Whatever the motives were for getting rid of Dilma, illegality and corruption plainly had nothing to do with it.
From the start of the campaign to impeach Brazil’s democratically elected President Dilma Rousseff, the primary justification was that she used a budget trick known as pedaladas (“peddling”: illegal delay of re-payments to state banks) to mask public debt. But this week, as the Senate conducts her impeachment trial, that accusation was obliterated: The Senate’s own expert report concluded there was “no indication of direct or indirect action by Dilma” in any such budgetary maneuvers. As the Associated Press put it: “Independent auditors hired by Brazil’s Senate said in a report released Monday that suspended President Dilma Rousseff didn’t engage in the creative accounting she was charged with at her impeachment trial.” In other words, the Senate’s own objective experts gutted the primary claim as to why impeachment was something other than a coup.
The report did not fully exonerate Dilma, finding that she did open lines of credit without congressional approval, part of the impeachment case. But it was the pedaladas charge that dominated the debate all along.
(Headline above: Dilma is under threat of impeachment because of fiscal pedaladas)
If Dilma’s impeachment were actually motivated by its stated cause — lawbreaking — this devastating report would stop impeachment in its tracks. Elio Gaspari, a leading columnist with Brazil’s largest paper, Folha de São Paulo, wrote on Tuesday — under the headline “There is a Coup” — that in light of this new report, Dilma’s impeachment may not be a “coup” in the sense that it is being achieved extra-legally, but it is now a coup in the sense that it is achieved without elections: by “plotting” through a “ruse.”
But so obviously, impeachment was never about any alleged lawbreaking by Dilma — that was just the excuse to remove a democratically elected president for ideological reasons — which is why the destruction of the primary legal charge against her has barely dented the impeachment momentum. Even the vehemently anti-Dilma paper Estadão documented how leading impeachment advocates this week instantly shifted their rationale: from claiming that pedaladas requires her impeachment to proclaiming that it was never actually important in the first place. Those are the actions of people devoted to an end without caring about the justification: They are determined to impeach Dilma for ideological reasons, so the destruction of the legal case against her makes no difference.
(Headline above: Expert report concludes that Dilma did not participate in fiscal pedaladas)
Even more significant is the growing evidence of the full-scale corruption of Dilma’s installed replacement, Michel Temer. In just over 30 days since his installation, Temer lost three of his chosen ministers to corruption. One of them, his extremely close ally Romero Jucá, was caught on tape plotting Dilma’s impeachment as a way to shut down the ongoing corruption investigation, as well as indicating that Brazil’s military, the media, and the courts were all participants in the impeachment plotting.
A key investigation informant, former senator and construction executive Sérgio Machado, has now said that Temer received and controlled 1.5 million reals in illegal campaign funds, while a separate informant last week said Temer was the “beneficiary” of 1 million reals in bribes. And Temer is now banned by a court order from running for any office for eight years due to his own violation of election laws. Remember: This is who, in the name of fighting “corruption,” Brazil’s elites installed in the place of the elected president.
Meanwhile, Temer’s political party, PMDB, is almost certainly the most corrupt in this hemisphere. Its president of the lower House, Eduardo Cunha — who presided over Dilma’s impeachment — is now suspended by the Supreme Court, and the House’s Ethics Commission just voted to expel him entirely because he lied about bribe-filled Swiss bank accounts he controls. The same construction executive, Machado, testified that three of PMBD’s key leaders — including Jucá — were paid a total of 71.1 million reals in bribes. Meanwhile, two key Temer allies from the center-right PSDB that Dilma defeated in 2014 — Temer’s Foreign Minister José Serra and Dilma’s 2014 opponent Aécio Neves — are now both targets of the corruption investigation.
Until Temer’s party, PMDB, decided to support Dilma’s impeachment and thus empower its own corrupt leaders, PMDB was a key ally of Dilma. Dilma’s party, PT, has its own healthy share of corrupt figures. But PMDB is little more than a self-serving, opportunistic transactional faction that has existed to grease the wheels of corruption and kickbacks in Brasília. The ironic joke that this is the party that has gained power and taken over in the name of anti-corruption is too extreme to put into words. As the New York Times put it in May, Temer’s party is the one that controlled, and has now ruined, Rio: “The same party that created a mess in Rio is now running the country.”
As glaring as Temer’s corruption and the fraud of Dilma’s impeachment already were, two new events this week bolster it even further. First, Temer had dinner with two members of Brazil’s Supreme Court — the body presiding over the corruption investigation and impeachment proceedings. Also attending the meeting were his Foreign Minister Serra and his close ally Aécio, both of whom are targets of that corruption probe. So Temer is literally meeting in secret with the very judges who are deciding impeachment and corruption probes (at the same time that Brazilian politicians, preparing to impose austerity measures, are voting to lavish these judges with a significant increase in their salary).
Second, at the same time that Temer is privately meeting with key judges, reports have surfaced that he is working hard on an agreement to “save the skin” of Cunha, one of the country’s most corrupt politicians. Temer met at night with Cunha just this week. One plan being actively discussed would allow Cunha to resign and then have his criminal case assigned to favorable judges. Another provides that Cunha merely resign his presidency to maximize the chances that he will not be expelled from the House altogether. Worse still, O Globo today reported that Temer is now actively working with Aécio to ensure that Cunha’s successor is favorable to him: someone who “did not work for Cunha’s removal.”
Just think about what has happened when it comes to control over the world’s fifth most populous (and very oil-rich) country. The democratically elected president was impeached despite no allegations of personal corruption — by politicians who are knee-deep in bribery and kickback scandals. The primary pretext used to impeach her has just been debunked by the Senate’s own independent expert report. The corruption-plagued man they installed in her place — who currently has a 70 percent disapproval rating, and whom 60 percent of the country wants impeached — is now secretly meeting with the very judges whose supposed independence, credibility, and integrity were the prime argument against calling this a “coup,” all while he plots to save his bribery-enriched fellow party member. And while all this happens, they are blithely proceeding to impose a right-wing agenda of austerity and privatization that democracy would never allow.
Whatever the motives were for getting rid of Dilma, illegality and corruption plainly had nothing to do with it. Just look at this week’s Senate report, or the face of the person they’ve installed, to see how true that is.
Clarification: this article was edited on July 1 to reflect that the 41% salary increase just approved was for employees of the judicial branch, to be made in installments over four years as compensation for prior years of lost wages; the bill to increase the salaries of Supreme Court judges is proceeding to approval in the Congress.
Every article written about Brazilian politics via Glenn these days is “anti-impeachment”, but why not even one article about Lula and the massive corruption scheme involving PT? Clearly, this is one of the most important issues in the history of Brazilian politics. Even interviews that Glenn did with Lula and Dilma lacked any real conversation about it (Maybe they had their questions screened in advance and that’s what Glenn had to deal with to secure the interviews… I don’t know). I’m just very surprised.
Certainly it would be on par with other journalism written about other politicians. So we have to wonder. Why is there nothing written about this?
Maybe Glenn can respond? Thank you.
As verbas que dizem que foram enviadas, com dinheiro , que dizem que vem dos impostos do povo do Sul e Sudeste , ficam nas mãos dos próprios políticos do Sul , Sudeste e do Norte (família Sarney ).
NOVOS BAHIANOS LIVRES E ANARQUISTAS , é um movimento underground , motivado pelo sentimento de liberdade , dos seus integrantes, com ideias abertas, não só no campo social e político, mas também no domínio das artes, que vai pedir a Independência da BAHIA.
A liberdade é nossa condição básica, e no país NOVA BAHIA LIVREANARQUISTA , não haverá fronteiras , e cada indivíduo é livre para entrar e sair do país. Outra condição básica é o amor livre e será bem vinda toda literatura, arte, política que promova a liberdade social e individual
O Golpe já foi dado e já entrou na fase do Regime Militar , e os militares pro-ditadura militar adquirem protagonismo no Governo Interino do Presidente Temer . Podemos ver um claro exemplo disso , com a Indicação para Presidente da FUNAI , do militar Roberto Peternelli, e do O general gaúcho Sérgio Etchegoyen, que assumiu como ministro do Gabinete de Segurança Institucional da Presidência da República e cujo pai foi um dos principais responsáveis por crimes contra os direitos humanos durante o regime militar no Brasil.
Com um militar pró – Regime militar na Presidência da FUNAI a Bancada Ruralista apoiada pela Bancada da Bíblia(evangélica) , que defende os interesses dos grandes latifundiários no congresso , estará segura de que as questões de demarcação de Terra não avançará , e caso algum indígena se revolte , seguramente a Bancada da Bala entrará em ação .
Amusingly, some anti-Dilma commenters here have been railing that Glenn Greenwald’s journalism is bad and offering a host of vacuous reasons for this claim. I’ll just let Glenn address what actually constitutes absurd “journalism” with two of his tweets:
Temer was appointed VP by the one and only Dilma. How’s that for judgement! :( Even if Temer was a stand-up citizen, there would still have been an impeachment. This isn’t about Temer, so don’t spin it that way.
I guess Dilma’s crime was that she didn’t triangulate to neoliberalism quickly enough for Temer’s liking. God knows that she and Lula did plenty of that.
The advantages given to the guys involved in the plea bargain its a scandal. They continue living in a luxury world, meanwhile the ordinary people pay for this.
I’m posting the last two paragraphs of the above article, my emphasis:
[…despite no allegations of personal corruption]
This is true. There is no allegation of personal corruption. If only the narrative could hide behind this adjective “personal”…. What about corruption in general? Can the people in this site defending Dilma claim that she has no allegations of corruption – without the “personal” adjective?
[…is now secretly meeting with the very judges whose supposed independence, credibility, and integrity…]
Although it is not in secret, that’s really bad nonetheless. It’s a shame. Just like when our then President Dilma meet secretly with our Supreme Court President Lewandowski in Portugal with our then Attorney General and now Dilma’s lawyer Cardozo, just when the impeachment was to be started, to discuss let’s say, amenities.
http://noblat.oglobo.globo.com/meus-textos/noticia/2015/07/escondidas-em-portugal-dilma-e-lewandowski-discutem-operacao-lava-jato-e-impeachment.html
http://jovempan.uol.com.br/opiniao-jovem-pan/comentaristas/jose-neumanne/o-encontro-secreto-entre-dilma-e-lewandowski.html
Shame on these people.
