▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ⟶
In a move that shocked even the most longtime, jaded observers of corrupt Brasília plotting, the leaders of the House of Deputies late last night attempted to sneak into their voting schedule a sleazy bill that would grant themselves amnesty from having violated campaign finance laws. This happened with Brazil’s installed president, Michel Temer, out of the country speaking this morning at the U.N. (where he remarkably praised impeachment as a “model” against corruption as he was surrounded by his own corruption-implicated ministers), while the new president of the House, Rodrigo Maia (above with Temer), assumed the position of “interim president” of the republic in Temer’s absence. Although the plot was thwarted by vehement objections principally led by two relatively small parties (PSOL and Rede) and supported by members from a few others, the attempt itself speaks volumes about the new faction that has seized power in Brazil after impeaching the country’s elected president.
The retroactive amnesty they tried to enact is aimed at so-called caixa dois: the covert funds candidates receive and then spend on their campaigns without officially declaring them as expenditures or donations. Long used by politicians to get massive largesse from large corporations and oligarchs without any detection or legal accountability, this dark practice has been brought to light as part of the country’s sweeping “Lava Jato” corruption investigation.
That’s why these leading members of Congress are now so eager to retroactively immunize themselves from consequences: because so many of the most powerful members of Brazil’s Congress — including the ones who denounced “corruption” as they led the way in impeaching Dilma — are implicated and in serious danger from having broken these laws. So they’re now trying to pass a new law preventing their own punishment, demonstrating exactly what impeachment opponents have long warned (and Temer’s close ally Romero Jucá admitted while being secretly recorded) was the real goal of removing Dilma: to enable the truly corrupt to use their undemocratically obtained power to protect themselves from investigations and prosecution.
The most important fact to understand about all of this is the list of who is in danger from having engaged in this specific form of campaign corruption. It includes installed President Temer himself, accused of receiving millions in such funds; his Foreign Minister José Serra, who purportedly received 23 million reals from the construction giant Odebrecht; the Senate leader of Temer’s government, Aloysio Nunes, accused by two informants of having received such illegal funds; the right-wing senator defeated by Dilma in 2014, Aécio Neves, who is alleged to have received 1 million reals in illegal funds; and the current Senate President Renan Calheiros of Temer’s party, said to be the biggest recipient with 32 million reals.
Most important of all on this list is the new House president, Rodrigo Maia, whom the attorney general has placed under formal investigation after he was caught on tape asking the now-imprisoned head of construction giant OAS for 250,000 reals, which was never declared on his campaign forms. After getting caught on tape, Maia now claims that the funds he received were not for his campaign, but for that of his father — who was just weeks ago removed from his position as city councilman due to his own corruption.
All of those officials implicated in this law breaking voted in favor of Dilma’s impeachment. That removal dramatically increased their own power as part of the unelected center-right coalition that, despite not being able to win a national election, took over the government once Dilma was gone. To justify their impeachment support, they all gave righteous speeches about the need to combat corruption in politics. And now, with the power they obtained from that impeachment, they are acting to shield themselves from corruption investigations and the consequences of lawbreaking (notably, key members of PT are also implicated in caixa dois investigations, and the party itself thus appeared on board with this amnesty law even as particular individual members joined the objections).
Perhaps most remarkable about all of this is that they clearly know how slimy and corrupt this was. Journalists attempted — without success — to find out who specifically was responsible for putting this bill on the voting schedule. This all happened when the third-ranking House member, Beto Mansur, was technically in charge (because Temer was out of the country, House President Maia was acting president of the country, and the chamber’s vice president was absent), so that this obscure official would appear to be responsible for all this. But as the UOL journalist Josias de Souza reported, Mansur, after first pinning it on Maia, thereafter literally refused to say who was responsible for its being placed on the voting calendar, incredibly claiming he “did not know” and — in a hilarious use of the passive tense — would say only that it simply “was put” there.
