised are punished for their crimes.
Yet here in Brazil, with Operation Car Wash, we’re seeing the opposite: the country’s wealthy and powerful going to jail. Billionaires, magnates, members of almost every political party.
I know you have many objections about the ongoing process. I have also reported on how [chief Car Wash] Judge Sérgio Moro’s behavior has become political.
But do you agree that there is a positive aspect to this moment? That it is sending a powerful message, saying that all — no matter their power, connections, or wealth — are subject to that law?
DA SILVA: First, our party, the PT [Workers’ Party], the government and I have no reason to be upset about the investigation process because the government carries a lot of responsibility for what is happening. It was during PT’s government that we created all the conditions for our institutions to work correctly.
Our government consolidated the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s autonomy by always nominating a prosecutor that was chosen by his peers. We were the ones who made the Federal Police a functioning institution. We invested in hiring new professionals, intelligence and on the Federal Police’s autonomy.
We were the ones who created the government transparency websites. We created a law that allows any journalist to have all the information they want about the government at any time.
We were the ones who strengthened the Public Property Controllership, which is in charge of investigating every ministry and sending their findings to the National Accounts Tribunal. And we were the ones who developed — along with the Accounts Tribunal — a process that gave them agility in this oversight.
So, first of all, the government has responsibility for everything that is happening.
Second, I believe it is important that for the first time, the wealthy are being arrested. In Brazil, we arrested the poor for stealing bread, but not the rich for stealing a billion. We arrested the poor for stealing medication, but not someone rich for tax evasion.
Photo: Laura Colucci/Fireworx Media
GREENWALD: Is that the positive side of things?
DA SILVA: Yes, that’s the positive side — a positive that I believe is very important and that allows us to dream that this will be a serious country someday.
What do I think is negative? That’s something I ask myself every single day this investigation goes on. For this investigation to go on, is it really necessary to make “reality TV” out of it, to put up a fireworks display every single day? And never account for the fact that with a headline or a TV segment you could be condemning someone who will later turn out to be innocent?
Is it possible to conduct the same investigation, arrest the same people without the pyrotechnics? I believe it is.
Is it possible to analyze how much this operation is costing, how much it will return to our public accounts and how much it is costing the country? How much this operation is costing our GDP, unemployment rates, what investments fled the country.
GREENWALD: But do you believe this process is about destroying PT? Because 60 percent of the accused politicians belong to PP, a right-wing party, not PT.
DA SILVA: I will go into this matter about PT because I hope there will be a specific question coming. First of all, when you create a law, establish conditions for institutions to work properly, there is no protection — the only protection one has is following the law. It is doing things right, not making mistakes. And if PT makes mistakes, PT has to pay for it like any other political party or any other person that doesn’t belong to a party, because after all, the law applies to everyone. That’s the way to consolidate democracy in Brazil and anywhere else on Earth.
Secondly, what I find odd with plea bargaining — and I denounced that in December of 2014, it is not something new — what I find odd is how information is selectively leaked. And it is usually against the PT. When there is an accusation against another political party, the press puts it out in small print. It is on TV for five seconds. When it is something against PT, you’ll have 20 minutes on television, the front page of every newspaper, making it crystal clear that for the past two years there’s been an attempt to criminalize the PT.
GREENWALD: Yes, we will discuss this in a few minutes. But first I want to ask: On several occasions, you have used the word “coup” to describe this impeachment process against President Dilma. The Brazilian Constitution explicitly allows for the possibility of impeachment. And this process is being conducted under the authority of the Supreme Court, with 11 members: eight appointed by PT, three by yourself and another five by President Dilma. And this court has ruled several important decisions in your favor. How could this process be called a coup?
A demonstrator holds a Brazilian flag with a sticker that reads in Portuguese, “Down with the coup, impeachment no,” during a protest in support of President Rousseff and former President Lula da Silva in São Paulo, Brazil, March 31, 2016.
Photo: Andre Penner/AP
DA SILVA: It has also ruled against us many times. Let me tell you …
GREENWALD: Every court does that. But how can it be a coup when it is happening under the authority of a court?
DA SILVA: I’ll tell you why it is a coup. It is a coup because while the Brazilian Constitution allows for an impeachment, it is necessary for the person to have committed what we call high crimes and misdemeanors. And President Dilma did not commit a high crime or a misdemeanor. Therefore, what is happening is an attempt by some to take power by disrespecting the popular vote.
Anyone has the right to want to become president, anyone. They just have to run. I lost three elections — three! I didn’t take any shortcuts. I waited 12 years to become president. Anyone who wants to become president, instead of trying to take down the president, can run in an election. I ran three of them and didn’t get angry.
That’s why I think the impeachment is illegal. There is no high crime or misdemeanor. As a matter of fact, I believe that these people want to remove Dilma from office by disrespecting the law. Carrying out, the way I see it, a political coup. That’s what it is: a political coup.
GREENWALD: They can’t win the election. I want to ask: The PT requested the impeachment of the three presidents that came before you. Do you believe that those three presidents were involved in high crimes and misdemeanors that justified an impeachment?
DA SILVA: No. PT requested the impeachment of Collor and it went through because he had committed high crimes and misdemeanors. With Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the Chamber of Deputies didn’t accept the request. So it died then and there. Maybe because there weren’t high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, this impeachment request could’ve been denied too.
Why was it requested? Why did they open the process and send it to the commission? Because the president of the chamber was angered that PT didn’t vote with him in the Ethics Committee and he decided to get back at PT by trying to manufacture the impeachment of President Dilma, which I see as a gigantic abuse in this political scenario.
Meeting for presidential elections in São Bernardo do Campo circa 1989.
Photo: Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images
GREENWALD: I want to ask about Eduardo Cunha, the president of the Chamber of Deputies. The evidence of him being involved in corruption is overwhelming. They discovered his Swiss bank accounts with millions of dollars he can’t explain. He clearly lied to Congress when he denied having offshore bank accounts. How can one explain to foreigners — and to Brazilians — how such a corrupt politician can not only remain a leader of the National Congress, but also spearhead the impeachment process against the president?
DA SILVA: What’s even graver is how the press treats him with normalcy, and doesn’t treat Dilma that way. In truth, Dilma is being judged by people who have been accused of crimes. And she hasn’t got a single accusation against her. The accusation against her is one of budgetary impropriety. And this accusation isn’t a crime and her budget hasn’t even been reviewed by the National Congress.
GREENWALD: Explain that to me, because I think there are many foreigners who can’t understand it.
DA SILVA: There is no explanation apart from some people in this country being insane. The National Congress could show some self-respect by taking into account that they are in no political condition to carry Dilma’s trial as they have. Eduardo Cunha doesn’t have the respectability, not from Congress, nor from society, to spearhead this. But it is going on, sometimes even under protection by some sectors of the national media, which I believe is very serious.
What worries me most in all of this is that Brazil has only 31 years of democracy. It has been our longest period of uninterrupted democracy. And what we are doing right now is trying to play with democracy. And we shouldn’t play with democracy, because every time we play with democracy, every time we deny politics, what comes after is worse.
GREENWALD: There is strong evidence of corruption within the parties leading the opposition against PT’s government — that is clear — but do you agree that there is also a serious corruption issue within the PT?
DA SILVA: Let me tell you one thing. So far, there is plea bargaining in a case against PT’s treasurer. He was implicated during a plea bargain and that case is still awaiting trial. He says he didn’t do it. Well, in this plea process you have the bargaining. A jailed businessman can get out by trying to stick blame on someone else. Any day, someone can accuse you of receiving money from a company.
What I find fantastic and ironic is that it is as if companies have two types of accounts: One with clean money and another one with corrupt money. The one containing the clean money is for PSDB, PMDB, and the other parties. Meanwhile, the one with the dirty money is for PT. To believe this is insanity, to say the least. It is, at the very least, a failure to comprehend this historical moment … and I’m not saying PT is free of blame, and if PT is guilty, it will have to pay like any other party. PT isn’t immune — what I am saying is that in this moment …
GREENWALD: But there is a serious problem.
DA SILVA: In this historical moment, what exists is an attempt to criminalize PT, to remove Dilma and avoid any possibility of Lula ever coming back as a presidential candidate in this country.
GREENWALD: I understand your reasoning and everything you just said, but I want to be very clear about my question. Do you believe … there are very serious problems, I think even worse cases of corruption in other parties, including the ones spearheading the impeachment process against Dilma. But you, as one of PT’s founding members, the most important person in PT along with President Dilma, do you acknowledge there is a serious corruption problem within your party?
DA SILVA: I believe there is a problem in my party. I don’t believe … let me tell you one thing, when the mensalão scandal began, certain sectors of the media said this was the biggest corruption scandal in the history of planet Earth. Then the process started and it became harder and harder to prove.
Then, to consolidate their case, they came up with the notion of “prevalence of fact,” the theory of “prevalence of fact.” Which meant they didn’t have to provide any proof. You run the organization? Then you are responsible. That’s how it happened during the mensalão scandal. Now they are constructing another theory. See, we ran our campaign in October 2014 and a magazine published the cover: “Lula and Dilma knew about all of it.” Do you recall it?
GREENWALD: Yes, of course.
DA SILVA: Let me tell you one thing. It’s been two years. Every single day there is an article, every single day there is a tweet, every single day I receive the information: “Look, they arrested so-and-so who is going to tell all about how Lula is involved.”
GREENWALD: Just to make this point clear: The former PT leader in the Senate, Delcídio Amaral, said you knew about the bribery schemes and commanded them.
DA SILVA: Let me tell you, Delcídio wanted to get out of jail. Delcídio was someone with strong ties to Petrobras, even before PT. He was strongly linked to Petrobras during the Fernando Henrique Cardoso presidency. He had a strong connection with Petrobrás because he was this field for a long time. To sum it up: Delcídio lied shamelessly.
GREENWALD: Why?
DA SILVA: To get out of jail. Obviously, to get out of jail.
Photo: Laura Colucci/Fireworx Media
GREENWALD: A lot of research has been revealing a strong and pervasive feeling of indignation towards the government and PT, including people who supported PT for a long time. Do you believe all of this anger against the PT is illegitimate or do you accept that some of it is valid?
DA SILVA: I don’t believe the hatred that has been fostered against the PT will prevail. Today we are living in times when hatred against the PT is stoked 24 hours a day. It is the party that has advanced social policies the most in this country. The party that in a mere 12 years changed the history of this country. We gave workers a face; we gave a face and citizenship to the poor. All the things they never had. That’s why the hatred is fostered by people who don’t know how to share public spaces with people who came from below.
I feel peaceful and that’s why I can debate this with a lot of tranquility. Because I can say this: I doubt there is a businessman, friend or foe, that can say he ever negotiated some kind of crooked deal with me. I see things happening, I witness the lies, I see fabrications against Lula. They made up an apartment they said was mine. Someone is going to have to give me that apartment.
GREENWALD: But do you acknowledge there are a lot people, including PT supporters, who are suffering under the economy? Of course, you acknowledge that.
DA SILVA: Yes.
GREENWALD: And PT’s government — and I know there are many causes that have nothing to do with the government and involve the global economy and China — but is there also some guilt to be attributed to President Dilma for this suffering?
DA SILVA: Now let’s start with the economic part, shall we? Let’s talk about economics. Brazil is suffering the most perverse consequences of a worldwide economic crisis caused by the global system itself. The very one that started in the United States, which got even worse after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and still hasn’t been resolved even after spending over $13 trillion.
During the first G20 summit in 2009, I proposed that if we wanted to resolve the crisis, rather than cutting spending, we needed to invest more in the poorest countries in order to help them get cheap money, so that they could develop. We all agreed that protectionism had to be avoided and that international trade was necessary, especially for Latin America and Africa.
They all agreed upon that and it appears in the first leaders’ statement from the G20 London summit. Meanwhile, each country went ahead with its own protectionism. In 2009, I criticized this, saying that the problem at the heart of the economic crisis was the lack of political leadership. World politics have been outsourced and important decisions are now being made by bureaucrats while leaders are simply hiding.
GREENWALD: But is the Brazilian government now totally guilt free on this issue?
DA SILVA: I am going to talk about Brazil now; I just wanted to place the crisis in context first. It’s impossible to imagine that the crisis is still happening in Europe or that the United States hasn’t reduced it yet. But this is all because they have chosen to cut spending, precisely the force that is capable of increasing production and industry in a country.
From 2011 to 2014, the Brazilian government pursued a policy of tax breaks and cuts and gave up nearly R$500 billion in order to boost economic growth. This led to a very low unemployment rate in December 2014 of only 4.3 percent. You could compare Brazil to Finland or even Sweden with such a low unemployment rate.