[Just look at this week’s Senate report,..]
If only this site, rather than linking likeminded media reports, linked the documents for the audience take its own conclusions.
If this site really cares about what is happening in Brazil, I would suggest this site to make a special section with links for the following documents in English, to name a few:
– Brazilian Constitution;
– Law of malversation crimes -1079/50;
– Impeachment piece filed by the accusation – Paschoal et all;
– Internal bylaw of the Chamber of Deputies;
– Impeachment Special Commission Report approved by the commission and then by plenum of the Chamber of Deputies;
– Internal bylaw of the Senate;
– Impeachment Special Commission Report approved by the commission of the Senate;
– Pedalada’s Report by the Senate;
Then the english audience would not have to rely only on your word. They could verify for themselves.
[… or the face of the person they’ve installed, to see how true that is.]
This sentence shows how unaware of the process this site is. Who are “they”? Why didn’t the author name who are “they”? Because he can’t. Because there is no “they”. There is only the legislation, the constitution, which people don’t even bother to look and yet write about it. The constitution empowerd the vice-president. No one, not a single justice or congressmen had any say about it. Dilma chose Temer as vice-president. And he law installed Temer as interim president after the impeachment started.
Done for today…good nite ppl. see ya…
You persist in refusing to get it — I know you actually do get it, you simply won’t admit it. No one here, that I’ve seen, is “defending Dilma” per se. No, what we are doing — with copious evidence — is showing the overwhelming support for the fact that the impeachment brought against her was cynical, and that those who were behind it will and do immediately shift to any other rationale for it when the first one collapses.
Becasue they don’t actually give a shit about corruption, or Dilma’s budgetary maneuvers: what they do care about is circumventing the democratic process to install in power those who cannot win elections. And those are at least as personally corrupt — if not more so — than anyone in Dilma’s PT party.
They do this, in part, so they may, as Greenwald wrote:
I do not refuse to get for there is nothing to understand. You and this site had not shown a single evidence to back your position other than opinions of other media and likeminded people.
When part of a given report partially backs your narrative, saying Dilma wasn’t directly involved in the pedaladas, you elevate it as a cabal proof she’s innocent and is suffering a conspiracy so “they” could take the government from her. And when another part of the very same document attests she was directly involved in another malversation crime (which was part of the denounce filed against her) you barely mention it and like the author you probably back the idea that “it was the pedaladas charge that dominated the debate all along”, trying to dismiss it.
You keep saying “they” will change their rationale argument, while you had nothing to back it. The only thing this article has is an opinion of the accountancy tribunal minister (TCU) stating how important it was the result of the report that states Dilma’s involvement in the credit opening issue, while he never diminished the importance of the pedaladas.
You, just like the author, keep saying “they” because you of course can’t name who do not exist. Exactly as Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. Just like an alcoholic illiterate former president who used to blame everything wrong about Brazil on the “elites”, yet never explained who the elites he kept saying were; and now is accused of corruption and embezzlement with the very Brazilian construction elite. Surprisingly, about the real people who filed the impeachment, you and this site never wrote a single word. Why is that?
About the “right-wing agenda”, you’d be surprised how fast classic liberalism and libertarianism is becoming mainstream in Brazil. These people are tired of funding despotic politicians through taxes and inflation. The people adhering to a smaller leviathan grow bigger by the second.
Ah, here we have it. This is why you pretend to be obtuse about the impeachment, and all the evidence that it was an undemocratic ploy undertaken by rihgtwingers whose rationale shifts as needed, and which never had fuck-all to do with corruption:
You, then, are a libertarian. I know them well, and identified as such for some three decades, until I got a clue. (Several, actually.)
In all respects that matter vis-a-vis the economic fight in Brazil, you, as a libertarian, are one of the rightwingers. Having myself spent too much time engaged in magical thinking about markets, the glories of unbridled capitalism and all of that cant, I understand now why you don’t care that a grossly corrupt person like Temer is installed and is pushing horrible austerity measures.
Tell you what Thomas, you convince enough Brazilians to join this libertarian movement you think is growing there by leaps and bounds, and then win an election. Until then, you are an apologist for a soft coup and a grossly corrupt Brazilian oligarchical right-wing.
That last paragraph was just a rebuttal for your time adverb “never”. But that just gave you a perfect straw man to attack and flee from all real argument, didn’t it? You are the one thinking the impeachment in terms of right wing / left wing, and I took the bait. Touché.
I most certainly will not waste my time campaigning for someone to win any election, for I don’t care who wins, I only care about how much he will leech me. I have for any career politician the same contempt you have for the law, especially those who have their bellies and pockets full and whine like any butt hurt millennial. Temer is in office for just 2 months. PT camarilla were for 162, so you may understand why I channel my despise mostly towards Dilma and Lula.
I can’t be an apologist for I’ll never defend these self-righteous leeching parasites, regardless of their position. The career politician who lives of the politics, have his earnings from the sweat of the taxpayer deserves no respect whatsoever. The only politician that may deserve some, is the one who renounces the politician salary and does not pervert the law, as Bastiat put it.
When you’re done hitting that straw man, consider having an inflated pixuleco of Dilma: http://www.pixulecooficial.com.br/
w.r.
Wholly unnecessary. While some of us here are lawyers, we are (mostly) American lawyers. I’m not competent to interpret and apply Brazilian law.
Greenwald et al. are proceeding correctly by linking to Brazilian authorities and media who are competent to grapple with the relevant Brazilian laws for a lay audience. This is not a legal trade journal; it is a political news site where reporting is consumed by laypersons.
Moreover, Brazilian law is irrelevant to the demonstrated fact that those behind Dilma’s impeachment are cynical in their actions and motives.
Unnecessary? Irrelevant? You’re not competent to interpret and apply Brazilian law? You don’t understand Portuguese?
After google, language is not a deterrent anymore. Constitutions, in the USA and in Brazil were written by people of all walks in life, not only law. Ordinary people can read it and understand it. The fact you are not versed in Brazilian law doesn’t stop you to read it and understand it.
You want to impose your view into others, and when asked to show the very source of what’s happening you simply dodge it and only give excuses and more excuses.
First, this is absurd:
I lack all desire, and more importantly, ability to do that. You are literally being ridiculous.
As for the rest of your prattle, I am a lawyer. As a lawyer, I well know that laypeople are not generally competent to construe and apply laws — if they were, there’d be need for law school and bar exams. Anyone could do it.
That is true for lay Americans vis-a-vis U.S. law, and even more so for Americans with regard to foreign laws. Your preposterous notions otherwise are on display because you have been shown to be shill trafficking in casuistry — and called on your endless bullshit to the point where silly demands and casuistry are all you have left.
Good-bye.
why thank you. being ridiculous is what i do best :)
[…there’d be need for law school and bar exams. Anyone could do it.]
There is no need for imperative law school and bar exams to properly work in law, much less understand it.
Anyone can do it. paralegals can do it. even robots nowadays do it. sometimes they do better than someone with a degree.
The preposterous idea that only lawyers can properly construe and apply laws are a mix of arrogance typical of authoritarians and a corporatist action to create a market reserve, preventing anyone to access the judicial system without a lawyer. every restriction, in any area and especially in markets, is always about money. people against liberty are as greedy as a pig.
It is even more ludicrous given that the laws are created by people without a law degree. in congress, profane people can create laws, but they can’t construe and apply what they’ve just created without a lawyer’s assistance. perhaps because the constitution, bill of rights, and every other legislation aren’t writen in english/portuguese, but in lawyerish…. oh well…
but i digress..
good nite mona
I see the omnipresent TI troll here also, on a subject that she know little about but can nevertheless keep trolling. i don’t mind trolls, but it sure does help to know something about the subject before spewing off.
Is she crazy?
The General certainly is.
Yeah, but … ‘in comments one must always choose the lesser of two weevils’ *h/t gator
Gator is often quite witty. Not as good as Benito, mind you, but then who is?
Diogo is a shill
Meaning, it’s accurate.
Your MO is ever-shifting goalpost moving. The article above is accurate. The impeachment of Dilma was a corrupt and cynical one to empower those who cannot get democratically elected. A soft coup by those who are at least as corrupt, and even more so, that anyone in the PT party.
Moreover, below you deny that The Intercept, and Greenwald in particular, have had any influence in changing the narrative in Brazil. I highly doubted that, and indeed: Collapsing Narrative – The Week The World Noticed Brasil’s Coup:
The first crack is caused by Greenwald and The Intercept:
More international media follows suit, and The Intercept continues its penetrating reporting on Brazil.
More shift in international press reporting less favorably on Temer et al., listening to Dilma and others. With the result that:
The notion that all of this does not affect Temer et al., and the conversation in Brazil, is simply not credible. You have no credibility due to your ongoing, ever-sifting casuistry and distortions in these comments.
Omg, you really are a troll, aren’t you? Wtf is this all about? Literally changing my comment, to literally put words in my mouth, just to try to call me names and be all aggressive?! What is your problem? Too much time on your hands? Too insecure?
Get a life!
My bent is toward documentation of facts and sound reasoning, and calling out those who undermine both those things. Further, I note you cannot and do not deny my above documentation and debunking of your various ploys.
Do have a nice day.
You are delusional! You have no idea about the facts in Brazil, plainly, you’re an ignorant person who is not himble or self-aware enough to understand it.
You found an article on the internet that inflates Glenn’s influence? Wow, a smoking gun, right? Please…
It is ludicrous that you’d think you are in a position to argue about Brazil.
What I found is a site devoted to Brazil that chronicled the facts, chronologically. You don’t dispute it.
But Glenn Greenwald does. Moreover, by both temperament and training I recognize fact-evasion, distortion and shilling when I see it, quite independent of the specific issue at hand. You are a shill.
[…those who are at least as corrupt, and even more so, that anyone in the PT party. ]
Mona, please don’t . They may be all corrupt. But PT is in another league.