The corrupt motives at play here are so blatant as to be stunning. As de Souza wrote, “Beyond being invisible, the project is orphaned. There is no trace of the parents of the maneuver. They seem to be ashamed of themselves. And they do not lack reasons.” PSOL’s leader, Ivan Valente, put it this way as he vowed to stop it: “It’s unbelievable, intolerable, a scandal, a hoax. Soon OAS and Odebrechet are ready to inform [about caixa dois] and you’re going to free dozens of members of Congress and companies” from their guilt?
But this is the real, indescribably corrupt face of the faction that has undemocratically seized power in Brasília, ironically in the name of fighting corruption. Needless to say, the anti-corruption movement that led the protests against Dilma are, as usual when it involves center-right corruption, nowhere to be found — utterly silent — because they were always motivated by ideology and subverting democracy when demanding impeachment, not fighting corruption. And one thing is certain: This attempt to protect corruption and further empower the corrupt has suffered only a temporary defeat. This faction — which owes its power to negating rather than working within democracy — has proven itself beyond shame. Convinced of their own entitlement and ability to act without consequence, there is no doubt they will try again to lavish themselves with amnesty while nobody is looking.
DocHollywood writes:
“…….You wrote about a sleazy attempt by some of the plotters to realize the goal of their coup: retroactive amnesty for themselves and their political allies.] Rousseff’s management of the economy [was not what drove the coup-plotters.]…..”
This is one more example of you being clueless about the events in Brazil Doc. I will just post the title to Greenwald’s next article which should be enough to prove what I wrote:
“Brazil’s President Michel Temer Says Rousseff was Impeached for Refusing His Economic Agenda”
This was straight from the Temer – the former VP to Rousseff.
Thanks Doc.
The post lightly [edited] for accuracy:
“Here is one more example of [how ridiculous] I [am.]
Had [the goal of some of the coup plotters been retroactive amnesty for themselves and their political allies, then it necessarily follows that] the title to Greenwald’s next article [w]ould [have been]:
Brazil’s President Michel Temer Says[: “Rousseff was Impeached for Refusing [Retroactive Amnesty for Myself and My Political Allies]”
[That no such public admission ever came] straight from Temer – the former VP to Rousseff – should be enough to prove what I wrote.”
Doc
Not only were you completely wrong about the primary reasons for the removal of the incompetent Rousseff which (like Venezuela) revolved around the terrible recession in Brazil, but in addition, we saw one more example of Bill Keller schooling Greenwald on the dangers of advocacy journalism (“Brazil’s President Michel Temer Says Rousseff was Impeached for Refusing His Economic Agenda”):
“…..The installed president of the country admits to a room full of oligarchs and imperialists in New York that he and his party impeached the elected president for ideological and policy reasons, not because of the stated reasons, and the entire big Brazilian press pretends that it never happened, refuses to inform Brazilians about what the installed president admitted, and ignores the huge implications for what this illuminates about Dilma’s removal…….” – Greenwald
Remember what Keller wrote? “…..tempting to omit or minimize facts……”. Sounds exactly like what the main stream media in Brazil is doing again – and clearly for partisan political reasons.
Thanks again Doc!
Was the impeachment legal?
The ankle-biting trolls here keep shrieking that it was, and that Glenn and this site are misleading the readership. They want that to be the case — that the impeachment was legal and the motives legitimate — but this is far from clear and many knowledgeable Brazilians disagree.
Quoting Ana Paula de Barcellos, professor of constitutional law at the Rio de Janeiro State University, The LA Times reports:
Moreover, the same LAT piece states:
I know the Americans have been blaming the Syrians and the Russians for the breakdown of the ceasefire, but do you think that the bombing of Syrian troops by the US might have had a teeny weeny part to play in the breakdown of the ceasefire?
Wow, can you imagine that!, the US “accidentally” bombing another country, accidentally helping terror groups…I guess there is a first time for everything!!!
“…….I know the Americans have been blaming the Syrians and the Russians for the breakdown of the ceasefire, but do you think that the bombing of Syrian troops by the US might have had a teeny weeny part to play in the breakdown of the ceasefire?……..”