However, the government did not see how these tax breaks and exemptions decreased its tax revenues and emptied its accounts. Dilma obviously didn’t want to change this during the elections. After she was reelected and officially committed to the Brazilian people, she offered a tax readjustment and started changing a few small things concerning workers’ rights. And this turned a large part of our electorate against us, something we have still not managed to recover from.
This is exactly what I have been discussing with President Dilma, saying that the only way to face this is to promote a new economic policy that brings new hopes and possibilities to the Brazilian society. The ones that are now one step higher on the social scale can’t fall back. They have to remain. Which is why we are in need of an economic policy that encourages funding, loans, expenditure, micro-industry, small- and medium-sized businesses, something that will get us going again.
GREENWALD: Is it possible to justify the austerity programs put forward by the government? Do you think it would be worse under another political party?
DA SILVA: Let me tell you something, there is no austerity.
GREENWALD: No such thing in Brazil?
DA SILVA: What we have here is a lack of tax revenue and without any revenue, you can’t spend — same thing goes for my house and yours and for the government and for a company. In other words, the government lowered its tax collecting believing that the world economy would recover quickly, but it did not. Neither did Brazil.
So what needs to be done now? The government cannot go on another year talking about cuts. What we need to discuss is growth. Let’s talk about investment. If no public budget is available, we need to create financing.
We need to seek out partners. We need to develop strategic projects with other countries. In the middle of a crisis, we must do what we weren’t able to do under normal circumstances. We need to be more courageous and innovative.
GREENWALD: There is a common belief in the West that the PT has a lot in common with left-wing parties in Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba or Ecuador, and that you and Dilma would like to put Brazil on that same path. I also hear this a lot among Brazilians. Is it true? What are the principal differences between the PT and these political parties?
DA SILVA: Don’t be unfair to the PT, for the love of God, because the PT has a lot in common with the German SPD and British Labour Party. Also with the French Socialist Party and Spanish Socialist Party. The PT has a lot in common with all of them.
Let me tell you something, the PT is Latin America’s biggest left-wing party, it has never even defined which kind of socialism it follows since the PT says that it will be defined and built by the people itself and not the PT with its dozen of intellectuals telling us what kind of socialism we want. The PT is more open than the other leftist parties in Latin America. We are greater, more diverse. No other political party in the world is more democratic or open than the PT. Within the PT there is anything you can imagine — it’s like Noah’s Arc, which means anyone or any political belief is welcome in the PT. However, one must understand that once something is decided by the PT, it becomes an obligation to all its members.
Workers’ Party supporters demonstrate in defense of President Rousseff and former President Lula da Silva in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on March 18, 2016.
Photo: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images
GREENWALD: You held a press conference with foreign correspondents two weeks ago and said something very interesting about Judge Sérgio Moro. You said he is an intelligent and competent individual, but, to use your words, “being human,” people with great power and much adoration are vulnerable to be tempted to abuse power. Does that apply to you as well?
DA SILVA: The thing is, I don’t have any power.
GREENWALD: No power?
DA SILVA: I have no power. When I had power, when I was president, the thing I was most proud of was that the society was more involved in decision-making under my government than at any other time.
GREENWALD: When you had power and if you ever have it again, would it also apply to you? The idea that people who have a lot of power can be tempted to abuse power?
A worker puts up a campaign sign for then-presidential candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, of the Workers’ Party, on Oct. 24, 2002, in São Paulo, Brazil.
Photo: Marucio Lima/AFP/Getty Images
DA SILVA: I think anyone with a lot of power is vulnerable. However, not every human being is able to handle the popularity. The media, the photographs, can do a lot of damage. I’ve seen a lot of people, from baseball, soccer and snooker players to judges, senators, state representatives and even presidents succumb to it.
GREENWALD: Do you also have to fight this danger?
DA SILVA: Of course! Ever since I was a union leader, I was conscious that I had to be very careful not to allow myself to be influenced by media adoration. I know how good it can feel to be on the front page of a newspaper, to be on the television every day. But if you’re not careful and responsible, you can go down a totally wrong path. What’s more, whoever thinks he is indispensable, who starts to think he is irreplaceable, starts becoming a dictator, which is very bad.
GREENWALD: I would like to talk about the Brazilian media and its role in inciting the protests against President Dilma and pressuring her to exit. As a journalist who is not Brazilian but has lived here a long time, I am shocked by the local media. Globo, Veja, Estadão are all so involved in the movement against the government and in defense of the opposition. They pretend they are impartial when they actually serve as the principal implements of propaganda. Most of them are owned by a few very rich and powerful families. Is that a danger to democracy?
DA SILVA: Yes it is.
GREENWALD: Why is that?
After the nomination of former President Lula da Silva for minister chief of staff, hundreds of people went to Avenida Paulista, in downtown São Paulo, Brazil, to protest against him and President Rousseff’s government, March 17, 2016.
Photo: Gustavo Basso/NurPhoto/Sipa USA/AP
DA SILVA: Let me tell you what I think would be the best situation for the world: It would be an extremely democratic media that has a political opinion and expresses it in editorials, but stays very faithful to the facts. Not versions or takes — the facts. Well, nowadays in Brazil, we don’t have opposition parties, in reality, the opposition is the media itself.
GREENWALD: Globo, Veja …
DA SILVA: We have three newspapers, magazines and TV channels that openly oppose the government. They call for marches and protests. They encourage hate. You see, I lost three elections, I lost once, twice and a third time, and each time, I would go back home and moan and seek support from my wife and companions in the PT. Then one day I won, and unlike me, they don’t know how to lose and they lost again to President Dilma. They’re still on the soapbox about it to this day. Since the party is fragile, the media has assumed the role of the party. This is serious. This is a risk for democracy.
When I finished my term in 2010, we held a national communication conference. We built a regulation model that could be the American or British or French model — not the Chinese or Cuban model. Unfortunately, it never reached Congress given the fact that our regulations go back to 1962, when we did not have satellites, internet, digital television or even fax machines. We did not have any of that then. Our regulations are from 1962! And they don’t want to change it! I think we will be discussing this again soon enough.
GREENWALD: But the media at least accepted or even supported your candidacy in 2002 and 2006, didn’t they?
DA SILVA: No they did not. In 2002, it was a sure thing that I was going to win. In 2002, I was not worried because something told me that with that election it was my turn to become president.
So the media obviously was not hostile. However, in 2006, I was already president but they supported the fourth place candidate more than they supported me, the first place candidate and sitting president. They did everything they could so that I would lose. When Alckmin made it to the second round, they celebrated my impending defeat. What happened next? Alckmin got fewer votes in the second round than the first, whereas I got 62 percent of the votes.
Then they all thought there would not be any successor, they all thought Serra would become president in 2010 and we introduced a woman, with not much political experience, from the left, who had spent 3 1/2 years in prison, who had been tortured and with no political experience.
So, this woman was elected president and let’s not forget she had a good first mandate. People would complain that she did not like to discuss issues; she did not like to do politics. Details. The fact is, when the next elections came, they all bet she would lose. “Dilma is going to be defeated! Dilma is going to be defeated!” And she wasn’t. They all went mad.
GREENWALD: They still don’t accept the results until today?
DA SILVA: They still don’t.
GREENWALD: I would now like to change the subject a bit. When the reporting emerged showing how the NSA was engaged in electronic surveillance against Brazil, you, along with President Dilma, strongly denounced it, calling it an extreme invasion of privacy. You said the same when your own private conversations with Dilma were released by Judge Moro.
Recently, the government adopted a new anti-terrorism law, strongly supported by Dilma herself, which gives her government extreme spying powers. Isn’t that a contradiction? What do you think about this new law?
DA SILVA: I was against this law because I don’t think this model can apply to Brazil as much as it does to countries that are directly affected by terrorism. Brazil, thank God, doesn’t have that kind of problem, even though some people think we need to worry about it.
GREENWALD: Was the government exploiting this fear?
DA SILVA: No, I don’t think so. They’re just worried about the Olympics and overreacted. This is not a country in which people have traditionally committed acts of terrorism.
GREENWALD: But these spying power that the Brazilian government has now are very dangerous.
DA SILVA: I don’t like it either. Let me tell you something. I am very afraid of transforming the state apparatus, above all the state’s police apparatus, which is very powerful. Because this turns against democracy, it turns against democratic institutions. I think we need to find equilibrium. We don’t need to create a monster to defend ourselves against a monster.
GREENWALD: Several international human rights organizations are complaining that Brazil is violating its prisoners’ rights given the unacceptable conditions that exist inside prisons. A lot of people are held prisoner without so much as a trial.
A large part of this problem stems from the war on drugs, which the PT has always supported, but that leads to many Brazilians — most of whom are poor, black and young — being put in prison. In the past, you have supported this war. Now, former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, along with many other world leaders, say this war has failed and is inhumane.
Do you agree with them, or do you want to continue this war?
DA SILVA: This war has failed because the judicial system is very slow. There are people that have been in prison for two or three years without trial. Same goes for the Operation Car Wash investigation. The problem is within the judicial system.
GREENWALD: Nobody cares when a young, poor, black person is left in jail for two or three years without trial.
DA SILVA: But there is a preference right there, you know? And we have denounced it. I have had many meetings with a group of young people from poor communities, there’s a preference, in fact, to arrest poor, black people, to kill poor, black people. Meaning there is a problem that we are trying to solve — not only as a party, but also the judiciary, judges’ organizations — of how we are going to expedite, you know, the release and trial of these people.
GREENWALD: But with the conditions in the Brazilian prison system, is it fair to put someone in jail for a year, two years, three years, six months, or for any time for drug possession with this level of poverty?
DA SILVA: I am for the decriminalization [of drugs]; therefore I don’t think that a citizen who commits any old crime should be in jail. I don’t think that a citizen who is caught, a drug user, should be arrested. In many cases, this person needs psychological counseling much more than jail. It is one thing is to arrest a drug trafficker and another thing to arrest a user. I am against it. You know, we fought against it. Now, we have a problem in Brazil: We still have a very conservative judiciary.
GREENWALD: My last question: For a long time, Brazil was one of the leaders in Latin America in treating gays equally. In fact, Brazil has been more progressive than the USA and many European nations on this issue. But now there is this very strong evangelical movement in Brazil that wants to roll all of that back, and I know that you have supported some LGBT rights in the past, but I want to ask: Do you support absolute equality for LGBTs under the law?
DA SILVA: I approve!
GREENWALD: Including the right to marry?
DA SILVA: Let me tell you something, my friend, in Brazil many important things have happened. I was the only president that took part in a national conference with the LGBT community. When many people thought it was dangerous for me to go to the conference, I went, along with two thousand other people. It was an extraordinary lesson for the government. Second, we managed to approve civil unions in the Supreme Court, which was an extraordinary progress, you know?
GREENWALD: But it’s not equal.
DA SILVA: With the National Education Plan we …
GREENWALD: But it’s not the same right to marry as heterosexuals have. It’s less …
DA SILVA: But in any case, for the Supreme Court to make such a decision was extraordinary progress. I support the people’s right to decide whatever is best for themselves.
President Lula da Silva holds a flag of the gay movement during the opening ceremony of the first National Conference of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites, and Transsexuals on June 5, 2008, in Brazil.
Photo: Joedson Alves/AFP/Getty Images
GREENWALD: Including the right to marry?
DA SILVA: Including the right to marry. When I speak about civil unions, I also mean marriage, OK? I honestly believe that people should live as they choose. As long as every one of us respects each other’s rights, you know?
Here in Brazil, when it was about the matter of abortion, and it was said that it was a criminal thing to do, I used to say, “Look, I, as a citizen, father of five children, am against abortion. But I, as the president of Brazil, deal with the matter of abortion as a public health issue.”
GREENWALD: Because a woman has the right to choose and not you?
DA SILVA: Of course! Of course! You know, I think Brazil has progressed a lot, but in some areas we are still very behind.
[Crosstalk]
DA SILVA: I just wanted to say something more on the matter of Operation Car Wash to you, a foreigner in Brazil. Let me tell you, what worries me about this Car Wash story is that there is another thesis in play, which is about the theory of control over the facts. There is the idea that first you detect a criminal, you “stamp” someone as a criminal, and then you look for a crime to pin on him. I am saying this because every single day someone comes up saying, “They want to catch Lula! They want to catch Lula! It is Lula who they want to catch!” And I’ve been saying this every single day.
GREENWALD: Because they believe you will run again for president. Is it true?
DA SILVA: I don’t know. If that’s the reason, that’s silly. Look, I doubt that there is a single businessman in this country who could say that they negotiated some kind of crooked deal with me.