Dilma was never meant to be president. Who was meant to succeed Lula was Jose Dirceu. But he was arrested by corruption back in 2005 (Mensalão case). He is now arrested again by embezzlement in Petrolão. Lula just picked Dilma to succeed him because, as a populist he is, he tried the women card on Brazilian electorate, simple as that.
We are trying to arrest the corrupt. Even if who assumes may be more corrupt, this is not an utilitarist decision. Dilma committed crimes against the budget law, in order to be reelected. She cannot be back in office again.
Brazilians have a tiny drop of hope now. Letting Dilma and Lula go unpunished we will give up.
Even if you don’t believe me, please just consider what I said.
That pretty well sums up your approach, and is why I do not take you seriously. She was re-elected, by, you know, VOTERS, just about 18 months ago. What you think she was “meant” to be, or your musing on “the woman card,” is wholly irrelevant. If she’s a bad president then replace her — if you can — at the next election.
You cannot and do not deny the various documented debunkings I’ve undertaken in these comments. Antidemocratic nonsense about “tiny drops of hope” and who was “meant to be” what does not change that.
“documented debunkings”?!! What a joke! You’re covering your ears and saying “I don’t believe it, don’t want to hear it! My hero is never wrong!”
You don’t understand the difference btw STJ and STF ( btw, Glenn replaced the original link in the article, which was to a news on the dinner that STJ president had with Temer and others; now it links to a tweet to a person who says, “Gilmar Mendes of STF was there too”. It shows GG originally misunderstood STJ for STF.)
Also, you clearly have 0 understanding about the technical report that just came out in the impeachment charges.
Finally, you believe there is no evidence if corruption against Dilma. Because somehow for the intercept “major events” in Brazil does not involve developments in the investigation of João Santana, Odebrecht, Andrade Gutierrez, and what has been revealed about Dilma’s 2010 and 2014 election, evidence already presented to TSE. Major news, which is not reported here, so you remain ignorant about them.
It shows he made a minor error and corrected it. He always corrects his (rare) factual errors when someone credible points them out.
I do not need to have any understanding of the report, or of Brazil, to see that you operate as a shill. (We could be discussing Oceania; it would make no difference to the nature of your ploys.)
In context, it is not that minor. STJ has no jurisdiction over impeachment and corruption probes of elected officials. Only the Supreme Court does, so the point GG and was entirely off.
It changes nothing about the rest of the article, and independently remains damning with the corrected version.
All I meant is that, when Lula left office with 90% popularity, if he wanted to put a donkey in office, he would succeed. She was a spare tire.
And Its not if she is a good or bad president – that would have to wait until next election.
Its about corruption. This will not need to wait until next election.
It is not antidemocratic if she is being judged by democraticaly ellected congressmen. She knew she could be impeached. She gambled. She’s loosing. Antidemocratic would be to run over the law, as Dilma is trying to do now.
Anyways, thanks for the chat..
I’m strongly against the impeachment. The accusations are too weak and it is too compromised by political maneuvers from corrupt congressmen. It undermines the corruption investigations.
But I agree that Dilma has no legitimacy to be president either. Her last election was a fraud, in multiple ways. There was an unprecedented degree of lies, she campaigned against austerity – going very far and nasty on the attacks against Marina on this matter – and immediately reversed course to do implement the exact same policies she demonized and used to destroy Marina, who was simply being more honest abou the state of public accounts. Dilma falsified the state of public accounts as part of that electoral fraud. Finally, the fraud was perpetrated through Petrobras money financing her campaign.
The problem, both Dilma and Temer were together in this fraud. It is absurd to pick sides now on their dispute: PT and PMDB have been together all these years in all this criminal activity.
The accusations are not weak. They are stronger than Hercules. The report shows that both pedaladas and the credit lines happened.
There was no political maneuvers from the congressmen. If only, Supreme Court interfered in the process to disassemble a previous commission and demanded to form a new one like the Dilma’s lawyers team wanted. Other than that, it followed strictly towards the law.
Their election was a fraud, granted. Temer will be destituted by TSE. But Dilma must be impeached for her fingerprints are far beyond proven at this point. She is no saint. She was Lula’s puppet, but responsible for her acts and omissions.
I am not picking sides. To want Dilma to be impeached is not siding with Temer. Only consequentialists reason like this.
“PT and PMDB have been together all these years in all this criminal activity.”
A statement of fact which omits a bigger truth. All successful BR parties are complicit. All successful BR parties have been together during all years in all this criminal activity, and the way opportunistic politicians habitually jump from party to party — with Tucanos always perching on the fence until the last minute — is one of the smellier indicators of this reality.
Here is another fact flushed out of the golpista’s own mouths: Dilma the individual is as innocent as Bambi compared to Temer. But hey, it’s Brazil. Without a doubt, Temer is better qualified to park his ass in the Palácio do Planalto than Dilma. He’s also just as qualified to sit in the WH as Bush, Obama, Trump, or Clinton.
All parties are/were complicit, but the main actors were PT-PMDB-PP, because they controlled the national the national companies and the federal government.
I don’t buy this narrative that Dilma is “more inocent” compared to Temer. She occupied leadership positions that were essential of the enablement of the corruption scheme; as chairman of Petrobras, as the head of the presidential ticket and campaign that elected both of them fraudulently. The political reponsibility for Petrolao and the corrupt campaign finance system run by these parties and the construction companies should be attributed to Lula and Dilma above everyone else.
I think not. From the article:
Unless that is materially inaccurate, nothing more needs to be said.
it is.
No one advocating for her impeachment in the senate changed their position. this is jus gossip.
Ah, more dishonesty. That no one is changing their position, merely their rationale, is what Greenwald wrote with support/reference to Estadão’s coverage.
How shameless of you.
Did you even read what the blogger at Estadão says?
Can you actually say they are changing their rationale?
“Brazilians have a tiny drop of hope now. Letting Dilma and Lula go unpunished we will give up.”
Insisting on more corruption, not less, means you gave up a long time ago. But do you care to qualify the first statement and tell us which Brazilians you are referring to? Surely not any but the tiniest minority, the ones not concerned about the rising price of beans?
This Thomas v Mona Brazil debate is as authoritative as a doublethinktank. That doesn’t mean my own remarks are, but at least I’ve cracked open a few Brazilian history texts, unlike those who prefer to let Globo do the thinking for them, or that other murder shilling harpy wannabe.
[Insisting on more corruption, not less,…]
Nonsense. Few corruption is too many. Going in favor of impeachment does not imply I am in favor of Temer (I’m not, FYI). Temer assuming is Dilma’s fault. She chose him go run with her for presidency. So don’t blame me for Temer, I didn’t vote for them
[But do you care to qualify the first statement and tell us which Brazilians you are referring to?]
Sure, suit yourself on the link below, page 14:
http://www.paranapesquisas.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BR02_Jun16.pdf
As you see, people suffering from inflation that Dilma stimulated with disastrous economic policies, like the “new economic matrix” lol – i.e. worring about food prices on rise – are against Dilma’s corruption too..
[..but at least I’ve cracked open a few Brazilian history texts,…]
Virtue-signaling much? So we just because you read a lot means you know any better? If the books you read are from our department of education (MEC), you learned nothing but propaganda…
[…unlike those who prefer to let Globo do the thinking for them, or that other murder shilling harpy wannabe.]
First of all, I have nothing but despise for Globo. People say they instigate the coup, I think they have faith in big government, regardless of the politicians.
Ontem à noite (sexta-feira, 01/07), li todos os comentários colocados até então neste espaço e na versão em português. Notei uma coisa interessante da parte dos comentaristas aparentemente brasileiros: os que comentam em inglês são, em sua maioria, favoráveis ao golpe, reproduzindo os argumentos da mídia plutocrática do Brasil; os que comentam em português, por sua vez, tendem a apoiar as conclusões do artigo de Greenwald. Talvez essa cisão se explique pelo fato de muitos dos coxinhas que desfilaram pela Paulista e pela Av. Atlântica com suas serviçais a tiracolo terem Miami como pátria e dominarem o inglês.
Eu, que leio, mas não ouso escrever em inglês, prefiro ler Greenwald no original. E agradeço ao acaso pelo fato de um dia, há anos atrás, ele ter decidido se mudar pra cá. Um cara disse aí que ele se limita a reproduzir o que já foi publicado na mídia brasileira. Mas há uma diferença fundamental: ele estabelece um nexo entre essas informações que a nossa GAFE (Globo, Abril, Folha, Estadão) é incapaz e fazer – salvo algumas raras exceções entre os colunistas da Folha, como Janio de Freitas. A própria coluna de Gaspari que Greenwald menciona faz o maior contorcionismo do mundo para dizer que é golpe, mas não é golpe. Gaspari tenta livrar a cara em relação ao julgamento da História, que virá. Por mim, não livra.
Obrigada, Glenn! Vc realmente ajudou a mudar a narrativa internacional sobre o que está acontecendo no Brasil. Como disse aquela jornalista inglesa que foi chamada de “petista” por Otavinho Frias, o herdeiro da Folha, num debate ocorrido em Londres no último dia 17, o brasileiro, principalmente a mídia brasileira, se importa muito com o que a mídia internacional diz do Brasil. Eles nunca te perdoarão.
I’ve traveled around enough of Brazil and lived in São Paulo long enough to claim to know the country. When I think of the third world I don’t think of the favelas and the people who live in them. I think of people who live in Alphaville, and Temer, Cunha, the pro-corruption protesters, and Cameron and Johnson in the UK (I know that country too), and US soldiers like Breedlove and Petraeus, then the slithering snakes who work at the NSA, and their data customers. But among the most deserving of being rubbished as filthy disease carrying third worlders are the Bush, Clinton, & Obama families, and the sort of people who vote for them.
I don’t get it, Glenn.
*If it’s any consolation, as you must know these kinds of budgetary maneuvers are considered art-form in the U.S. In a sense, one could say some very distinguished U.S. politicians over the years pretty much invented fiscal “pedal’ing” …
I guess if the US is “number one” at anything it is fooling the sheeple and pulling “fast ones” so fast, they do it before the front is even in office!