GREENWALD: Back then, they gave you a lot of money to support your campaign; you’ve received a lot of support from businesses, large corporations …
DA SILVA: In Brazil, only rich people have the money to donate to campaigns. Let’s be honest! There’s no country in which a candidate sells their home to fund their candidacy.
GREENWALD: They must have support from rich people.
DA SILVA: Of course! In the USA it is even charming, you even get awards for who collects more.
GREENWALD: Obama, Clinton, they both have support from Wall Street and other businesses.
DA SILVA: This was the rule of the game: You asked for money, the businessman gave you the money, you accounted for the money and the justice officials would approve your filing and that was it.
GREENWALD: And that’s how rich people get favors.
DA SILVA: Now, there’s this idea around, and PT used to defend this idea of “Let’s put a stop to private money donations and make it all about public financing, which is the most dignified way to campaign.”
GREENWALD: PT is no longer going to accept corporate cash for campaigns?
DA SILVA: PT has decided not to accept the corporate contributions for an electoral campaign, therefore I think it’s an extraordinary thing, a brave thing, and this could make PT’s rebirth that much stronger.
GREENWALD: And if you run for president again, will you keep this promise?
DA SILVA: Of course! I’m already very well-known.
GREENWALD: There’s a lot of criticism from the Brazilian left that PT is perpetuating the neoliberal model, that it is protecting the interest of rich people and not the poor. Is this valid?
DA SILVA: No. We are going to use the workers and the humblest people in the country to make Brazil’s economy rise again. For that, we need funding, credit and partnerships. And this, God willing, I want to help Dilma accomplish.
GREENWALD: Well, thank you very much for the interview, Mr. President.
DA SILVA: Thank you.
Excellent! Great Interview!
The video is not working. Do you have any idea why?
They couldn’t find a reporter with better Portuguese? It’s painful!
And this lula should do a great thing to himself by not listening to the lapdog media outlets he lets himself be fed for many years now. And being a new democratic country does not excuse ignorance and excusing corrupt poiltical manouvering. This is why latin american politicians get manipulated into much confusion of the now in order for the corrupt to perpetrate their austerity kind of schemes. Wake up Brazil and Latin-America. – Alejandro:)
Time to not let the corrupt spy on foreign governances and the cable for internet under the sea would be a benefit that the corrupt do not want any country to accomplish just like having their own satelites too
Thank you Nino:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celso_Daniel
However, I would suggest to go: translate.google.com with the version in Portuguese
RCL
There will be no 2018 for him. He will be in jail!
Gay problems are out now!!! The brazilian people has many worries about criminals bolivarians that are instigating their members to try to destroy the national democracy. We are fighting with a gang of corrupts and now according with LAVA JATO, the investigations about the death of the ex-mayor of Santo André/SP, are appointing toward to the worker´s party PT. Lulla and your gang they brought a sea of mud to our Nation always peaceful. He put brother against brother, He divided the country to weaken the Institutions and all this to remain in the power. This is the criminal project of Lulla, the thief, the liar. This is the whole truth!
You’re totally wrong my friend.
I am not your friend if you are PTralha!!!
I´m not your friend if you are a PTralha, ok?
Much bad informeds about Lulla. A criminal man!!!
Gee Intercept, get some software to block the Globo bots already
No problem, we are going to ask this to Edward Joseph Snowden…
lula is full of shit………..Who have they given tax breaks to? Everything is so expensive in Brazil. Food, gas, clothing…everything. Teachers, police, municipal workers don’t get paid for months at a time. If the Govt is doing something, it’s hard to see it from here.
Congrats on the great job, Glenn! At last someone is doing some serious work about this crucial political moment of ours (as unfortunately our own press has itself been highly corrupted)…
An unsurpassed report on the political situation in Brazil: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n08/perry-anderson/crisis-in-brazil
Unsurpassed, indeed! Thank you!
This essay from the London Review of Books written by UCLA Historian Perry Anderson I found so at-length knowledgeable and incisively in-depth that I think everyone of us who cares about Latin America should read it. It should be translated to Portuguese and Spanish (which is dirt cheap) and posted to the four winds.
It also felt a bit like one of those Greek tragedies in which people seem to be being played by “higher forces”
More about those wiretaps, please!
I think judge Moro doesn’t seem to be that much into that “jogo belo” style of Brazilian soccer. Yet, I would rather have that than “responsibly” concealing the names of the NSA agents behind Snowden leaks. Imagine if die Süddeutsche Zeitung would not have named names? I still fully agree with Ellen Brown:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/12/the-war-on-savings-the-panama-papers-bail-ins-and-the-push-to-go-cashless/
What the preposterous eff do Swiss banks care about $16 million?
Dilma went berserk when she found out NSA was spying on Petrobras …
The timing and the way in which things have happened makes me wonder to which extent this whole thing has been timely orchestrated.
Anyway, I just hope Brazil and Latin America will come healthier out of it all.
RCL
NSA spied on Petrobras for a good reason. these “dark forces” that invested in Petrobras saw their money was being ripped off and asked someone to help out. maybe. I don’t know. but if I had invested in Petrobras and started seeing them make absurdly bad decisions and I can’t do anything about it…. I would call on someone who can.
I would like to remind people that CHEVRON was expelled from Brazil. Although unofficially, I have no doubt is was all set up to keep the “evil western capitalist forces” out of Brazilian pre-salt oil exploration. I wont go deep in this. Anyone can look it up and connect the dots.
and why did Petrobras want Chevron out ? maybe because the pre-salt is a lie and Chevron would expose it ?
or something more simple: Chevron didn’t want to be a part of the corruption.
and it goes deeper. Cosan buys ESSO. JBS buys SWIFT. all in name of Brazilian nationalistic pride. were they good deals ? I doubt it. They acted at the order of Comandante Lula. under normal conditions, it would never had happened.
the walls for disinformation have fallen but people still choose to be naïve. I guess it’s because it’s comfortable.
excellent. unsurpassed indeed.
The big problem in Brazil seems to be that the PP does not want to accept they lost. It sounds familiar: Canada, Argentina. The conservatives and the Ks never thought they could loose and they still cannot believe it
Huh? PP is part of the governing coalition. They won the election, their candidate was Dilma. They’ve been allied with PT for a long time.
Bad informed!!! Stop, please,
All lies from a man caught in the biggest scandall of Brazil’s history.
Lula is a liar and a thieth there are SO many evidences, the problema is the Supreme Court, they are chosen by the President so…
still, the decision to get dirty was entirely his and he isn’t stupid at all so he very well knew what he was playing into
Also, Glenn, whom do you think you are kidding by repeatedly pointing out that:
framing your questions in helpful “comparative” ways and throwing soft balls at him?
Não minta! Não à corrupção!
RCL
You’re the one who’s trying to fool yourself believing in what you WANT to believe… And NOT judging by the facts and evidences. There is nothing against Lula neither against Dilma – although people have been desperatly trying to find something or any kind of evidence to charge them… But what about Temer? Cunha? etc. etc… “Wake up to reality” because you’re far too asleep to state an opinion (and read/listen to the interview before you JUDGE)!
there is nothing against Lula or Dilma ??? WHAT??? WHAT DRUGS HAVE YOU BEEN TAKING ????? IN WHAT PLANETARY SYSTEM DO YOU LIVE ????
WAKE UP !!!!! THEY ARE CORRUPT !!!! THEY ARE CROOKS !!! AND IF YOU ARE DEFENDING THEM SO VEHEMENTLY, ONE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE YOU ARE BENEFITTING FROM IT !
Could you, please, be more specific and tell us what has been charged on and PROVED against Lula and Dilma??
And by the way – I DO NOT TAKE ANY DRUGS!!!
Grande entrevista. Justa e dura… Parabens! Probably mentioned in previous comments but there is a mistake on the subtitles on the part when Lula says that he believes there is a problem with corruption in his party… Subtitles says he doesn’t believe it…
A question, from someone unfamiliar with Brazilian politics: why is gay marriage being discussed as an open issue? Was it not legalized by the National Justice Council in 2013?
Gay problems are out now!!! The brazilian people has many worries about criminals bolivarians that are instigating their members to try to destroy the national democracy. We are fighting with a gang of corrupts and now according with LAVA JATO, the investigations about the death of the ex-mayor of Santo André/SP, are appointing toward to the worker´s party PT. Lulla and your gang they brought a sea of mud to our Nation always peaceful. He put brother against brother, He divided the country to weaken the Institutions and all this to remain in the power. This is the criminal project of Lulla, the thief, the liar. This is the whole truth!
Dear Glenn:
I wanted to address one statement that went unquestioned by yourself as I believe it is causing great suffering in the “capitalist” world (aside: which I personally think is a train wreck and needs to go…), namely;
DA SILVA: “What we have here is a lack of tax revenue and without any revenue, you can’t spend — same thing goes for my house and yours and for the government and for a company.
It was understood by John Maynard Keynes and the the chartalists (state theory of money) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism) and has been revived by the University of Missouri Kansas City (UKCM) economists (and others including Warren Mosler and Bill Mitchel) under the term Modern Money Theory (MMT http://neweconomicperspectives.org/), that sovereign currency issuers, like Brazil and the US and most countries (but not Greece under the Euro) are not like households or companies.
They issue the currency! They cannot run out! They do not tax to spend!
If we are going to try and tame capitalism (preferably, for me, enroute to revolutionary change) and its horrific effects, more people must come to understand this. You can look up all the sources I provided but really you can just think about it seriously for five minutes. Where else could money possibly come from? Do households and companies have the ability to create it? Surely that would be counterfeiting and it would be useless. The currency issuer, namely the federal government, has to issue the money before they can collect it back in taxes.
Politicians that do not state this are either ignorant, incompetent or charlatans (not to be confused with chartalists). I can’t think of any other options.
Yes.
Here is professor Randall Wray of UMKC explaining it clearly and concisely at the International and Comparative Law Center presumably to a room full of lawyers for those that prefer video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KRi9nF8BiA
I lived 40 years in Brazil, only recently returning to the USA, feeling somehow that I am in exile. I chose to leave Brazil because of what Brazil has become, because of what Brazil has lost and will never retrieve, because of what Brazil will never become.
Lula did not act alone. Lula is no savior. He is just a corrupt, selfish, narcissistic and potentially psychopathic politician. And like him, there are many, on the right and on the left and in the middle. He has no empathy for the suffering of any population whatsoever. He is sleezy and much closer to being compared to Al Capone than to Ghandi.
Hear ye, people that know nothing about Brazil ! Learn more about how Celso Daniel was murdered ! Then learn more about how 7 other testimonies to the crime were also murdered. Learn more about the Pasadena refinery in Texas. Or the other useless outdated refinery Petrobras bought in Japan. Learn more about how billions were deviated from the BNDES in loans to other countries, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Angola, Nicaragua while Brazilian infrastructure is crumbling and people are suffering. Ideology is dead. The ends justify the means, as did Hitler.
I did not read Mr. Greenwald’s interview. It is to me some sort of show Lula is putting on to try to gain international support for his cause. what Brazil needs now, desperately, is to learn from their mistakes. This moment in history is exactly it; the great lesson.
there is a saying in Portuguese: “aqui se faz, aqui se paga” . Please don’t interfere, outside world. Let those who’ve done wrong pay for their deeds. Just watch and learn. Sadly, Brazil has been stolen from it’s future. Please don’t let it be denied it’s justice.
Leia ou assista a entrevista, meu caro.
Thank God you’re back in your country from where you should have never left… In other words: “Mind your own business” and learn more about the economic and political domination YOUR country wants to impose to the rest of the world! I make yours my own words: “Please don’t interfere, outside world.”
Renato… stop being so stupid. jeeez…. you’re stuck in the 50’s ! cut the ideology BS !!! the USA is a global power for a reason: it works ! the USA is a system that works, that sets the bar high, that will not place influence before competence. most probably I am older than you are and I may have even lived more time in Brazil than you did. I know what it was to live under a military dictatorship and I know very well what this distortion of a left wing argument proposed to the Brazilian population. what came out of it is very very very very far from what was promised. don’t pretend it’s not true.
and there are a lot of competent left wing politicians in Brazil you can propose for president. Roberto Freire. Ciro Gomes. Erundina. Even Serra is a center left wing candidate. It’s not about left or right. it’s about right or wrong.
Just for your to know I wasn’t even born in the 50’s! And I have no political party – by the way. What I have is a sense of justice, which does not seem to be your case – I’m afraid.
I live in Norway and have done extensive research on Brazil. I found Mr. da Silva unclear, evasive, dissimulated and extremely defensive, trying to play victim when faced by proven wrongdoings as addressed by your direct questions. The criminal and impeachment procedures are being conducted in accordance to Brazil’s rule of law and closely followed by the international community that see no sign of a coup.
You might have done extensive research on Brazil, but you surely do no live here and our day to day reality. As a Brazilian citizen – and I must say I don’t belong to ANY political party – what I see in Lula’s speech (not only in this interview, but ALWAYS) – is a rare sense of logic, coherence and most of all lucidity! He holds no PhD. However, he is indeed wiser than most graduate ones!! Our current president has committed no crime whatsoever and the fact that one may not like her government is NOT a reason for impeachment!!!
I agree with you
I agree with you Renato
he has no PHD and therefore ???? what are you saying ? we should follow his example and give up formal education ?
is this even a debate ? where is Salvador Dali when we need a surrealist to show us whats happening ????
Do NOT try to put words into my mouth! I have been to university myself and am in favor of education for all (one of the basis of Lula’s and Dilma’s government). If you are not able to understand what I said, perhaps you should try and get some education!
You got to be kidding! Lula is the new Maluf, rouba mas faz. E o povo gosta.
He has conspired against Lava Jato, allegedly because it is bad for the economy. He justified the dirty dealings saying “it is how it works”.
You’d think the FIRST question would regard the millions he got in speaking fees from companies accused of paying bribes and kickbacks – without a single shred of physical proof (a video or an audio recording) of all those million-dollar “speeches”. So much for journalism!
There’s a lot of craap we Brasileiros are fed-up with. Leblon Liberals like Greenwald, for instance.
I think most online papers would block this comment because “Leblon Liberals like Greewald” is simply abusive and adds nothing to the argument. Credit to the Intercept for tolerating it.
Personally, I listened to the interview, read the text in both languages, and found it thoroughly absorbing. Great journalism !
Glenn, congrats for the excellent interview. Brazil isn’t familiar with journalists that make such sharp questions. It’s a great lesson for all. Many thanks.
As for Lula, he is slick, demagogue, speaks platitudes. Nearly everything he says can be easily contested by facts that are all well known. Other things are simply wrong, e.g., “investment policy”. Who pays for that? At the same time he admits that there is not enough taxes being collected, and therefore not enough money…
Not to mention his record of 8 years of government taking a free ride on the economic ground left by the Cardoso administration, while denying any credit to them.
It’s also implicit in his words that what matters for him is the election, not the governance. He cares about the fact that Dilma Rousseff was elected, but seems not to be bothered by the fact that once elected, her government has been a complete disaster in all grounds — politically, economically, and morally, with levels of corruption never seen before.
It’s a pity for Brazil to have fallen on this trap, and it’s been very difficult to get out.
The upheavals in Brazil indicate the danger of creating a culture of accountability. Rather than governing the country, the ruling class is engaged in internecine fights and accusing each other of corruption. This is obviously bad for Brazil.
So it should follow the example of more enlightened nations, and simply replace illegal bribes with legal speaking fees. Paying a politician $250,000.00 is a crime. Paying a politician $250,000 for a 45 minute speech is a wise investment – and perfectly legal.
The PT can eliminate corruption with a simple flourish of a pen. Simply pass a bill that states any politician accepting a bribe must spend 45 minutes saying thank you. The representatives will resent this initially. But soon they will see that being nice to the customer is simply good business. Add in the fact that they’ll no longer continually be hauled into court, and they’ll soon start to grudgingly accept it.
Legalize corruption, Brazil. It’s worked in the US and it can work for you too.
Personally, Duce, I believe the U.S. Government needs a Brazilian. You know, expose it all.
>”Rather than governing the country, the ruling class is engaged in internecine fights and accusing each other of corruption.”
I read with interest this morning the charges against President Dilma constituted “puffing government accounts”. That’s it, the whole kit&caboodle. *no trunched triple AAA-rated derivative credit default swap bailouts … or anything like that.
What Brazil needs is a leader willing to look forward (& not backwards) … you know anyone like that?
“a classe dominante está envolvida em lutas intestinas e acusando-se mutuamente de corrupção. Esta é obviamente ruim para o Brasil. ” Este e’ o MELHOR EXEMPLO do intestino .ela a advogada de defeza do “procurador” acusado de VG e no seu entender “JURIDICO” naõ e’ aplicavel a Lei Maria da Peña x ter atuado em nome ” fe’ religiosa ” e os Procuradores de estado de “fragilidade ” devido a “lavagem cerebral” !!Este foi o Procurador CONTRA Lala e ela a q PRETENDE TIRAR A DILMA da PRESIDENCIA do Brasil LEGITIMADA x 54 M de VOTOS !!!!!!! Para mi Janaina e’ uma SINVERGONHA e’ video aun sem audio fala mais q mil palavras.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGAJrcjWrdM Advertencia : Este Video pode ferir sensivilidades .
Oppps !! Que mal quedo a traduccion !!! Sorry !!
Depois de 300 anos de colonização, e com a independência politica do Brasil, em 1822, a Direita Brasileira, com golpes politivos, e Ditaduras civil e militar, financiadas pelos EUA, continuou com a exploração do País com novas formas de colonização, ou seja, neocolonialismo.
Há uma grande guerra de classes a partir da lógica do racismo de classe no País. Foi Lula quem procurou reduzir essa guerra aproximando os opostos. Na boa-fe, Lula, imaginou que suas ações na economia fossem suficientes para unidade nacional. Que unidade? Aquela na qual, à medida que amplia as condições dos mais pobres, promovendo sua ascensão social, ao mesmo tempo fortalecia o mercado interno, ficando menos vulnerável às pressões externas, a classe mais abastada, a indústria, serviços e comércio nacional se fortaleceria. Seríamos rekativajente imunes contra oscilações externas. Teríamos musculatura.
Ocorre, que esqueceram o fator EUA.
Ao associar-se com os BRICS, criar uma nova ordem mundial, ao ascender comblider regional e sul com potências, inimigas dia norteamericanis, Dilma, pensando em desenvolvimento foi acusada do pecado original – subestimar os EUA, em outras palavras, os funcionários bsncustas mundiais.
Ataques no cambio, nas bolsas de valores, ataques políticos e midiáticos são apenas manifestações de uma super elite que domina o mundo a partir dos EUA.
A guerra econômicas se transportou para outra área, maus robusta que 1964, porém igualmente venenosa: a mídia.
O PT, imaginando que vencer economicamente, era vencer ideologicamente se equivocou, e seu descaso com a regulamentação das midias, o fez vítima dessa cobra, que manipulada pelos financistas, sequestram a democracia – pois democracia séria precisa de mídia séria, informação – e a manipulam conforme se enchem os cofres dessas emissoras. A não, são empresas comerciais, com fins lucrativos, que não se interessam por questões nacionais, principalmemte de pobres, negros, gays, mulheres e camponeses.
O monopólio da informação produz um desnível ideológico sem precedentes no Brasil.
Urge a democratização dos meios de comunicação. Pois, o formato original reproduz a máquina de propaganda de Hitler, liderada por Joseph Goebbels, o ministro da Propaganda da Alemanha. Com uma diferença. Essa máquina não propaandiza governos, mas projetos de poder igualmente eugenista.
cara vc ficou parado no seculo passado.
o Brasil está mudando para melhor, no seculo passado, onde vc ainda vive, tudo isto seria abafado e a robalheria continuando.
o Brasil está virando democrático finalmente, ainda falta muito mas é um bom inicio!
Great questions, but he allways answers by pushing the blame on somebody else. You should have more hard facts like his party had more 20 impeachments request against Itamar Franco and FHC, for beey silly reasons. But very smarts questions.
Mr. Greenwald, many people have already thank you for conducting this interview and demonstrating how the media should behave while trying to report the facts and analyse crisis such as the one Brazil’s under. You certainly are an expoent in journalism, something as a role model for me and many other journalists I believe. Impartial, straight to the point and respectful. Very nicely done.
I admire Mr. Greenwald’s courage to speak truth to power. His body of work clearly shows that.
I do believe, however, that he got bamboozled by Lula as well, with his usual charm and finessing the media.
While the interview had very good questions, some of the context and potential probing questions were missed. For example, is it reasonable to believe that Lula was oblivious to the immense corruption taking place in Petrobras with a significant chunk of the funds being channeled to finance the electoral campaigns of several PT candidates? How would it be possible NOT to be aware of that? Similarly, the mensalão scandal. Is it plausible to think that Lula was blissfully ignorant of what was going on?
Lula is not dumb; he knows his life would be under the microscope for as long as he lives. He knows his opponents would love to find hidden bank accounts in Switzerland in Lula’s name. He will not fall for that. His corruption scheme is more subtle as, for example, some of the properties he occupies and enjoys such as the penthouse in Guaruja’, the ranch in Atibaia, etc. His kids have seven figure incomes without much education to justify it. In Brazil we call that traffic of influence. Further, Lula boasts about being the highest paid speaker in the World. Most of his speaking fees paid by the same construction and end engineering firms that have been “blessed” by Lula’s government with billions of dollars in projects in Brazil, Latin America and Africa. What wisdom could Lula have to share with the World worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour. Hillary would be envious if she knew that.
So, all in all, a good interview, but Lula skated, way too easily. There should have been much more probing questions.
And, just to be clear, I am totally against Dilma’s impeachment. The real tragedy in Brazil nowadays is the fact that we don’t have a viable progressive alternative to take over the federal government.
No more Coup in Brazil! Down with Globo TV! Democracy rules! #GloboGolpista
Thank you for allowing our former President to defend himself, our President, our rights, democracy and our people.
I have been leaving in Australia for over 20 years, but have always been very interested and involved with the economic, social and political agenda of my home country. Having been involved in the process and protests against ditctartoship and pro democracy and ‘Diretas Já’ election campaign back in the 70s and 80s, I feel ashamed of all citizens (not my majority) who support the undemocratic processes occuring in Brazil, including the impeachment.
The difference between the coup in 1964 and today is that in 1964 it was carried out by the military, today by the judiciary.
Carla, maybe the news arriving there are incomplete:
-it’s not a coup, it’s a democratic constitutional process aiming of removing somebody that has been elected as a presidend and not complying with the laws
-it’s not judiciary, it’s a pure 100% politic process that’s why is running in the parlament (approvement, this sunday) and senate (judgment)
please get informed before writing…
I’d like to thank Glenn for this interview–very few Americans & non-Brazilians have ever heard Lula speak or read his interviews, since he speaks no English.
I’m a Brazilian raised in the US – I went to Brazil in the 70s & 80s & at various times, worked there for a time-& joined the PT at the age of 22 in 1982. I am not the type of person to join any political parties but if you were a left politically conscious person in Brazil in the 80s you could not help but be amazed at the different groups brought together by the PT and how strong, organized and loud they were demanding fundamental change to Brazilian society. Labor, homeless, landless, Afro-Brazilians, indigenous groups, feminist groups–it was a heady time. And there was so much hope. And there WAS a lot done. Lula was incredibly inspiring to so many of us. I acted as one of his translators on one of his visits to NYC, just before he first ran for president in 1989. I went to Brazil to witness my country’s first democratic presidential election in 29 yrs and reported on it. What Globo TV and reactionary forces did to prevent Lula winning that election was an education for me — I saw close up how a country’s elite mobilizes to prevent the election of a popular leader in favor of their candidate using dirty, utterly repellent tactics.
There was much success under Lula’s presidency but also a lot of disappointment. The great irony about the PT is that initially they were the #1 political force against corruption. Local candidates in cities & towns-& some governors-exerted strong efforts to clamp down on corruption locally.
In 2005 I left the party after yrs of disappointment. Lula & the party became more distanced from their base. I came to believe that it is fundamentally structurally impossible to do any real change (certainly on the national level) without engaging on some level of corruption to get certain bills passed. That’s how the PT got a pension reform bill passed that had been stalled in a decrepit debased corrupt congress for literally decades. The PT were NOT a “ruling party” because no one can govern in Brazil without coalition with corrupt parties–esp the most powerful party in the country (the one that REALLY runs Brazil), the PMDB — which is a reactionary corrupt racist party founded during the dictatorship.
I was greatly saddened to watch what Lula did when he left office. Did he spend his time helping ordinary Brazilians in some way? Maybe doing something similar to Jimmy Carter after he left office? Or better? No.
However, no one — NO ONE — can deny what the man has done for ordinary poor Brazilians. Tho there are many who prefer to dismiss it and indulge in revisionist history. But there are towns & regions in the northeast today where any attacks on Lula are met with fists by angry locals who revere him as a hero–who helped them out of poverty. Or at least helped them do more than just survive.