Even with so much real information available through sources like the Intercept, sheeple swallow the clintinostra with a spoonful of trumpet (analogy borrowed from a CD commenter)
I believe austerity measures are planned for US. It will make it just so much easier for the pathological greedsters to burn the planet to cinders with their fossil fuels, force feed the sheeple with GMOs, and impose “emergency management” everywhere to lock out democracy.
The US is going to pay a non monetary debt, it is a debt of political lackadaisicalness that has accrued enormous interest.
Diogo is unhappy about the reality this article is about
Yes, but you see, Greenwald’s article is about the actual charges in the impeachment proceedings, not the potpourri of charges you’d like to see, but which have not been brought. That he didn’t write about what you think she should be impeached for — but hasn’t been — is irrelevant.
Greenwald correctly reported that the main charge for which Dilma was impeached was not substantiated. He quoted an Associated Press article:
Now, as to these criminal bribes and such you think are credible accusations against Dilma. You link to testimony from a criminal defendant obtaining a lenient plea deal in exchange for his testimony. Surely you realize how tainted and suspect such testimony is?
If that is all credible why was Dilma not impeached for those reasons?
In any event, Greenwald wrote an accurate article showing that the main impeachment charge against Dilma is without support.
You simply do not like this reality, so you criticize the article stating it, and hand-wave about all the accusations — for which Dilma was not impeached — you’d rather see written about.
Finally, your track record here in comments has established you as unreliable. Both in your fact claims, and in your criticisms of the articles here.
The report:
http://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias/arquivos/2016/06/27/laudo-da-junta-pericial
The main reason for her impeachment is there. They concluded the maneuver (pedaladas) happened. They concluded Dilma was not directly involved, but her ministers did manipulate the accounting. One can dispute her omission and responsibilities (or not) over her employees.
Moreover, the second main reason in the impeachment filed, the credit lines opened without congressional approval, they concluded it was illegal and Dilma was directly involved. Therefore, this alone configures a crime of responsibility and reason for impeachment. Even if we dismiss the pedalada issue, which is now a controversial argument against or in favour.
And Diogo is not wrong (fully) over bribery charges on Dilma. It’s only not in this impeachment but in a process running in the electoral court (TSE), over dirty money spent on their presidency campaign (Dilma and Temer).
Yes. They did.
End of.
Not buying it. Presidents/executives world-over do illegal budgeting infractions like that, and it doesn’t result in impeachment.
Yes. They did.
Yes. He is. Or if he’s not, none of your assertions demonstrate it or rebut my reasoning.
But this is the kind of statement that I object to:
“The democratically elected president was impeached despite no allegations of personal corruption — by politicians who are knee-deep in bribery and kickback scandals.”
It is misleadingly well drafted! Semantically it is not inaccurate, but it is a false analogy that gives a false impression against Dilma.
What does “personal corruption” mean? That her corruption was not directly for personal enrichment? Well, the same can be said of the majority of the accused. The lion’s share of the kickbacks was directed to a shadowy organized system of campaign finance, which Dilma was one of the main beneficiaries. The testimonies that Dilma participated are credible.
The impeachment is not about corruption arguably because Congress does not want to go there and risk opening the floodgates. Because they are all corrupt.
“Not buying it. Presidents/executives world-over do illegal budgeting infractions like that, and it doesn’t result in impeachment.”
To begin with, your reasoning – really poor btw – is nothing but a “tu quoque”. What happens around the world regarding budget is meaningless. If anything, is an appeal to hypocrisy to state that Dilma could commit such crime and get away with it just because other presidents and chief executives can.
Moreover, what happened is clearly stated as an infraction susceptible of impeachment IN OUR BRAZILIAN LAW. If in other countries is not, is irrelevant.
Brazilian Constitution in english:
http://www.stf.jus.br/repositorio/cms/portalStfInternacional/portalStfSobreCorte_en_us/anexo/constituicao_ingles_3ed2010.pdf
Law 1079/50 – Crimes of responsibility/malversation (google translate, sorry):
https://translate.google.com.br/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planalto.gov.br%2Fccivil_03%2Fleis%2FL1079.htm&edit-text=
I will explain to you, since you cannot read Portuguese:
Article 86 – defines who has competence to judge the president given the charges:
If charges against the president of the republic are accepted by two-thirds of the chamber of deputies, he shall be submitted to trial before the supreme federal court for common criminal offenses [or before the federal senate for crimes of malversation (responsibility).]
Article 85 – defines what crimes of responsibility/malversion are:
Those acts of the president of the republic which attempt on the federal Constitution and especially on the following, are crimes of malversation:
…
[VI – the budgetary law]
…
[Sole paragraph. These crimes shall be defined in a special law, which shall establish the rules of procedure and trial.]
LAW 1079/50 – special law which on responsibility/malversation crimes asked in the Constitution’s ART 85 S.P. of Brazilian Constitution.
Article 10 – Crimes of responsibility against budget law:
…
6) Order or authorize the opening of credit at odds with the limits established by the Senate without foundation in the budget law or the additional credit or non – compliance with legal prescription;
Ahead on chapter III of this law have the procedures of the trial, if you’re interested you can look yourself.
So if you still don’t buy it, well, best of luck :)
On bribery charges against Dilma, I’m to lazy to do it now for you. But, if you are interested, search for the documents the Lava-Jato taskforce sent to the electoral court (TSE) to be anexed to the process filed by PSDB against Dilma/Temer regarding abuse of economic power in their campaign for the presidency (i.e. corrupted money from state run company sent to PT, a SUPER-PT-PAC of all sorts).
Nonsense, my comment was targeted at you.
I’m not criticizing the article, I only pointed out a couple of errors. It is still a great article.
Temer’s government and the impeachment are ilegitimate and deserving targets for Greenwald’s writing.
But the fact remains that the details of the corruption accusations against PT, including Dilma and Lula, are not reported here. So you wouldn’t know, hence my comment.
By the way, the quote to article by Associated Press has a factual error as well. These were not independent auditors hiered by the Senate. They are in-house legislative technical consultants who work for the Senate.
FORA TEMER!
You don’t know nothing about whats happening..
Incredible how they let this kind of journalism have voice.
What a shame
Esta é a Era do Governo da Desafeição e do Político Fanfarrão! líderes que não têm qualquer expressão, que não tem qualquer influencia no Brasil e no Mundo . Olha-se para as lideranças do mundo se vê, com raras exceções, a mesma coisa…
Pobre Mundo ! Pobre Brasil
Os Golpistas não estão nem ai. Já assumiram o Golpe porque ser golpista neste país nunca foi problema . Na argentina todos os golpistas foram parar atrás das grades, aqui viram comentaristas da Globo. No Chile Pinochet foi preso. Aqui temos a cultura do estupro, mas também temos a cultura do Golpe.
There are some factual errors in this article.
First: the judges at the dinner with Temer were not from the Supreme Court. So this sentence is completely false: “So Temer is literally meeting in secret with the very judges who are deciding impeachment and corruption probe.” STJ does not decide corruption cases against elected officials and does not have any responsibility in impeachment (besides, the Supreme Court doesnot preside or judge the impeachment case, it is the Senate that does).
Also, to be clear, the forensic report did not say that the administration did not engage in illegal budget maneuverings. On contrary, it confirmed that pedaladas happened and are illegal. It said simply that Dilma did not personally intervene. It is indeed a big win for her, but without exonerating her administration.
I have been following Greenwald articles about Brazil.It seems to me that he is not reporting the facts the way is taking place .He is doing his side interpretation of the reality.That is not journalism .
There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. To write about humans is itself incredibly biased, as it places undue importance on human life.
Agree 100% . Perhaps he is getting a piece of it?
IRS…audit please
You are completely misinformed.
I don’t believe you.
What he says is actually true. The dinner was given by a stj justice, not a stf (supreme court) justice.
http://m.oglobo.globo.com/brasil/temer-busca-apoio-de-aecio-para-eleger-aliado-de-cunha-na-camara-19612532
I don’t believe Glenn made an error. If he made an error such as you describe reliable sources should have notified him of it. It’s minor, and he’d have corrected it. Show me where someone other than anonymous people in his comments cite this “error.” (I do not read Portuguese.)
The link to the NYT article in the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph doesn’t seem pertinent (Temer’s wife and her f***ing tattoos, WTF !).
This one would be : http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-privatization-idUSKCN0YE0HK
An excerpt : “The list of ready-for-sale assets is still in the making. Yet, interim President Michel Temer wants to sell majority stakes in the fuel distribution unit of oil producer Petróleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras (PETR4.SA) and in power utility Furnas Centrais Elétricas SA, and in ventures in which airport authority Infraero has minority interests, the sources said. […]
Qatar Investment Authority, Abu Dhabi Investment Co PJSC, and Mubadala Development Co PJSC are among the sovereign wealth funds invited to attend the roadshows, three of the sources said. Canadian investment firms and European infrastructure companies have already been contacted too, the sources added.”
Considering all those bullshiters seem rotten to the core, the current puppet-president won’t be able to run in the next election, Dilma seems clean, and removing the PT from the executive branch for too long might actually, in this context, prove beneficial to the Lula-camp, is it in any way conceivable Dilma won’t be indicted after all, and that, once these ‘reforms’ will have been voted, the PMDB will try to reach a deal with her, something like : you can have your presidency back, provided you support the agenda we imposed while you were gone” ?…
Lest some people in the US think that this is happening in a distant land ? you know, those funny Latinos! ? you don’t have to go too far back into your own history, and you’ll find striking similarities. Other than conservatives waxing about the serene and bucolic past of the US would have you believe, the spoils system was deeply entrenched in US politics from the 1830s well into, well, into today.
And it is the spoils system that is at the root of Brazil’s problem. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula’s predecessor, tried and failed to contain it. The way he chose was to weed out small parties that were little more than a cacique’s fiefdom, and to make it more difficult to switch parties. You wouldn’t believe how politicians in Brazil migrate from one party to the other, parties that are supposedly of the most diverse political outlook. The biggest flaw of his idea was that the biggest party of them all, PMDB is by far the most corrupt one. With all due respect to the few decent people in PMDB I am tempted to call corruption the only glue that holds PMDB together.
Brazil’s political corruption won’t be eliminated if you don’t cut off the spoils system. The one hopeful thing about Brazil’s politics is that civil society is very rich in activities. Structural changes should be made to give civil society far more say in naming administrative leadership and in monitoring government actions.
what a terrible and misleading article.
Dilma and the Workers Party in Brazil is involved up to their necks in corruption scandals. Would you like to have a president that cheated her way to be reelected?
Also, it is a democracy (government by the people) and she has 7% approval rate. It is less approval than our last president impeached and he was impeached for a far less problematic issue (a popular car bought with government money).
And yet, you cite no errors in the piece. Instead, you spew a bunch of assertions, several of which are irrelevant. This site has been entirely upfront about the corruption in all Brazilian parties, including PT. But that is irrelevant to the above article.
As to Dilma, however, I’ve seen no evidence that she is “up to her neck” in corruption.
In sum: your comment fails for both unsourced assertions, and for non sequiturs.
You’ve seen no evidence simply because you’re misinformed, because the evidence is not reported here. There is many credible accusations against her, in particular of soliciting bribes from big construction companies to fund her last election campaign. Her campaign director is in jail for that and it is completely implausible that he was acting alone.
The evidence against her and her associates are strong. She rised through the ranks of power through the epicenter of corruption: Petrobras and the energy sector. She was the chairman while billions and billions were diverted to her party and its allies. The leader of her party in the Senate, another Petrobras alumnus, was arrested. Her key ministers were caught trying to shut down the investigations. All are now on record saying that Dilma was aware and involved.
None of this is reported here, even though very similar events incriminating Temer’s associates are.
Can you provide some links to this information? Thanks.
http://www.implicante.org/blog/pt-um-partido-100-escandalos/
PT, a party, 100 scandals.
this is an one hundred sample of the scandals of PT. like a top 10 list, which does not encompass everything
Glenn did not gave the importance it needs, but this very senate report explicit says dilma was in charge of corruption (stealing congress prerrogatives, see my post below).
Dilma is corrupt. This very article of the intercept shows it.
citing a totally partisan anti-PT website totally exposes your inability to provide an answer to Sillyputty’s question. Try citing a report from a non-partisan INDEPENDENT cite and journalist.
They won’t, because they can’t. This is the anti-PT goons integrity level. They delve in Alex-Jones-grade sites and insist on spouting ages old lies and hoaxes as truth.
Whenever ink has to touch actual paper, for law purposes, all these “100 scandals” evaporate, and the PT enemies are forced to resort to “pedaladas” or to spend weeks on national TV talking about two small rowing boats Lula’s wife bought.
I could and did provide. You failed to read it. Not my fault.
You claim that the links I’ve shown are old lies and hoaxes. Since the burden of proof lies within the one who make the claims, please enlighten us about each and every of the 100 lies and hoaxes I provided.
The 2 boats were not the issue. You know that. You keep lying asking yourself “why this concern over 2 boats” when you know the real issue is to where these boats were delivered.
– who owns the property where the boats were delivered?
– who paid the purchase of the property?
– where the money to pay the property comes from?
– why there is a cell tower just for this property, when placed elsewhere would reach more clients?
– who approved the installation of this tower? Who paid it?
– what telecommunication company owns this cell tower? did this company had any business to anyone related to that property? Is this company bankrupt now?
Nobody cares about the 2 boats. There are bigger issues to be solved about this property first. Then, there are questions about other properties. all of this, just for a former president, not Dilma.
Given PT corruption is beyond a 10 digit sum, the 2 boats are just dimes.
Cared you to open and read the links you’d know that all of its links have a multitude of media outlets all across the spectrum.
Cared you to read my answer to the very end where I answered that this very senate report Glenn uses to prove his point is rather a prove in favor to impechment precisely BECAUSE it attests Dilma’s involvements in the crimes she is being charged off.
Ultimately this totally exposes that you didn’t fully read and hurried to expose your self righteous smarter-than-thou attitude. Or you are intellectually dishonest.
And besides, finding a non-partisan is rather dificult. I find implicant anti-BS, not anti-PT. So each media one would point, other can dispute.
And independent, there’s isn’t a precise definition of it. I only know that many brazilian outlets that called themselves INDEPENDENT – conversa afiada, cafezinho, brasil 247, carta maior et caterva i.e. esgotosfera – were simply paid by PT administration to praise Lula, Dilma and PT, thus not independent at all….
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/21/dilma-rousseff-illegal-campaign-donations-testimony
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2016/05/1767235-prosecutor-general-to-request-opening-of-investigation-into-rousseff-and-lula.shtml
http://m.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2016/04/1758307-propina-abasteceu-campanha-de-dilma-de-2014-diz-andrade-gutierrez.shtml
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-brazil-s-dilma-rousseff-knew-about-bribery-scheme-says-senator-2191547
I pasted a number of links but for some reason my comment was not published…
Thanks, the links showed up down-thread.
The first link is hearsay.
The second <a href="link and third link acted like a paywall, and then defaulted to a page not in English that I was unable to read.
The fourth link was hearsay, as well.
Hearsay?! It is testimony by her allies and the people who bankrolled her campaigns. You dismiss that as hearsay?
By your standard, almost no one in Brazil would be incriminated, certainly not Temer and the ministers in his government denounced by Glenn.
But I suppose that’s the American way? Since nothing is considered corruption in this country…
No, I call it hearsay.
Incriminating is not the same as proving.
Hardly. There’s plenty of corruption to go around.
It’s funny how the same instrument can be used, bent, distorted in order to fit a narrative. So this devastating report would stop impeachment in its tracks?
Let’s recap what charges based on “crimes of responsibility” according to our laws and constitution were filed against Dilma:
1. Pedaladas (creative accounting – using state banks to finance the government)
2. Issuing credit without congressional approval
3. Petrolão – arguably one of the biggest cases of corruption of mankind.
Let’s then see what the report says about them:
Pedaladas: the report states without a doubt that there were such maneuvers, that government delayed payments, therefore made a credit operation with its banks (what is prohibited) causing an extra of + $400M in interests, but couldn’t link it with Dilma, only with the government ministers. So, since ALL ministers are Dilma’s crew, there’s something called “omission: error, fault, mistake – a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention”. For instance, if a weld fails and pipelines explodes and kill, you will not charge the welder, but the engineer supervising and commissioning it, understand? The fact she did not look after her subalterns’ work, not only characterizes her fault (thus crime), but moreover implies she is not fit to govern.
Credits: This is critical. The report clearly states that, a) the credits needed congressional approval – characterizing the crime of responsibility – and b) Dilma acted without any doubt in these matters. But you say “it was the pedaladas charge that dominated the debate all along”. According to whom? How come this report would stop impeachment? Wouldn’t it push it further, since it proves Dilma’s involvement in this second issue (credits)?
Petrolão: It was not the object of the report, but since you said the report should stop the impeachment it’s worth mentioning. You don’t wreck once the second oil company of the Americas overnight. It takes years of corruption to drain billions and billions of bribery, overspending, propaganda, and useless projects. The cases where Dilma was on the PB board prior to her presidency is not the case, but once on the presidency she nominated the PB’s president and she was responsible for PB, once PB is a mixed state-private company where the federal government has the biggest share and the ultimate word on any issue. To those who are against its full privatization, it is federal property, and thus federal responsibility. If Dilma overlooked its management, it is ultimately her fault.
Since you are so convict this trial is a coup I’d like to know what your opinion is on: a) Who filed the impeachment – Janaina Paschoal, Miguel Reale, and Helio Bicudo – can you say they are perpetrating a coup, even if a parliamentary one? If not, can you say they are being used by someone or something? What are your views on each of them? What can you say about them?
Since – just for the sake of the argument – the first charge is null, should the trial end? What about the second and third charges? Should we dismiss them altogether?
You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Brazilians had the opportunity to implement a parliamentary system but in a referendum voted for the presidential system. I agree with you: In a parliamentary system, no head of government would survive the hearings in the Commission on Impeachment. But the law of fiscal responsibility does not establish criminal responsibility for the acts of people that you bear a political responsibility for.
Temer made a startling observation that only supports the “coup” accusation: “Let’s have some sort of semi-parliamentarism.” Well, you don’t change your constitution through the backdoor, do you?
With all due respect towards Miguel Reale and Hélio Bicudo, it definitely is unfortunate that they let Janaina Paschoal dominate the discussion in the Commission on Impeachment. I do think that she is sincere but her zeal seems to cloud her judgement. As a law professor, I would have hoped that she had been able to see the difference between political responsibility and criminal responsibility. And does it really surprise you that politicians Temer, Cunha, Renan & Co. should be cynical enough to hitch on that wagon?
“But the law of fiscal responsibility does not establish criminal responsibility for the acts of pople that you bear a political responsibility for.”
False. Or true. The LRF does not. But the constitution does:
Section II – Duties of the President of the Republic
Article 84. The President of the Republic shall have the [EXCLUSIVE POWER] to: (CANo. 23, 1999; CA No. 32, 2001)
…
II – exercise, [with the assistance] of the Ministers of state, the higher management of The federal administration;
…
http://www.stf.jus.br/repositorio/cms/portalStfInternacional/portalStfSobreCorte_en_us/anexo/constituicao_ingles_3ed2010.pdf (PAGE 70)
This is clear that the president is responsible for the management of the federal institutions, for he/she has the _exclusive power_ over them. The ministers _assists_ the president, do not govern.
But then again, in case it wasn’t written, how ludicrous should be the need of such basic rule be written? Isn’t that obvious? Where in the world can you hire someone to work under your supervision and when something happens you can claim innocence and blame your employee???
“…difference between political responsibility and criminal responsibility”
I find hardly to agree in this one. She’s a very well renowned Dr. in criminal law, she clearly knows the difference. But even if you are right, why does it really matter in an impeachment process? An impeachment process is not exclusively political nor juridical, but a mix between them. The senators who will judge the president actually can vote solely on political perspectives or solely on criminal perspectives. After all, they will answer to no one but themselves. If they vote to impeach her just to oust her, this impeachment was the rule set she implicitly had to agree when she took office. All presidents must. And since nothing changed in the law or constitution, it is still set and working.