Brazilians are currently caught up in an insane, irrational rage against the PT, Dilma & Lula–convinced that they’re the most corrupt people in the universe and that that they are the cause of all Brazil’s problems. When in fact-compared to the people who’d replace the PT & Dilma–are so much worse that there are no adequate words to describe how debased, venal & corrupt they are. Brazil’s congress is a cesspool. Parties that would replace the PT & Dilma like the PSDB and PMDB are cesspools that make the PT look pristine. What Dilma & Lula are accused of is NOTHING compared to what their accusers in Congress & political parties have done.
Brava! You’ve said it all.
Sandra, the fact that he did reasonably good in the past, doesn’t allow him to be above the law and commit crimes thinking that is just a normal procedure!
The Bribes squeme to support his party while destroying one of the biggest oil companies in the world are facts!
Even the worse dictators started with a massive support from population, but history tells how that ended, expecially when they started to think that they where above the law!
The fact that this scandals are beeing prosecuted now, when in the past they just would be silenced, means that the young democracy here in Brasil is finally entering in his adulthood!
IMPEACHMENT JÁ!
CORRUPTS IN JAIL!
The Devil is in the details, do you think the federal police would be investigating graft schemes if PSDB or PDMD were in power ? As Jeb Bush would say, give me a break.
Belo trabalho Glenn. Muito engraçados os comentários (em inglês) da burguesia brasileira criticando seu trabalho, insinuando que você tenha sido enganado ou não soube conduzir a entrevista, não sabendo eles que você é crítico ao sistema político e contra o impeachment-golpe em processo no meu país. Parabéns!
“GREENWALD: I want to ask about Eduardo Cunha, the president of the Chamber of Deputies. The evidence of him being involved in corruption is overwhelming. They discovered his Swiss bank accounts with millions of dollars he can’t explain. He clearly lied to Congress when he denied having offshore bank accounts. How can one explain to foreigners – and to Brazilians – how such a corrupt politician can not only remain a leader of the National Congress, but also spearhead the impeachment process against the president?
DA SILVA: What’s even graver is how the press treats him with normalcy, and doesn’t treat Dilma that way. In truth, Dilma is being judged by people who have been accused of crimes. And she hasn’t got a single accusation against her. The accusation against her is one of budgetary impropriety. And this accusation isn’t a crime and her budget hasn’t even been reviewed by the National Congress.
GREENWALD: Explain that to me, because I think there are many foreigners who can’t understand it. ”
Straight to the point. It shows how the dirty media is brain washing Brazilians.
I am afraid what is going to happen to Brazil if the impeachment happens.
Maybe another Ukraine?
Eduardo Cunha’s Panama Papers money trail: From Portugal, to Brazil, via Lusitania and West Africa:
“To date, the only Portuguese national named out of the 34 people listed in the Panama Papers is Idalécio de Castro Rodrigues de Oliveira. According to the Papers, he is a Portuguese corporate executive who, according to Brazil’s attorney general, supplied money that was paid as a suspected bribe to Eduardo Cunha, the president of Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies, currently under indictment for alleged corruption.”
“De Oliveira is the chief executive of the Lusitania Group, which purchased certain oil licences in West Africa in 2011 and entered into a partnership with Petrobras, Brazil’s oil giant, which is currently at the heart of the country’s largest-ever corruption probe, the Lava Jato investigation. Cunha has repeatedly denied accusations against him . . .”
http://theportugalnews.com/news/portuguese-implicated-in-panama-papers/37845
Ukraine ? HAHAHAHAHAHA you gotta be @%%^#@%## kidding me !
GET OFF THE DRUGS !!!!
Great interview, GG!
I would strongly recommend the reading of Canadian journalist Ted Snider’s article at consortiumnews.com:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/30/a-silent-coup-for-brazil/
(Then reviewing the similarity between the 2002 failed coup against Venezuela (Hugo Chavez) and what took place in the Ukraine.)
Very interesting man and interview. I’m having a hard time believing all of it, but I do think we should all allow people to be innocent until proven guilty. This is hardly the case with the current media frenzy in Brazil. It’s easy to blurt out accusations. I want facts. An interview like this doesn’t give raw facts and is hardly meant to. We’re getting answers to questions from Greenwald and (alot of) opinions from Lula. That isn’t less interesting in any way imho. Nice work.
They are so close to proving that he is guilty, that Dilma tried a couple of weeks ago to make him minister and delay all the investigations…
That’s a smoking gun to me!
Very good interview and questions. Lula is a very good actor, you can almost believe him. I really wish we have had a Brazilian Mujica but, unfortunately, history will remember Lula as a Brazilian Al Capone, who committed all sorts of crimes in the name of others and could only be busted for tax evasion.
PT has been in power for 12 years by pandering to the evangelicals, having an alliance with the ‘traitors’, ‘corrupt’ PMDB, Collor, Sarney, Cunha, and a lot of the powers that block the progressive initiatives such as abortion, drug decriminalization, LGBT rights, etc. PT has been playing this carrot and stick charade for all those years: they claim to be progressive to the intellectuals and opinion makers in order to win elections. After the elections they are back at being mum.
Glenn, go do you homework and and publish something about out why Marina Silva is Super Lula’s Democracy Kryptonite. She was never able to run for president in her own party because PT single handed blocked it twice already. When she should have been PT’s sucessor for Lula.
A long time supporter, they ousted her when she was his Minister, during Lula’s mandate, after clashes with another Minister, Dilma Rousseff. Marina environmentalism and HONESTY made her stand out as incompatible with PT’s plan to destroy our environment in the name of development with no bid contracts to their cronies. Our indigenous population and reserves have suffered immensely under PT’s watch. Look at Belo Monte and many similar recent, big federal projects that PT pushed through despite much protest and resistance. Marina Silva is Brazil’s environment only hope for an honest leader and yet she is the victim of smear campaigns, lies, and low blow attacks by PT’s brainwashed-zombies, not the right wingers. Let’s see what type of FRAUD PT will do on the next presidential elections to stop her.
As someone in a American-Brazilian marriage I would like to tell you something my American wife noticed: Ask any Brazilian a question and they will answer you in great detail, in a lengthy explanation because they want to help you. It doesn’t matter that you are asking a taxi driver about quantum physics, he is the one, nobody else, who is going to help you.
A few remarks :
1/ Lula is an old-school party man : his party is like a religion to him. If his implacable defense of the PT during the storm is that of the symbol of the progressive reforms he brought about (and thus of his own legacy as well), this is understandable. But there’s a thin line between that and fetishism : he shouldn’t be mistaking the tool that made his social achievements possible for the achievements themselves. After all, this party is only a few decades old, and therefore it shouldn’t be that difficult to found a new structure to defend the same ideals (= to turn the page), without succumbing to marketing impulses. Failing to do so might lead to his demise, since a majority of Brazilians are clearly expecting the PT to make amends.
2/ By comparing the PT with the German SPD, the French PS, and the British Labour Party (There are, by the way, quite some differences between those, especially since Blair left the scene, for good hopefully), he’s distancing himself from what some might perceive as a more authoritarian variant of socialism, but only to get caught in the trap of an analogy with parties whose sole remaining link to socialism is their label. Let me put it this way : if Schröder, Gabriel and Hollande are Dilma’s ‘models’, I think I’ll pass…
3/ By stating he prefers purely factual journalism to opinion journalism, he actually confessed (perhaps without realizing it) he doesn’t share TI’sangle.
4/ On ‘law and order’, his positions are unclear. As far as the latest ‘anti-terrorism’ law is concerned, he’s taking a reasonable stance, but, upcoming Olympics aside, fails to explain the reason why it was adopted : is there a split on this subject within the PT ? As to drugs (particularly drug users), he’s as conservative as H. Clinton. Mujica is light-years ahead of him (and her) : cannabis users don’t need “psychological guidance” any more than they ought to be arrested or even fined. They need to be left in peace…
You went too easy on him. Should have asked straight up: did you not know or don’t care thatvthe properties you “use” were financed by the main companies at the center of the massive corruption case?
Also – you should have made it clear, at least for the benefit of your leaders, that the other parties who are implicated, even more, in Lavo Jato are not opposition parties; rather, they are coalition partners of PT, parties that PT helped put in power and gave access to influence Petrobrás’ deals. When you me tioned the right-wing PP, you should have asked why is PT in alliance with this party, why is Dilma still today giving them cabinet posts and other positions for them to cotinue looting and protected from the lower courts?
Glenn – do you yourself understand that? You seem to believe these are opposition parties, but they are not.
Also, you clearly felt for some manipulation by Lula. Like when you talked about campaign donations by corporations. You seem unaware that the Supreme Court outlawed these donations last year. You engaged in this back and forth where Lula pretended PT was deciding unilaterally to not accept these donations anymore and you went along unaware. You should have asked him straight up if PT would quit using Caixa 2 – that would have been meaningful.
I think this interview was a successful PR effort by Lula, I think he played you.
That’s an easy answer. There’s no other way to govern in Brazil, didn’t you notice this yet? The best that could be done is what PT did, to give strength to institutions so they could do their roles properly. You talk as if being in government means being able to do everything in an instant like it’s a magic trick, wake up. Being charitable to others is not being manipulated or being played, it’s just being fair to others, something brasilians haven’t learned yet. You seem to be way into the ‘tabloid reality’ with your evil caricatures and one-dimensional persons. Childs thinks like that.
Oh, give me a break! Lamest excuse ever to egregious begavior by powerful people. Traditional Brazilian tolerance for corruption: rouba mas faz. Extreme lack of ethics and honesty.
I believe there is a minor translation problem in the subtitles. When he is asked if there is a corruption issue inside his party, he answers affirmatively, “eu acredito que há um problema”, although he immediately moved on into defending the party in the Mensalão scandal.
I don’t think Lula would deny the existance of corruption problems in the PT. He has been critical to that in several occasions.
GG: “They pretend they are impartial when they actually serve as the principal implements of propaganda. Most of them are owned by a few very rich and powerful families, is that a danger to democracy?”
DaSilva: “Let me tell you what I think would be the best situation for the world: it would be an extremely democratic media that has a political opinion and expresses it in editorials, but stays very faithful to the facts.”
——-
You have previously stated that The Intercept is openly biased journalism to balance the scales sotospeak. After DaSilva answered your question, you changed the subject. It would be interesting to know your opinion about his answer.
GG: why is it propaganda when some journalists express bias but not when it is expressed here?
It is propaganda if they are very shoddy about facts, and certainly if they simply make shit up. Also, if they hold themselves out as objective, balanced and neutral.
This site’s journalists are expected to be careful about getting facts right, and don’t just make shit up. (The one instance where one journalist was found to be fabricating crap was fired.) Nor does it hold itself out as objective, having no point of view.
Here is the fallacy in your logic:
The Intercept is not objective, balanced or neutral. GG has previously stated that this website is openly biased.
It is not logical for him to say what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Mona: “Nor does it [The Intercept] hold itself out as objective, having no point of view.”
charliethreeee: “Here is the fallacy in your logic: The Intercept is not objective…”
Words charliethreeee doesn’t understand: nor, fallacy, logic, objective.
“……It is propaganda if they are very shoddy about facts, and certainly if they simply make shit up. Also, if they hold themselves out as objective, balanced and neutral…..”
Mona is the former law partner of Greenwald so she gives unconditional support for what he writes. She has no idea what the journalists in Brazil are making up. However, the media in Brazil does have a political agenda – exactly like the Intercept.
Congratulations Glenn, great interview.
The difference between Brazilian and foreign press is shocking. I’m brazilian but Lately I prefer to follow the news about politics with foreign reporters.
Pensei que iria traduzir o ”meu QUERIDO” para ”my love” como o Guardian traduziu os audios haha
thanks for mentioning this translation problem. Unfortunately Lula’s condescending manner of ‘talking down’ to interviewers is not apparent to the non-Portuguese speakers.
But it is (in this case anyway)… By the way, was his comment about ‘indispensability’ also discretely aimed @ GG ? (Watch as the lion leans forward as he professes his teaching…)
Congratulation. This was the best interview with President lula, the interviewer was fair and very clear in the questions. Thank you.
The best president ever! And will be our president again in 2018!!!
Maybe in HELL!!!
and by the way…..Mr EX president , the BIGGEST CROOK BRASIL HAS EVER HAD , you should say in the end, or are you getting some grants from the LEi ROUANET, that’s public money paying for the PT Support from artists, pseudo intelectuals, always leftists of course, and members of social ONGS, receiving money from public funds. Money stolen from the big companies and budgets various., such as Education and Health Dept. Thanks .. FRank Morgan Bello
Gosh, you have no idea how stupid you sound. Go away you damned lunatic.
Lula himself has recently been ” implicated” in the criminal investigation ???
He’s the MAFIA BOSS, wasting & using all the resources from estate companies such as PETROBRAS, POST OFFICE,and all the big estate companies to pay/CORRUPT the politicians for 13 years, he’s amassed a huge fortune, like Chavez in Venezuela, or Fidel Castro in Cuba, while talking to the poor and ignorant to blame the RICH AND WHITE classes for the problems of the country. Just show me ONE speech, or consulting services to global power centers provided for by this crook, THE BIGGEST CROOK Brazil has ever seen in it’s history.
De Silva: “You know, I think Brazil has progressed a lot, but in some areas we are still very behind.”
Which areas are those? Why the reluctance to discuss the central problem, i.e. why is Brazil’s economy not like China’s economy?
The top economic problem for Brazil has been their reliance on the export of commodities such as oil to industrialized countries, and their associated inability to create a modern robust manufacturing sector. Brazil relied heavily on oil extraction and exploitation of natural resources (resulting in ongoing deforestation and other negative environmental impacts). This approach to economic growth seems independent of whether it’s a left-wing socialist or right-wing conservative party in power; both rely on commodities for growth but distribute the money to different social sectors, the poor vs. the elite. Hugo Chavez? Utterly reliant on oil to keep his social programs intact – and his conservative elitist predecessors? They also relied on oil sales to support their wealthy elites and international backers.
Instead of investing everything into an improved manufacturing sector, the various political groups fed the money to their political supporters in order to continue winning elections – the conservatives gave to the wealthy, the socialists gave to the poor, but the money wasn’t invested in productive economic activity which would have freed their countries from control by global commodity markets and Wall Street banks.
Now, the IMF is maneuvering to set up a debt relief / social austerity program in Brazil along the lines of what has happened in Greece – then the IMF will deliver a plug of money that will be used to pay off the international banks who control Brazil’s debt. If you read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, you’ll understand that the agenda behind IMF intervention is to keep Brazil from developing to the point where, like China, it becomes an independent economic power that is not beholden to Wall Street dictates. The IMF view is that Latin and South America should be seen as part of Wall Street’s ‘sphere of influence'; basically a neocolonial program in which wealthy elites run Brazil, and there is no middle class but rather a large pool of cheap expendable labor provides the workforce for commodity production for export to global markets.
That’s what “IMF development programs” operating under “free-market economic principles” are intended to produce; the dishonest ‘free-market economists’ are there to give a fig leaf of respectability to this agenda (it’ll create jobs! really! my models prove it!).
The best economic prescription for Brazil is first, to ignore the advice of the IMF and the free-market economists, and then, to focus on moving their economy away from the commodity model and towards a manufacturing model – which will require large investments in education for the general public, something that IMF austerity programs will try to immediately shut down (Who needs a well-educated cheap labor pool? That just causes problems – that’s why the slave plantations banned education.) However, education of the general public is also a threat to the Brazil’s wealthy elites, who owe their neocolonial positions to a lack of competition from the lower uneducated social classes, so they’ll tend to oppose any reforms that upset the social order, even if the result would be improved economic growth for the entire country.
Great essay on racism-https://jackblueblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/an-essay-on-race/
This interview surprised me deeply. The questions, and the way they were appointed, clearly made Lula come out of his comfort zone in order to answer them – it is very clear, given how the former president evaded some some of them by talking about things he could openly refer to, not necessarily giving an adequate answer.
As a born and raised Brazilian, it`s undeniable for me that Lula, alongside the PT, did unbelievable things to this country`s economic and social developments. The attempts to improve the stability of the poor and to diminish prejudice against minorities were tangibly successful. That is, ironically, one of the main reasons why his character is seen as a villain for such a great portion of the population and the media. The shrinkage of benefits.
Historically, Brazil`s middle-class, generally speaking, is selfish, conservative and unaware of social movements at all (if you`re willing to get there, fascist). When, in a decade, maid`s children started getting into college and black, poor and low-class citizens gained rights to, at least, dignify their future with better education and employment, those who could not afford a housekeeper anymore or that felt their beach loft get too expensive to maintain went completely mental.
This is clearly the main reason why PT is a victim of the mentioned selective persecution. There is, in fact, solid suspicions of corruption and unethical behavior in the party, which (personally speaking now) can`t be all lies, as the former president absolutely is aware of. Although, when the pro-impeachment leaders are more or, at least, as corrupted as their respondent, I will not believe that anything related to the impugnment process is not led by personal interest, but by a sense of duty and justice.
Once again, congratulations for the interview and for keeping it as imparcial as Lula allowed it to be.
Are you a member of PT??
Or paid by the government to tell us these lies ??
PT a victim of selective persecution??
Oh please, give us a break !!
Frank
It looks like a country still trying to escape its colonial past. If you look at the history of Britain towards the end of their colonial period in India, there are many similarities – for example, rule by elites who had demonstrated their loyalty to the British system and were opposed to people like Gandhi.
In the case of Brazil, the international creditors are looking for rulers who are loyal to the IMF agenda:
“In terms of economic policies and priorities we’ve said before that Brazil should strengthen the macroeconomic framework that has served it well in the past to turn around confidence and to boost investment. So they have to turn around confidence and boost investment. This includes policies regarding inflation targeting, exchange rate flexibility, and fiscal responsibility. These are good policies. ” – IMF spokesman Bill Murray, Washington DC, Mar 17 2016
If those were such good policies, why did Brazil end up in the hole? Why do so many countries who follow IMF prescriptions end up in similar holes, while those who refuse to – like China – don’t?
The IMF was not complaining when Brazil was focusing on exporting iron ore, meat and soya (note also the deforestation the meat/soya production caused) to China and other markets, while not investing in manufacturing-related infrastructure. They didn’t suggest that Brazil’s accumulating debt, held by Wall Street banks and other international creditors, would be a problem in the future. Now, however, the IMF is well positioned to exert control and make demands on behalf of those creditors.
I am admittedly detached observer, unable to vote, and due the US Stasi’s blacklisting activities, never able to procure a single job in Brazil. I have little stake in what happens here. That said, I agree with everything you said.
I was accustomed to cleaning my own toilet and underwear when I moved here in ’99, convinced Brazil’s poorer and middle class population deserved fairer treatment in economic and judicial affairs. But witnessing so many members of the middle class, itself tainted by the pervasive culture of corruption, go mental [sic] over their empregadas’ improving lot has taken it’s toll on those sympathies. It’s hard to sympathize with middle class people expressing faux outrage over left wing corruption while they allow themselves to be so crudely manipulated by those *proven* to be far more corrupt.
Lulla has robbed us Brazilians, our hope, our money. But now, it stop! The Intercept seem more a dirty weekly English, the right enviromnent to PETRALHAS!!!
Great interview Glenn.
Other than Lula referring to himself in the third person I find him to be very interesting.
And not that the other questions weren’t interesting and important, but I found the following exchange to be the key–the key “issue” all over the globe in fact. And former (and possibly future) President’s evasiveness and/or the general ease with which he accepts the idea of the way the political world works in the past and present when there are clearly alternatives that the political class, of which he is part, could choose if they so desired and if they weren’t dependent upon its perpetuation to maintain their positions of power. It is a systemic problem that needs to change for the human condition to improve and evolve for the vast majority of world’s populations. Well that “issue” and the directly related one–that “public service” could ever act as a stepping stone or revolving door to post service personal enrichment. There absolutely needs to be large buffer period of time and laws that prohibit any bureaucrat or elected public official from profiting off the knowledge (in particular), skills and relationships built while engaging in taxpayer funded “public service”. It is a form of corruption not “free enterprise”.
Bernie Sanders, and Podemos candidates in Spain, and others all over the “democratic” world are demonstrating that “democracy” can be reclaimed with small sum contributions from individual human beings i.e. 99% of any politician’s living breathing constituents. This idea that incorporeal legal fictions of perpetual duration (i.e. amalgamations of capital) should have the equivalent “political rights” as individual human beings is absurd and must change. Rich individuals and CEOs and officers of corporations should absolutely be able to exercise their “political” rights to the limits of their individual wealth–but transparently like very other citizen. What should never be permitted is that a legal entity, a legal fiction, should be able to ever use even $1 of its profits or assets to influence the political process in a democracy unless the entirety of the business entity (workers and management) votes for and supports the businesses’ “political/economic” agenda, in much the same way as organized labor’s union members do (although imperfectly). There is a huge qualitative and moral difference between the two. It is important to recognize this qualitative “democratic difference” between the two instead of conflating their political and economic involvement in the political process as somehow “equivalent” when it isn’t.
His refusal to answer this question directly about political reality disturbs me in exactly the same way Hillary or Bill Clinton, or President Obama’s refusal to address this issue directly disturbs me.
In fact it is the only “democratic” way to ensure some modicum of transparency and democratic accountability, if not a more level political playing field where ideas matter not the size of an industry or oligarchs bank account is generally speaking the only thing that matters.
We’ll see. Be nice to see the US Democratic Party make this pledge.
There is a very good reason people of all ideological stripes in American politics have lost (or are quickly losing) all faith in the US political process–they understand their elected officials are bought and paid for, based on very compelling evidence that reality is true, and that whether they vote or not, or try and lobby as citizens or not, that they have next to zero meaningful influence on the policies of their nation particularly in certain arenas from “trade” to “foreign military policy” which of course all necessarily have direct causal implications for “domestic” policy.
Here’s an interestingly prescient quote from a 2010 article on Brazil’s Petrobras:
“But oil has a nasty habit of bringing corruption with it. The fund Lula wants to set up with oil revenues could, as he says, help Brazil to overcome poverty, low standards in education and limited investment in science and technology. Or it could provide a lucrative way to reward loyalty to party and president.”
http://www.economist.com/node/17147828
Looks like they went with the latter, not the former. But then, the IMF – like other colonial powers before them – tend to prefer this kind of corruption; such leaders can be more easily replaced if they become too independent – with a little help from NSA surveillance, that is:
“Recent revelations showing that the United States National Security Agency (N.S.A.) spied on Brazilian oil company Petrobras by hacking into the firm’s computer network and listening to CEO phone calls are sure to upset already frosty relations between Brasilia and Washington, and indeed such sensational developments have already led President Dilma Rousseff to cancel her upcoming meeting with Obama in Washington, D.C.” – Nikolas Kozloff, Huffington Post 09/20/2013
This portion is quite interesting indeed, but notably because GG seems unaware that last year Supreme Court outlawed campaign donations by corporations. Lula fooled GG into believing that PT was unilaterally deciding to not take such donations.
It was a missed opportunity to press the president on matters such as “undeclared campaign finance” (Caixa 2) and also money-laundering through “legal” campaign donations, both things which PT was found to be guilty of in court.
2 past treasurers of his party are in jail and GG did not ask about that, but went along with Lula’s theater about corporate donations…
And you ignore the fact that the Brazilian Congress is already working on a constitutional amendment (PEC) to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling, and bring corporate financing back.
First: PEC won’t pass. Second: if it did, do you think PT would not take corporate donations?!
That was a really good interview. I don’t much care what is happening in Brazil, truth be told, but that was an excellent example of how to conduct an interview in an adversarial, yet respectful way.
I live in Sao Paulo, and the level of success Globo and Veja have had in brainwashing those who will be directly harmed by a coup reminds me very much of what happened to Americans.
Stan, actually, we’re being harmed by 9% unemployment and 11% inflation rates. Just look at the graphics and you’ll find Dilma has frauded our budget since 2013. This impeachment process is far away from being a coup. Abraço.
Wow, that was intense. Pretty good, Glen. Didn’t expect anything less from you, to be honest. It’s amazing how one foreign journalist manages to make a political interview better than most of our own domestic ones. Your integrity pays out, man.
Superficial and untruth in many aspects, you could do better than to let yourself go by the words of a professional thief.
Feline, where you there with a lie detector?… are you a psychoanalysis expert?
Easy, with your biased stand, to throw crap all around.
Your comment has no true significance. You must elaborate in specifics not empty generalities.
This interview was so biased! Lula is corrupt, Car Wash involves Lula, Dilma and PT at the center. Lula is the most rejected candidate, with 53% of people and never will win. BTW, Lula is going to jail, it just a matter of time. The majority want PT out forever, because PT criminalize the country. Never in history a party stole like PT did. Dilma destroyed the economy, we have 9.5 million people that lost their jobs because of her. We have recession for two years. The country is a total disaster and sunk in corruption.
The corruption is hardly a one-party affair.