On the presidency x parliamentary, I agree. We cannot let them change our system. We should fight back. But that’s beside the point, that has nothing to do with Dilma’s impeachment.
“And does it really surprise you that politicians Temer, Cunha, Renan & Co. should be cynical enough to hitch on that wagon?” What does this has anything to do regarding Dilma??
I used to have a lot of respect of Mr. Greenwald. I thought he was a journalist, serious writer, able to report true facts and being unbiased. Dilma, Lula, and PT party are the most corrupt group of politicians to walk the face of this planet. The evidence of their criminal acts are everywhere. Granted, Temer belongs to a corrupt party himself, but there is ZERO evidence of him being involved directly in any of the corruption schemes perpetrated by that Dilma, Lula, and the PT party. I can’t believe that Mr. Greenwald could come to the defense of a party that was stealing from poor old pensioners to enrich themselves. What kind of a man are you? Let me answer for you. You have no ethics and no morals and based on this article, you also believe in disseminating wrong information. Isn’t that what the Nazis did? Shame on you.
Obviously you don’t know history and if you do, you do not have the intellect, call it IQ if you wish, to process and interpret the information before you, and the profoundness of my comment. I was going to attempt to explain it to you, but I am afraid that your small brain can’t process anything that involves moral and ethics based on your replies to me and others about Mr. Greenwald’s article.
Oh, I surely do. More than enough to know why your comment is very stupid. So utterly dumb I won’t substantively address it; all intelligent people already know why it’s inane.
Com esse tipo de gente que só acredita na Globo, Estadão e Folha , o Brasil nunca vai sair da Idade da Pedra Lascada
I know nobody talks about it but Romero Jucá is responsible for a genocide when he was president of FUNAI
That’s only half the truth now, isn’t it Mr. Greenwald? The auditors didn’t say Dilma didn’t participate in the “pedaladas”, just that they couldn’t find proof of her direct involvement by looking at the documents available at the moment. But in this case there are two problems: 1) the federal government is forbidden to borrow from state-controlled financial entities; 2) Dilma’s omission may be seen as a responsibility crime. So just by not intervening to remedy the problem 1 she might have incurred in a responsibility crime.
The auditors also affirmed they have no doubt of her direct involvement with the supplemental credit decrees, which is another responsibility crime.
Also there is now little doubt that multi million kickbacks fueled her presidential campaign, and this is an electoral crime whose judgment is still ongoing. If convicted, her election could be annulled.
Besides all that, we know that her campaign used government controlled institutions (post office, banks, et al) to spread lies about her opponents, which should make anything rethink calling the plight democratic.
And since great (and evil) minds think alike, yesterday Bill Clinton was spotted secretly meeting with the very head of the Justice Dept. whose supposed independence, credibility, and integrity…
I think you spelled “peddling” wrong in the first paragraph.
It should probably be “pedaling” – like pedaling a bicycle, not peddling wares.
Meanwhile, back in the U.S.
Cory Doctorow has a great column discussing Bernie Sanders NYT op-ed on Brexit and Trump. I’ve not yet read the latter, but Doctorow’s analysis is independently worthwhile:
Under no circumstances would I vote for Donald Trump. But neither do I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton to prevent it. Lesser of Two Evils Voting has had its run, and it has to stop.
If things must get very bad before the neoliberals fucking wake up and behave with decency — at a minimum, like FDR New Deal Democrats — then so be it.
Let the Ultimatum Game play out.
Hear! Hear, Mona! (See, we do agree on some things.) Anyone who votes for Hillary because they fear Trump is a chickenshit. This is war, and war is damn uncomfortable. We may have to suffer four years of a terrible president in order to reclaim our democracy.
Take back the democracy! Vote third party!
That scenario only works if there is a certain outcome for the Brewster’s Millions scenario. Voting for neither is understandable but is actually a head in the sand scenario. There are other candidates, Jill Stein for one. What you might also consider is the that wallstreet’s proxy, adolf hillary, will bankrupt the country with increased wars and conflict, bankrupt the US economy with the wallstreet LOANS FOR ASSETS program, bankrupt the future of students with her enhanced repayment scheme, allow wallstreet thieves to do another run at home loan fraud, get your children killed in her favorite draft women plan, and generally destroy the entire country as 250,000,000 people in poverty due south make another run for the border.
What does a lecture about the evils of Hillary Clinton have to do with Mona’s comment?
Sensitive huh?I have yet to see one stinking HRC sign yet,and I live on LI,a very illiberal area.Plenty of Sanders.More Sanders than Trump actually,so far.
All I know about this is that Brasil,Ecuador,Argentina,Venezuela and Bolivia are all on USzions shite list, Argentina and now Brasil have knuckled under and it looks like they have Maduro on the ropes.
Sad for the less than affluent peoples of the region.
The banksters are smiling.
If your “sensitive huh” remark was aimed at me, I have no idea why. My point was that Mona is not a Hillary Clinton fan, and has frequently stated that there is no way she would vote for her; thus, my questioning of the need to lecture Mona on the evils of Hillary Clinton.
In my opinion, when Americans express their willingness to let things get “very bad” under President Trump, it is in part because they (consciously or otherwise) expect things to get “very bad” not for them personally, but for others.
A not unrelated observation: Approximately 85-90% of African-American general election voters will vote for Hillary Clinton. So, I am certain, will a substantial majority of LGBT voters, Muslim voters, Latino voters, and Jewish voters. I’m sure there are a number of reasons for this, but one of them, I suspect, is that some people can’t afford the luxury of letting things get “very bad.”
To put it another way, destroying the village in order to save it might seem like a good strategy — unless you live in the village.
Gator, nothing you write changes Doctorow’s analysis and citation to the Ultimatum Game scenario. It isn’t necessary that majorities of any cohort support Hillary Clinton — or any other neoliberals in this election or in one a few years from now.
It only takes enough who refuse to vote for the Democrat. Either by staying home, or by voting for anyone else.
Would the more vulnerable prefer boiling slowly to immediate pain? No doubt. But enough will refuse to boil. that’s how the Ultimate Game works in this political dynamic.
Given that you voted for Hillary Clinton in the Florida primary, it’s understandable that you are not all that concerned about boiling.
Really, prove it. But in proving it you’re going to have to prove that there was no significant number of Jewish, LGBT, Muslim, Latino or whatever minority groups who supported Bernie and/or refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I’m curious about something–your view of the American people. To be specific, do you honestly believe that if Donald Trump is elected president of America that let’s say, suddenly there will be a statistically significant increase in the number of hate crimes (or crimes generally) against the groups you listed that go unpunished? Or alternatively, let’s say there will be some push by state and federal legislature to treat those groups less favorably than the vast majority of the Republican party seeks to treat them today?
Here’s the thing, the vast majority of Americans are decent people. They aren’t going to engage in, nor will they tolerate some sort of violence (physical or legal) against all those minority groups, who just happen to be friends, family and neighbors of just about everybody in America. So basically your entire argument is an appeal to an unreasoning fear absent proof (and by definition it would be speculative at best) that such outcomes are likely.
Okay then a politics that advances those groups interests in any meaningful or expeditious way is doomed by the unreasoning fear that things would get “very bad” for them under a Donald Trump presidency that is any different in kind than any Republican.
You honestly believe, given the institutional forces at play and public sentiment in this country that Donald Trump could “destroy” America before the public together with many powerful factions inside and outside of government, didn’t remove Donald Trump and his allies from office? Seriously? If you’d do, then I’ve really overestimated your intelligence as an attorney and given you more credit than I should for understanding how things actually work in America as opposed to everyone’s fevered imaginations and their propensity for seeing everything through the lens of identity politics and fear.
Dude, African-Americans experience legal and extra-legal violence in this country every day. They also vote Democrat by 80-90% in every election, and this election will be no different. And it’s not because they’re stupid.
Your privilege is showing, big time.
A terrible president can do a lot of damage in a hurry. See Bush, George W. And in my opinion, Trump makes GWB look like a cross between Einstein and Gandhi.
As a side note, I’m intrigued by your reference to my “intelligence as an attorney.” Are you suggesting attorneys are more intelligent than non-attorneys? Nothing in my 2 decades practicing law and interacting with hundreds of lawyers would support that theory. Attorneys are like everybody else — some are extremely bright, some thick as posts, most somewhere in between. (You, for what it’s worth, I would place in the “exremely bright” category, even though you’re often wrong in my humble opinion. As for me, meh.)
Or by “intelligence as an attorney” do you mean competence as an attorney? I’m reasonably competent in one very narrow field of law in which I have extensive experience; otherwise, I don’t know jack shit.
And how is that voting Democratic Party 80-90% working out for them from “every day extra-legal violence” to “mass incarceration” to economic dislocation all aided and abetted by the mainstream of the Democratic Party going on 40 years? Or have you not been paying attention to politics in this country for that long?
Frankly, you don’t know shit about me or my purported “privilege” which is none. I’m half Mexican, most of all of one side of my family has Hispanic surnames and dark skin. I grew up with a father who was paralyzed at age 30 (becoming a quadriplegic) when me and my sister were 4 and 5 respectively. My mom pumped gas, and we survived off SS disability. Anything, with the exception of law school loans, I worked for doing manual labor and saving my money including working full time as an undergrad at night while going to school in day.
Really and which laws did George W. pass with a compliant Congress that directly threatened those groups in listed in some meaningful way different than every other Republican administration over the last 40 years? Didn’t happen.
Fair enough. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt of being on the brighter than average side, and again asking you to answer at least one of my questions either in this post or the one you responded to that establishes, with objective data, you unreasoning fear that a) Donald Trump could do what he says, or b) that he could be any worse than any other Republican over last 40 years. I’ll wait.
I did not mean competence I meant intelligence. On average, statistically, attorneys who get accepted to law school (at least top 3 tiers) and finish, are significantly above the population mean in “intelligence”. That is not to say there are not intelligent people (formally educated and not) in all walks of life as that has been my experience as well. Again, not my point, except to the extent I’m surprised a fellow attorney is making some of the arguments you are from an appeal to fear to pure unsubstantiated speculation.