Brazil went for commodity sales of iron ore, oil, meat and soya as per the IMF program, with resulting environmental damage, and then the money from those commodity sales were distributed to various political cronies and support groups instead of invested in manufacture-related infrastructure; the good credit from commodity sales was then used to gain more loans from Wall Street, hence Brazil fell into a debt trap, and – with the collapse in global commodity sales – is now going to be subjected to IMF austerity programs.
Seems like all the Brazilian parties fed into this game – not much unlike America, where the Democrats and Republicans have backed the same neoliberal ‘free-market’ economic policies over the past few decades, resulting in the collapse of the middle class, rising poverty, and more billionaires.
Not one question about the house in Atibaia. Why?
See my answer below about how we chose what to focus on and not focus on.
He answered questions about his house previously. He said it’s not his, and that some of his stuff is there because it belongs to his friend and he spent time there.
He’s super-prepared to say that again. I could have asked it just to satisfy people that I did, but since I already know what he’s going to say, and there’s not much to say about it, what’s the point? I chose instead to focus on things he hadn’t been asked much and which would elicit interesting answers.
Again, see my comment below for a more detailed explanation of question choices.
As an American who’s followed this story only though what Glenn and others have reported here (or on Twitter), this was quite fascinating. I am mindful that I was receiving translations and much nuance was no doubt therefore lost.
That said, Lula is a slick one. I’m not saying that’s so bad, but he’s very good at answering the question he wants to answer instead of what was directly asked. You, Glenn, however did a good job of pressing him.
Clearly, he will not repudiate the odious drug “war,” and had just vague nostrums to offer on the matter of prison for so many poor and dark-skinned drug “criminals.” (Lula’s notion that only use should be decriminalized is ridiculous; most users commit dealing, even if just technically by giving or selling to friends.)
Lula repeatedly stated that he “doubts” you could find any businessman who would say the businessman conducted a corrupt deal with him. Hmmm. That’s less than an actual denial.
It does seem, however, that the Brazilian media is run by an oligarchy that is at least as corrupt as Lula and the PT. If not more so. So, 24/7 news stories about PT and corruption — with only the most passing references to corruption in other parties — would seem to hold an anti-democratic political agenda.
Well done, Glenn.
As you say you’re following this story through Glenn’s prism, I’d like if I may, to point out a few things that Glenn himself doesn’t stress much.
#1 – Lava-Jato only focusses on PT:
PT has been in power for over 13 years. It’s obvious they’ll be more implicated in the current corruption scandals than the opposition. I see no bias here. Aecio Neves, seen by all as the fairly weak but main member of the opposing PSDB party has been cited 6 times in the investigation. But as a Senator, he cannot be investigated by Lava-Jato.
#2 – The media belongs to an oligarchy and it’s biased against the PT:
What large media group doesn’t belong to an oligarchy? And the media hasn’t always been critical of the government. Usually when people want to exemplify an evil media group, they’ll refer to GLOBO. Well GLOBO was largely pro-Lula during his government. Yes, after the massive scandals emerged, the media turned against PT’s government. A pretty normal thing, I would say. Or should they continue to support a corrupt government?
My understanding is that the situation in Brazil is especially egregious; a few wealthy families own all the main media.
What’s your view on the Dilma impeachment issue? It appears she is not charged with any crime. Is it not the case, then, that she should thus not be subject to impeachment?
Yes, I agree with you Mona, that a lot of the media belongs to a few wealthy families. But the ramifications are ridiculous. José Sarney, the Brazilian ex-president who was involved in many scandals, and was a big PT ally in the Senate, until he retired in 2014 owns the GLOBO concessions in the state of Maranhão. I could go on…
As for my view on the impeachment, I’m in favour, yes. As for my reasons, it’s hard to be succinct. My leanings are mostly middle of the road, maybe opting for a pragmatic socialist government, if pushed. I think the biggest of all reasons is the many indications that PT intended to hold on to power forever, using illegal means, as they did in the 2014 elections, and before too, by what it seems. The list is very long: murders, corruption, lying, personal enrichment, favouring the richest companies in the land, bankrupting Petrobras, all the huge controversial infrastructure works like Belo Monte being pushed through as a handy way for monumental kickbacks. It’s sickening for anyone who’s invested his future in Brazil, like I have.
Come on, this sloppy IMF-approved economic policy is what got Brazil into so much trouble. Commodities are always boom and bust, so countries that want to develop have to move into manufacturing, which requires a solid educational base, i.e. everyone goes to school, not just wealthy elites – and also real infrastructure investment – like water, electricity, ports, etc., not like the World Cup (cost: $15 billion) or the Olympics (cost ???)
Nevertheless, all those commodity-sales-based policies – along with the accumulation of massive debt held by international creditors – were heartily approved by the IMF. And this is not exactly a new theme in the region:
“. . . the IMF has instituted various austerity and debt restructuring programs for Brazil through- out the 1980s. However, these austerity programs have rigid conditionality requirements that nation-states must adopt before the IMF will extend financial assistance to a particular country. Consequently, the IMF’s political-economic influence over the domestic policy implementations of Brazil has increased substantially during the 1980s. . .”
Source: International Monetary Fund Response to the Brazilian Debt Crisis, 1994
Yes, three cheers for the IMF, keeping the Third World in neocolonial status for over half a century, with the cooperation of the Third World’s corrupt leaders.
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/hajoon-changs-bad-samaritans-the-myth-of-free-trade-and-the-secret-history-of-capitalism
But what has Dilma herself done, what crime has she committed, that merits impeachment?
“But what has Dilma herself done, what crime has she committed, that merits impeachment?”
A good question and you have asked it twice and nobody seems to answer!
IMHO , her only crime so far (and thought her life) has been her being overambitious in her quest to enhance her career!! The lady is not a good (or cunning) politician nor a competent manager. She was placed there for a purpose by her predecessor to whom she has lots of reverence and is paying the price. But since she is not charged of being a part of the “Lava Jato” scandal, the maximum that can happen to her is “dishonorable discharge” from her job as the President of the Republic with “full pay benefits”!
But I don’t think she is going to give up so easily and many who did not vote for her want to see her stay there and fix the mess she got the country into. Because the alternatives are quite bleak. The “gentlemen” who are after her job can not vouch for their personal integrity (and their “managerial abilities”) nor have popular support.
P.S: I did not vote for her nor for her predecessor or their “party”. Not even for their “rivals”.
The cause for the current impeachment proceedings is a accounting maneuveur to mask spending that was not approved in the budget. Essentially, her admnistration did not make payments to debts with public owned lending agencies, which would is considered non authorized borrowing.
Both Lula and Dilma have successfully employed the “I didn’t know about this” line of defence.
Just one example: Dilma presided Petrobras board from 2003 to 2011, and oversaw the awful deal Petrobras made when purchasing the Pasadena refinery. A refinery that was valued at U$ 42 million and Petrobras paid U$ 820 million for it’s purchase. She signed off on the deal, which later emerged was used to generate kickbacks, which she of course didn’t know anything about.
She was Lula’s chief of staff, but had no idea of the various corruption scandals that took place right next to her.
She was elected using funds from corruption, but had nothing to do with that either.
She purposely masked the true extent of the countries financial woes to paint a more positive picture of Brazil during the 2014 election campaign, and just today, allies of hers who voted against the instalment of the impeachment process admitted that she was guilty of electoral fraud.
Members of the PT have a strange way of thinking. To them all this is justifiable, it seems. None of these things puts any of them off. The US Democrat party is almost right-wing in comparison to the South American left. They idolize Cuba’s regime, they believe the FARCs are genuine freedom fighters, they genuinely believe that the local press that criticize them are funded by the CIA. They refuse to criticize the Venezuelan regime. So in their minds, Dilma’s done nothing wrong, really.
Why is it that every politician’s solution to corrupt government is to create more government?
Because libertarians can only talk to themselves as if they’re saying something meaningful but everyone else in the world just rolls their eyes.
Mr. Greenwald has offered the only chance we have in the US for balanced reporting on the situation in Brazil. I know few of us here even have the good sense to care about Brazil, and Latin America, but we must understand that the Western Hemisphere MUST act with reason toward one another, and that the US must discard it’s hateful “entitlement” attitude to interfere in elections and to support coups against elected leaders.
Mr. Greenwald
Overall, this was a good interview of the former President of Brazil with some good questions. I am certain that he appreciated your first article. What does Lula have in common with Richard Nixon? They are both lashing out at the media for “bias”.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva:
“…….what I find odd is how information is selectively leaked. And it is usually against the PT. When there is an accusation against another political party the press puts it out in small print. It is on TV for five seconds. When it is something against PT, you’ll have 20 minutes on television, the front page of every newspaper, making it crystal clear that for the past two years there’s been an attempt to criminalize the PT……..”
Bernstein and Woodward, 1974, page 169:
“……The second is that the public—softened up by three years of speeches from Vice President Agnew—has less than total confidence that what it reads and hears—particularly in the so-called Eastern Establishment media—is true and undistorted by political prejudice. Hence the recent administration attacks on the Washington Post, which has been giving the corruption allegations front-page treatment……….‘Do you know why we’re not uptight about the press and the espionage business?’ one White House aide… asked rhetorically the other day. ‘Because we believe that the public believes that the Eastern press really is what Agnew said it was—elitist, anti-Nixon and ultimately pro-McGovern.”……”
Nixon and de Silva were both right. Only you would label one (good) adversarial journalism and the other…..
“…….But Brazil’s plutocrats, their media, and the upper and middle classes are glaringly exploiting this corruption scandal to achieve what they have failed for years to accomplish democratically: the removal of PT from power…….”
…….a dangerous subversion of democracy (despite the charges of corruption).
>They are both lashing out at the media for “bias”. <
Exactly. Lulu says, "the opposition party is the media." Frighteningly, this echos the Operation Condor-era of Brazil in the 70s. As of December 2009, nobody in Brazil has been convicted of human rights violations for actions committed under the 21 years of military dictatorship.
This is something pretty much all politicians, everywhere, do.
In this case, though, there is zero doubt that the dominant news organizations in Brazil are vehemently pro-impeachment and anti-PT. They barely pretend.
As you no doubt picked up — because Craig’s authoritarian fustian to and about you is hardly new — he thinks you are choosing some “adversarial journalism” as good and rejecting other kinds. This is, as usual with Craig, bullshit.
The Brazilian media claims to be oh-so-unbiased and objective. It’s not. Not even sort of. You helped make this very clear. If they want to do activist, adversarial reporting, great, have at it. But don’t call it something else.
Moreover, it is critical to point out that virtually all the major — oligarchical — media in Brazil is, in fact, deeply hostile to PT.
…”dominant news organizations in Brazil are vehemently pro-impeachment and anti-PT”.
Given the corruption scandals involving the government, plundering the countries resources, the lying and attempts at cover-ups, and the terrible performance of the economy, I would say this is a fairly reasonable stance.
Glenn, there is a clear reason for that. The country is not better off after 14 years of PT rule. it has become more violent, more impoverished, less regard to basic citizenship relations. Brazil has declined towards mediocrity. The bar was leveled low to give everyone an impression of equality. Now, everyone has the chance of getting randomly murdered. Before, only the poor people had that opportunity.
I don’t care if Globo or Record or SBT are telling me the news. I see what is happening and I can measure it myself. Brazil has not become a better country and Brazilians are not in a better situation that they were before.
and the impeachment ? it is the first step to clean out the trash. It wont stop at Dilma or Lula. Cunha will go also. Renan. Sarney. Barbalho, etc… One good thing will come of this: Brazilians have opened their eyes. they will not let this happen again.
Hey Glenn,
tell me what this means:
http://noblat.oglobo.globo.com/artigos/noticia/2016/04/esquerdas-pelo-impeachment.html
PPS (previously the Brazilian Communist Party) is pro-impeachment ??
and it was published on O GLOBO ?
I think you are wrong.
and hey…. you still have time to review your position.
Hey Glenn, re: Marina Silva, what does this “evangelical/environmentalist” mean?
She’s both a hard-core environmentalist (which gives her an appeal on the left: she actually quit Lula’s government as Minster of Environment over what she thought was his excessive accommodation of various industries) but also a hard-core evangelical, which gives her a big base of support among poor religious people. She’s also a woman of color from Northern Brazil: a fascinating political figure.
She’s run for president twice and exceeded all expectations, and the fact that she’s one of the national political figures unscathed by the corruption scandal makes her a naturally appealing candidate.
Hard-core evangelical? Politically, she is not. She has never belonged to the political evangelical movement or bancada evangelica.
Sorry Mr. Greenwald but Mr. da Silva isn´t President. La Rousseff is the President.