You don’t think GW Bush did unusual damage as president? Seriously? Maybe you’re right if one doesn’t count: allowing the worst terrorist attack ever committed on US soil; ordering the unprovoked invasion of a defenseless sovereign nation based on lies too many to count, thus causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people; establishing torture (TORTURE!!) as official American policy; appointing Supreme Court justices who eviscerated the Voting Rights Act; presiding over a globe-rattling economic meltdown that disproportionately affected vulnerable populations; letting poor black folks drown in New Orleans…. That’s just off the top of my head.
I certainly take you at your word regarding your background, but I also recall you boasting in this forum about having “plenty of money” nowadays. Money confers privilege, does it not? And when you blithely assume there is nothing to fear from giving incalculable power to someone as bigoted, volatile and ignorant as Trump, you are flaunting that privilege (as well as a certain lack of imagination).
Can/will Trump do the things he says he intends to do? I dunno. But it strikes me as the height of good sense to choose not to find out.
@ Gator90
What do any of the above have to do with the discussion (or more accurately the premise you advanced i.e. that certain minority groups have much to fear and risk as a function of not voting for Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party for that matter)? Answer: nothing.
Fair enough, but that is the case (attempts to disenfranchise various groups) no matter which Republican over the last 60 years have occupied the White House or controlled a branch of Congress. In other words, you’ve distilled down the essence of voting for the Democratic Party as “it’s about the Supreme Court”. Again, I’ll say fair enough. If you believe that making appointments to the Supreme Court is the most valuable political power to wield, and most consequential in terms of actual effects on the groups of minorities you say will be harmed and at risk, as opposed to the legislative branch, then again, I guess that’s a least a defensible argument. I don’t agree with it, but it is a valid one at one level of analysis.
Really? And the Democratic Party wasn’t complicit going on 35 + years in creating the very conditions that led to that global economic meltdown and the anemic response to it? How about “mass incarceration”, “tough on crime sentencing,” or “gutting of welfare system” or any number of other policies supported by the significant numbers of Democratic Party, including President Bill Clinton, . . . you think those were good for the groups you singled out? But, again, fair enough, as soon as you bring data to demonstrate an unprovoked war (again supported by the vast majority of the Democratic Party elites) and the response to a natural disaster was worse than policies the Democratic Party elites have championed I’d be prepared to be persuaded on the merits of that argument.
Moreover, when it comes to “war”, by your logic you should be absolutely blaming all the members of the Democratic Party (rank and file together with elites) that supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as complicit in harming the very groups you seek to protect, correct? They are just as complicit as George W. Bush in that without those Democratic Party members support (or in the absence of their unified opposition) he likely wouldn’t have had the political cover necessary to engage in either.
I have plenty of money in the sense I don’t have a mortgage (only law school loan debt) and can make enough money to survive by living simply and not extravagantly, because I inherited a home. And because I worked for 20 years before becoming an attorney that included a partial pension I will be able to draw on at 65 and a small sum I paid into SS that will also provide an earned benefit. But part of that living “simply” means I don’t have health insurance, dental or vision because I can’t afford it without taking on a whole bunch of clients of they type that can pay working on issues I have no interesting in undertaking. So it’s a trade off. I stick to my principles and bear the economic burden of doing so. Most don’t or can’t, particularly when they have children. That is in part why I never had children, I didn’t want to use them as the excuse I make for compromising my values and doing things that perpetuate the policies and issues I fight against, because I quite frankly don’t think people can have their cake and eat it too (i.e. work as a lawyer for the very entities and endeavors advancing their legal interests, while making some nominal charitable contributions to organizations that fight against those very policies and endeavors).
Not the kind of money I have it sure doesn’t.
I don’t know about blithely doing one thing or another. But I’m pretty sure it isn’t a function of my “privilege” that I don’t overreact to irrational fears, or overstate the impact of certain actions or elections in this nation.
Then don’t you think it behooves you to find out before you speculate on it? But I can pretty much guarantee you as a lawyer, and one who worked for multiple federal agencies at various points, and who was a political science major and who has worked on quite a few political campaigns as a volunteer, Donald Trump has next to no chance of accomplishing things like deporting (much less identifying) 12 million people, or building a wall that isn’t a giant ineffective boondoggle, or banning all Muslims, or “legalizing” torture any more than any other politician could or would.
Again, fair enough. Classic LOTE analysis and one that many are finding to be unpersuasive. Also ensuring that change will be nothing more than glacial for the groups you purport to care about and/or that the status quo is perpetuated as a function of game theory.
And I’d say that anyone who is fine with the status quo and glacial incremental change is probably the one who is “privileged”. And in fact if we openly compared net worth, and ethnic background et al (markers of “privilege”) I’d be willing to bet you as a Jewish attorney with a narrow specialty that pays the bills living in a state like Florida, then it is you who is likely much more “privileged” than I will ever be. So maybe you should take that line of argument off the table before you look foolish advancing it.
Interesting point regarding children. My natural aversion to risk is certainly exacerbated by them.
Just out of curiosity, what sort of lifting is the word “Jewish” doing in the phrase “Jewish attorney with a narrow specialty that pays the bills living in a state like Florida”?
…
Emphasis mine
…
I realize this is anecdotal, but I’ve been following many Blacks on twitter for a long time now, and in my timeline regarding that 80 to 90 percent number, it’s pretty much flipped as far as voting for Hillary Clinton is concerned. Every day I can read and share with Blacks I follow, and or interact with, piles of facts and information about Hillary Clinton stating the reasons why they did not vote for her in a primary and, under no circumstance, will vote for her if she is the Democratic Party candidate in the general. I also see many Blacks tearing into others who lean Hillary. They don’t just berate them though, they fill their timeline with facts about Hillary’s corruption. Clinton’s “Super Predator” quote was and still is a festival of what a low and conniving record of dangerous actions and words that Clinton proudly trumpets.
Ditto. And African-Americans such as those that write at Black Agenda Report.
Moreover, blacks are no less subject to Doctorow’s Ultimatum Game dynamic than anyone else.
If only there were recent data, based on actual election voting, that could shed some light on whether HRC enjoys broad popularity among black voters….
Hopefully he discussed ways of ending corruption in Brazil. A recent US Supreme Court decision (pdf) perhaps points the way:
While many people are probably skeptical that corruption can be ended with a mere re-definition of a word, it is also true that many people overlook the simple, obvious solutions by making problems overly complex. The US the Supreme Court has cut the Gordian knot that stymied politicians from fully indulging their taste for the luxuries of life, paid for by their admirers, who never demand “official acts” in return. Brazil’s legal system may be distinct, but certain things are universal, and I’m sure they can benefit from the profound (in its simplicity) legal thinking of the US Supreme Court justices.
Excellent recap and update of the most important democracy on the planet at this time – Brasil – the canary in the coalmine. It doesnt makes sense that a group of corrupt persons would so easily discard the system unless they had an agenda to overthrow the democracy before they were elected.
If indeed this is a complete coup to subvert democracy and rob the public of Petrobras, then we will also see an attack upon the STATE BANKS – always a target when the sponsors of coup are the IMF, Rothschilds, or anyone fronting for them.
It looks like the system is devolving into chaos. Venezuela seems to be going down also. Dilma offered to hold elections soon. That might stop the country from sliding in civil war. There is still no effort to fix the economy? You would think that would be priority one in both Brazil and Venezuela.
I suspect US involvement, especially in Venezuela. I wish there was reliable Latin America news site like Asia Times or RT or Press TV. Looks like I’ll have to wait for Pepe Escobar and RT to sort things out.
On the other hand, maybe it is better not to know.
Being a solid independent, i notice things that are important to major conflicts but which may seem inconsequential to most. And what occurs to me now is the look on Jesse Ventura’s face when he had flown to some remote location to meet a certain someone who backed out last minute but managed to get word to him, and i quote, about “CULLING THE HERD”.
Take a look at TeleSur.
It looks pretty good. I’ll add it to my news sources.
Thank you.
The U.S. went through all the same things with the ridiculous impeachment of Clinton over something that was never anybody’s business. One difference is that the goons were a few votes shy. But the other was that in the U.S. impeachment would have led to a vice president of the same party, whereas in Brazil it was a route to changing the whole direction of the government – the same model that saw Lincoln replaced with Andrew Johnson, not exactly a leader of the same vision! Whatever other lessons we might draw, one is that countries need to actually LOOK at the stupid things in their constitutions, and not just take a nothing-will-ever-go-wrong-until-it-does attitude. We have people in the U.S. who want to abolish the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote without a second thought of what a gang of thugs running around Washington DC shooting people on Election Day would do to the results!
Take care of yourself Glenn – these guys look to have few limits. I worry how far they are willing to go against dissent. In the mean time keep up the excellent reporting – best to you and the people of Brazil.
Ditto on that. Brazen. Temer, all the pics, in each one, he just looks evil.
Mr. Greenwald, I congratulate you for you coverage about these matters, but I must say that you said a wrong information: It was about the raise in the judges’ salary. In fact there was a raise, but this raise was to the people who work in the judiciary, not the judges. It was to the workers, not the members. Unfortunately, the people in Brazil who work in the state need law not to have their salary “eaten” by inflation. And the government in the last 10 years (yes, TEN) didn’t aprove any law to these people. On the other hand, the judges EVERY YEAR have their salary corrected. They don’t suffer inflation. So, please, don’t think this raise was to the judges, who already have a HUGE salary. It is all a strategy of the government who spends years and years not approving the law correcting the salary of the people who work in the judiciary (not the judges!) and, suddenly, it seems like it is a huge raise. This raise was to the workers, and ONLY THEM. These people had the inflation destructed 50% of their “buying power”. This 41% raise will be completed only in 2019! I know it wasn’t a really good time to approve such a law, but I ask you to think about the thousands of families who in the last ten years had directly suffered the effects of inflation. Thank you.
Brazil just keeps getting one blow after another. Amazing how these scumbags think that an entire country is their own playground and that there will be no consequences for their actions.
It makes me think of the summit in Canada with Obama and Trudeau and Pena Neito, where they talked about how great TPP is and completely ignored the fact, for example, that Mexico is killing its own protesting teachers.
It is as if most of the world exists completely outside of the view of these “leaders.” Austerity and privatization are what The Corrupt want, and if the militarized police have to shoot down the citizens to make these plans go forward, well, that is the cost of doing business.
Theirs was not an unreasonable expectation. They simply didn’t count on the global reach of new media, and that Glenn Greenwald, David Miranda and other Intercept staff are in Brazil.
Five families of oligarchs control the major media in Brazil, so the corrupt, right-wing elites always been able to control the narrative — until now!
(Here’s hoping Glenn et al. have super duper personal security.)
Yup, real journalism is so terribly needed these days. Look at all of the outright lies about Corbyn we saw published in the UK papers of late–even in The Guardian. I treasure TI.
Pretty sure with the Guardian Jonathan Freedland has a lot to do with the anti-Corbyn error-ridden “reporting.” His Israel-apologist heart sure loved the “antisemtism” Labour “story.”
Btw, Mona, they now have a #SnakesOnAPlane hashtag! ba ha ha ha ha!
Your admiration is a bit out of control. Glenn does not have influence in Brazil. Everything that he is reporting is copied from original reporting in the mainstream medai in Brazil. He did not change the narrative.
Likely true, he didn’t change the narrative, but he broadened the scope as he has a global English readership who wants to know what is happening to Brasil. Meaning it is no “small potatoes” what Glen does.
That is indeed true, he has been very influential in the way the story is reported outside of Brazil. But still, there has been no impact on the events or how the political campa behave, not even the information available for the Brazilian public opinion. The fact is, Intercept has done zero original reporting about these events, merely commenting on the news published elsewhere and even so doing it very superficially and selectively.
Excelent!
I sent this link to my daughter-in–law.
She said that the President is “a liar and a thief” and she hopes that she never gets the presidency again.
She also said that she doesn’t comment on politics and religion. I think she has offered her opinion and gotten into trouble, as opposed to speaking for other Brazilian citizens.
I try to inform. Mr. Greenwald is far more successful with that than I was today.
I’m afraid your daughter in law is either blinded with hatred, or she might be one of those who don’t care about the real motive, but is instead driven by ideology.
“Whatever the motives were for getting rid of Dilma, illegality and corruption plainly had nothing to do with it.”
On the contrary, one of the things held against Dilma was that she did not interfere with the carwash investigation, thereby endangering the skins of a host of corrupt politicians. These, in turn, moved to impeach Dilma, partially to limit that investigation and protect themselves.
Este governo interino é o Brasil da saúde vergonhosa, do sistema escolar pobre e desassistido e com a ufania de ter dinheiro no cofre para gastar mal ou gastar pior do que se poderia imaginar.
Major respect and kudos to Glenn Greenwald and the rest of The Intercept staff than propelled this coup into the news, and forced it to be covered properly. This team totally undermined the corrupt motives of corrupt politicians for removing a democratically elected president whom they cannot defeat via the voters.
Question for you Glenn, about this:
Would an outlet such as Folha de São Paulo have the will and/or the resources to undertake this kind of coverage absent the role of The Intercept? I know you hate taking credit for anything, but from a purely objective perspective it seems that this news outlet was the catalyst for undermining Brazil’s dominant-media narrative.
De onde vem o ânimo para a honestidade quando os que nos lideram mentem e enganam?
question for you, Mona, about this
Given that you’ve been thoroughly exposed as an apologist for neoliberal elite and corporate interests, why do you persist in filling TI comment threads with your disruptive, dishonest bilge?
Anyone who looks into the Brazil situation, from the NSA spying on Petrobras transactions to the US State Department support for the Brazilian coup, will conclude that this is an effort to kick out a non-cooperative government in favor of a corrupt greey cabal who will screw over the Brazilian people in exchange for kickbacks from Washington. That’s why they’ve offered to hand over a controlling interest in Petrobras to Wall Street hedge funds, isn’t it?
https://www.thenation.com/article/still-selling-neoliberal-unicorns-us-applauds-coup-in-brazil-calls-it-democracy/
Sure, US State Department, the most sleazy corrupt group of warmongering pigs on the planet today, sure. I trust everything you say, ha ha ha. What did Kerry just spout? Something about “half-cocked, scatterbrained or revengeful” responses, wasn’t it? What a clown Kerry has become – here, take your medals back, you deserve them.
Your cover is blown, Mona, and your agenda is obvious to everyone. Run on back to your controllers, and ask for instructions, you pathetic PR monkey.
This person is insane. Among other deranged views, he thinks Amnesty International are “neoliberal shills” for opposing the uptick in racist harassment in Northern Ireland.
If you are a neoliberal apologist, I am a raspberry cheesecake..
He’s gone totally off the deep end ever since I, Pedinska and multiple others smacked him hard in comments to Lee Fang’s piece on pain patients and Big Pharma. He insists that *all advocates for pain patients are in the pocket of Big Pharma, and gives no shrift to the plight of those in under-treated, intractable agony.
It was a pretty severe pile-on and humiliation for him — even the normally gentle Pedinska got righteously pissy with him. I was even…less kind.
And he’s been like this ever since.
Mona is a troll for neoliberal corporate interests who sings the same song in every thread; Big Pharma is “on the side of the angels” when it pushes opiate drugs on poor Americans, neoliberal globalization games are “inevitable and good”, and anyone who disagrees with her is ‘insane’.
She’s a PR monkey for global corporate interests, camping out on TI to promote their agenda – and if you doubt this, look at this thread:
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/28/white-supremacist-rallies-met-rocks-sacramento-scorn-newcastle/
Absolute refusal to look at banks, trade, capital flows etc. in relation to Brexit. Your cover is blown, Mona, your credibility is now sub-zero.
I’ve read Mona’s comments in the thread you both pointed to and I don’t find anything particularly neoliberal about them. So maybe you disagree with a point or two of hers, but you make an enemy of someone who should be your ally.
I am sure paid shills haunt these sites however if Mona is one of them, she’s not doing her masters any favors. From what I can see she’s forwarding an agenda that is contrary to the best interests of the ruling class.
My point is while there are plenty of people who are Trojan horses for neoliberal agenda, they mostly haunt the upper levels of power. People like Obama and Hillary are good examples. On the other hand little people like you, me, and Mona may be wrong or disagree on this or that, but we are unlikely to be disingenuous. We are not each other’s enemy and we shouldn’t make enemies of those we feel lack sufficient ideological purity. That benefits no one except those who’s cause we agree we are mutually against.
At our level the truth it’s even the most ugly Trump supporter isn’t truly the enemy, they are simply good people who are misguided and manipulated. The object is to convince, not drive further into the arms of the manipulators through hate. In short, we should focus or ire not on those who we might disagree but are otherwise honest actors, but rather the sociopaths at the top who are playing us all as part of their grand game.
Mona may be a lot of things, but this is not one of them.
HHAHA
Ima gonna change my moniker to MonaTheHammerThrower
@ photosymbiosis
Look, for the most part I’ve enjoyed reading your comments and watching the quality of the back and forth between you, Mona and others.
But to make the above statement about Mona (and it takes a whole bunch of inferential leaps to make what you’ve stated above even plausible given Mona’s commenting history here and the consistency of her positions over the years) isn’t being serious.
If Mona is such a “thoroughly exposed apologist for the neoliberal agenda” why would she support Bernie Sanders, refuse to vote for Trump and be willing to vote for Dr. Jill Stein rather than say Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
Makes no sense. Mona is a lot of things, but an “apologist for the neoliberal order” is not one of them. And no amount of cherry-picking her statements and slathering on a bunch of unsupported inferential conclusions about the meaning and import of those statements is going to change that fact (i.e. that she is no fan of, nor an apologist for, the neoliberal world order).
Sheesh. You’re better than that, or at least I thought you were.
O altar da Reserva Ética é o mais frágil que existe, entre aqueles que estão no poder agora.
E assim começa a hipocrisia. Deus salve a Presidente e a Democracia.
Now why do I suspect the U.S. State Department and the CIA favor anyone in taking power that readily accepts bribery and kickbacks from multinationals, to allow exploitation of Brazil’s resources in ways that hurt everyone else there?
Oh yeah, it’s that whole decades of recent history thing.
After reading three books about the CIA, I started reading about the FBI. Nobody’s hands are clean in the USG. The people running any form of “national security” have perpetually dirty hands.
Read about the FBI and State: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gambian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt#Plotting_the_coup
You know, if we elected people who didn’t think we had to project military strength and periodic imperialism all over the globe, we would, no doubt, be a safer and wealthier nation. If we were practical people, we could update our infrastructure and modernize our country like most of the rest of the “developed” countries. We could take care of the grid, aging pipes, our water and air. etc. We would create enough jobs to employ millions of people who are able to work. How about a national lobotomy?
The US are also currently favoring the Thai military junta who’s coup overthrew the democratically elected Thai Government. They have just upgraded Thailand in their 2016 TIP report which covers Governments’ anti trafficking efforts. Thailand has been upgraded from a tier 3 ranking, which is the lowest to a tier 2. This coincidentally. follows street food vendors, and Thai businesses being closed down, and cleared to make way for massive US investment in Bangkok, and other major tourist cities like Phuket and Pattaya. Thai culture,is being swept away and destroyed by an Imperialist invasion of skyscrapers, hotels, and the usual US multinational corporations including Macdonalds, Starbucks, Burger Kings, Pizza Huts. The US is also continuing to promote its so-called free trade pacts like the Trans Pacific Partnership which serve only to enrich corporations whilst creating migration crises.
Pretty much because you are the one of those typical us haters. Your mind are still live in the past decades.
Se o Brasil quiser ser respeitado , não deve dar mais espaço para tal complacência frente a tal abuso de poder da classe política . È necessário um processo de redemocratização imediatamente. Assim como os britânicos estão debatendo quem vai fazer o Breixit ou não, os brasileiros precisam de uma autoridade que comece o processo de redemocratização do Brasil