In the US, I notice that it is customary to call ex-presidents “Mr. President”, as if they were still incumbent in the office. Maybe one day we will call Dr. Jill Stein “Ms. President” after she has left office.
If Trump (or Cruise, or Ryan by GOP broker) and Clinton become the corporate nominees for president (declining likelihood now), you can flip a coin and label either to be the lesser evil, but Clinton is and will be the more effective evil. Just don’t vote for evil; Stein will be the legitimate and best candidate, and she might have a reasonable chance after the corporates’ are further exposed.
Bernie Sanders is getting stronger, and corporate media are getting more hysterical trying to stop him. Apparently, they will cheat any way they can think of, up to and including the final half-dozen or so coin tosses if necessary. If he does win, let’s pray he will go further in the cycle than did Bobby Kennedy. Maybe Jill Stein could be allowed in the debates because Sanders would need a worthy opponent to argue policy in the debates. Regardless, we need to watch and evaluate Stein’s policy in case Sanders’ campaign is stopped somehow, or if his democratic socialism fizzles out at some point by mere tinkering. In four years, thousands more plant and animal species will be extinct, so why not Greens and a few socialist parties contesting a presidential election in the waning times of human societies on Earth.
Now that the operation Lava-Jato Wash conducted by the Federal Police and the Federal Prosecutor Office (Judiciary) are coming close to who was the head of the gang who set up the Mensao and Petrolao massive corruption scandal, there is only one alternative to former president Lula: lie and keep lying. By the way, Mr. Lula is and has always been a big liar as any other criminal. Readers of this article may search different sources to find out who was the real former president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhCQfsH-R9Q&nohtml5= FHC deu vexame internacional e levou sermão de Bill Clinton NÂO VAI TER GOLPE !!!
FHC realmente deixou de fazer muita coisa.
Mais existe uma grande verdade: o governo dele acabou com a hiperinflação.
The Intercept, please respect people’s opinions, so long, these are respectful and contribute , add or question the debate and the narrative presented. Otherwise, what is the point in having a comments section?
I find the following statement utterly disingenuous: “The (…) impeachment is being led by, and would elevate, politicians and political parties facing far more serious corruption charges that those aimed at Dilma”, considering the positions that Dilma held before the presidency, and also considering she is the head of the PT government.
Interesting that Lula, of all people, believes that “RICH” countries must LEND money – created FROM THIN AIR, PAPER AND INK – to ‘poor’ countries in order for them to develop. In exchange for usury interests and precious natural resources of REAL value. In a several of the interview, Lula give hints that he has been coopted by the neoliberal system ruling the world. This world is truly fu.cked !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j12QIWbVT-k&nohtml5=False FHC e PSDB humilhados pela BBC de Londres NÂO vai ter Golpe !!
Thanks heaps for such an informative piece of truly investigative journalism…great work…as usual!
I live in Western Australia, and there’s NEVER any mention of what’s happening in Brasil by the MSM…sad really.
At this present moment in time, we have the worst government ever in power in this once great country. The social fabric of Australia is being destroyed at a frightening rate of knots by the ruling extreme Neo-Conservatives in power. For what it’s worth though, a large part of the populace are really starting to wake up. They are beginning to realise that those in power really only care about themselves and their corporate donors.
So, in this part of the world…here is hope!
Keep up the great work Glenn!!
The choice to film in subdued light was interesting… perhaps Lula cannot with stand full daylight.
Hummm….are you saying maybe…..holly water and Count Drakula???
It looks more like they didn’t push the exposure in post. All footage from modern video cameras with pro codecs looks too dark straight from the camera.
I am aware of this technical issue: Underexpose and you can usually bring it back; overexpose and you blow-out the highlights.
However, The Intercept has very qualified video people. My bet is that the dark presentation was by choice.
Glenn?
Trabalho bem feito.
Fonte da melhor qualidade para a história do Brasil.
Contexto inicial perfeito.
Muito obrigada por ter feito isso.
An excellent piece of journalism. Thanks for adding some much needed balance.
Is see a series here…any chance of doing something similar with the likes of Cunha, Aecio, etc
I appreciate Lula’s story is the big one, gets the hits and is often unjustly misrepresented, but the world needs more of this..
And what about Robert Mugabe? Excellent journalism. Let’s give these people some eject me to express their views.
#NãoVaiTerGolpe
Não vai ter golpe…VAI TER IMPEACHMENT!!!
The interview was interesting, but… How could you not question any of his answers? Arguments like “Dilma has not made no criminal offense to be impeached” should have been questioned. It is easy do explain and tell stories to someone who does not have a deeper understanding of the facts. If you pay close attention to his expression you can even notice when he is repeating a lie, and when he is giving his real opinion.
Excellent point. This is not critical journalism. Greenwald is biased.
President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk with the motto (THE BUCK STOPS HERE”
Lula and Dilma apparently do not subscribe to this idea.
The “Mensalão” scandal in which more than 40 people ate in jail (mostly PT) was during Lula’s presidency. Dilma was chairman of the the Board of Directors o Petrobras.
Enjoyed that (though there are some obvious typos in the subtitles). Lula is the quintessential modern politician, supporting neoliberal economic policies while specifically claiming he is not neoliberal. If you run the economy through the government, then you get people bidding on government officials and the associated corruption of democratic institutions. I suspect Lula knows that.
Mr. Greenwald, you mentioned the leaked phone call between Lula and Dilma just to ask about privacy. You didn’t ask about Dilma’s failed attempt to appoint Lula to a position providing immunity from prosecution. That was omitted despite Lula pontificating on the notion that his reforms to the justice system mean everyone, including PT, is subject to the law. The most interesting question, I humbly submit, wasn’t asked. That said, this was perhaps your best interview to date and I congratulate you on your official recognition as among the top tier of journalism in Brazil and internationally. All of us here knew that already, of course.
When you only have 45 minutes for an interview like this, you have to make choices, necessarily omitting things you wish you could ask. Lula gave 2 press conferences in the last 6 weeks, which focused almost exclusively on those questions, including his proposed appointment to the government. So I – and everyone else – already know what he’s going to say about it: that he’s doing it because the economy is in crisis and he owes it to PT, Dilma and the country to help. I could then say: “oh, come on, it’s because you want effective immunity” and he’d say: “absolutely not; I have nothing to hide; and it’s not immunity; my whole life work helping Brazil’s poor is at risk and I want to preserve that.”
I could have asked obvious questions that everyone has already heard Lula answer and where everyone already knows the answer. And that would have been the easy path: just ask all the standard questions about the corruption scandal and wait for him to give the standard answers, then present the standard counter-arguments, then listen as he gives the standard answers.
But the scandal, Lavo Jato and the earthquake hitting Brazil’s democracy are all deeper and more interesting than that. So I chose instead to try to ask questions that people haven’t heard him answer a lot – including ones about Lavo Jato that he hasn’t been asked (such as how it’s mostly targeting other parties, is destroying the long-standing inequality under Brazilian law, and is being conducted under a PT-constructed court) – with the goal of eliciting interesting answers.
That, combined with the fact that the audience for this would be substantially international rather than domestic (Brazil), made us decide that the time would be squandered delving into the weeds of Lavo Jato. I could have asked those questions just to satisfy critics, but decided that wasn’t going to be my goal.
Also, the fact that he wants to be president again, and still wields tremendous influence, compelled me, I think, to ask about critical PT policies that he’s rarely challenged on from that direction (prisons, Drug War, anti-terror laws, LGBTs, abortion, corporate cash donors, etc).
I’m sure there are valid criticisms that not just this question should have been asked but others, too. But then you have to say which question wasn’t worth asking, since we filled the 45 minutes and even got him to stay a bit longer.
Fair enough. I was ignorant of the fact that he addressed these questions in his two previous appearances. Thanks again for the interview, and thanks for the reply.
This reply seems to suggest that Lula did not provide the list of questions for the interview. Is journalism in Brazil so diametrically opposed to North American standards of best practice? How could Lula test his answers with focus groups, if he didn’t know the questions in advance?
This implies a remarkable acceptance of risk and entropy. It violates the principle that everything should be minutely planned.
No wonder the economy of Brazil is nose-diving.
>”This reply seems to suggest that Lula did not provide the list of questions for the interview.”
You’re thinking of the U.S. media.
I can only assume DA SILVA and Glenn are talking cross-purposes here?
Glenn, congratulations on getting Lula to speak to you. I think you let him off quite lightly though. Why did you not ask him about whether he/Dilma/his party is responsible for Petrobras losing as much money as it has, from both mismanagement and graft?. Why did you not ask him if he agrees that Petrobras was an national icon, a source of pride, and has been decimated by incompetence of his and Dilma´s government, and billions of reais of bribes?. Why did you not cite the long list of PT party members, from Dirceu (in prison twice and his chief of staff) , Delubio, etc., limiting yourself to citing only Delcidio Amaral? When Lula complained about protectionism from the G7 after the crisis, why did not ask him why Brazil continues to be a closed economy, and cite facts like the 90% import duties on automobiles, electronics, etc? Why did you not ask him why he refers to himself in the third person? Why did you not ask him if he understands that resignation of a public office holder is not an admission of guilt, but an act of self-sacrifice if the government can no longer exercise its role? Why did you not ask him whether it is intellectually honest to call impeachment a “coup”? If there is a coup going on, shouldn´t the government call the armed forces out to defend the Republic? Why did you not ask him why he thought 3.5mm people went to the streets on March 13th to ask for the PT to get out of the country´s way, citing the number of stores, businesses, and factories closed, families thrown into unemployment, purchasing power corroded by 10% inflation brought on by public policy mistakes? Why did you feed him the chance to blame China instead of pointing out that lower commodity prices help tame inflation in countries that have learned to diversify from reliance on exports? While I understand that the NSA shouldn´t be wiretapping Dilma or Merkel, it seems that with one hour of time with Lula, we would have liked to have heard harder questions than this one, the LGBT question, and the prisoner question. Nice try, but I think you missed a great chance at journalistic excellence.The problem in Brasil is that people have a hard time admitting that they are wrong, and this was a chance to induce Lula into some contrition for the depression that the country finds itself in, economic, spiritual and political. It must have been a great challenge to question Lula face to face in a respectful way, but I think your respect for Lula outweighed your respect for bringing us a chance to hear the ex-icon explain the horrible mistakes that lead to the present situation. Again, thank for your effort and appreciate any reply you might have to my questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dyh6-YSXBs&nohtml5=False . Paolo Francis -Petrobras e FHC ´/ Jose Sera -Segum FHC em seu autobiografia ainda a CORRUPÇÂO NÂO ESTAVA INSTITUCIONALIZADA qdo estes factos !!!!!!!!!!!!
Obrigado Glenn por permitir a Lula explicar a verssão dos acontecimentos no Brasil Soi cubana ,NAÔ do “fidelismo” (regimen) mais estoi CONTRA o Impeachment a Presidenta Dilma CONTRA u ODEO que a midia e partidos opossitores estimulan para -Lula_PT e TODO simpatizante . a impressão q chega ate CV/africa e’ a propagada CRIMINALIZANDO a IZQUERDA pela Globo e a SIC/Portugal q trasmite as “telenovelas” RACISTAS .ELITISTAS e CLASISTAS .A Justiça tem q ser IMPARCIAL . Ums poucos corruptos não pode comprometer a futuro de MILHOES de pessoas .Ate estos lares chegou a sucesso do Brasil :bolsas de studos para MUITOS AFRICANOS ,comercio , turismo .Não tem comparação o Gov do PT com o Regimen TOTALITARIO de CUBA , o “bloguer K.Kalagari não chegaria ate ondi chego em Cuba . Saludos Democraticos .
Increible que una cubana !!!!… despues de todas estas decadas Y CON TODA LA INFORMACION DISPONIBLE, aun no pueda entender que Cuba tiene y ha tenido a un gorila de 10 toneladas encima asfixiandolo y estrangulandolo economicamente como POLITICA DE ESTADO ( Lester Mallory) – con el unico objetivo de hacer sufrir a su poblacion. Ignorancia NO es felicidad , mi amiga.
c’mon Greenwald, didn’t you get it? Lula is a lie! This man is talking about himself at 28 min of the interview… He is a disguised dictator, a closeted murderer in need of power… Lunatic…..
He thinks Brazil belongs to himseld due to the so called benefits he provided to the poor people for 2 years or so… Whatch out for the amount of money PT stole… wait a few weeks and you will realize the monster this man is…..
And he speaks in the third person! Macroman disdains that.
C’mon Greenwald!!! give this man your pulitzer!!! he knows better than you, look how well informed and the great sources he has!