Did you already forget about the bombing of the aid trucks? As the US has pointed out, this could have been done by either Syria or Russia, but it was most likely Russia because it was done at night. The reason that the cease fire broke down is because Syria feels it can win the war outright. By the way, the US should have been purposely bombing the Syrian troops all along which might have provided more incentive for Assad to come to the table. Regardless, there can be no peace unless the political solution involves Assad being removed from office – permanently.
The reply lightly [edited] to include the perspective of prior insights:
“Did you already forget [what]about[ery]? . . .[I]t was most likely Russia because it was done at night[; because, you know: that’s when those little devils like to come out].
The reason[I feel] that the cease fire broke downisbecause [I feel that] Syria feels it can win the war outright. By the way,. . .which might have provided more incentive for Assad to come to the table. [For examples of how well my violent musings work in practice, see Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Besides,]
Regardless [of the horrors ISIS – armed with American weapons and funded by American dollars passing through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar – inflicts upon the suffering people of Syria], there can be no peace unless the
political[military] solution involves Assad being removed from office – permanently[ because, who cares what the people of Syria want;Watch out for those “outside agitators” America. You might think they are people concerned enough by injustice to travel across America to protest innocent people being shot by police…but Lt. Dominic Pagano is ready for them. American police may not know how to deal with Black motorists without shooting them dead, but make no mistake, police have the equipment and the training to deal with “agitators”.
He’s had plans in place for years…to deal with “these kind of things”…such as Charlotte police shooting a black man…and then covering up the video.
Where’s the plan in place to stop shooting innocent people?
It’s almost too comical. The police chief is using “outside agitator”, the same words that Martin Luther King used in 1963:
For this police chief, Pagano, it’s as if the last half century didn’t happen.
It’s not just Fox news, is it? It’s not just a small group of professional propagandists. There really is a large swathe of people that have escaped the confines of reality:
Same old question:
How can you debate Clinton’s noxious mass-incarceration policies, her pro-war policies, her pro-TPP policies, when the only alternative….is a fictional universe where the civil rights movement never happened, Blacks get to go to the same good schools as whites, where it’s not Republican voter suppression, but Blacks themselves that deter voter turnout?
No wonder there is no public policy debate on foreign policy, education policing, healthcare. How can you have a debate when such a large number of citizens, millions even if we only count Trump supporters, have so utterly been cut off from history, science, truth?
It’s like the Americans are running an experiment…”Let’s see what happens to our civilization when most people think Jesus wrote the US constitution and dinosaurs were the only inhabitants when the Mayflower arrived.”
DocHollywood
“…….“Just like when [I] presented my position(s) on torture, I am not required to [be honest…….”
But I was being honest when I presented my positions on torture, right Doc? So you misrepresented the first statement I made.
“…….Take for instance, when] Greenwald posted calls for more scrutiny of Hillary’s political record i.e.[I.uh.lied. . . by changing what he said from calls for more “scrutiny” to] more “OBJECTIVE”…..”
Call it what you want Doc, but he is (as I said) effectively calling for more objective reporting of Hillary by the pro Hillary media. They are clearly omitting important facts about Hillary for political reasons which is exactly what Bill Keller warned Greenwald about when he said:
“……The thing is, once you have publicly declared your “subjective assumptions and political values,” it’s human nature to want to defend them, and it becomes tempting to omit or minimize facts, or frame the argument, in ways that support your declared viewpoint……”
Greenwald is actually agreeing with Keller about the pro-Hillary media (“tempting to omit or minimize facts”). Of course, the reason they are doing that is because they fear a Trump Presidency. Greenwald vehemently dislikes Hillary Clinton primarily because she is a pro-Israel, pro-corporate, pro-war candidate. In fact, that is the only reason he is calling for more scrutiny of her record i.e., calling for more “objective” (non-partisan, truthful, less manipulative etc.) reporting by the main stream pro-Hillary media. In other words, Greenwald is saying “I’m glad when journalists shed their faux objectivity”, but I wish they would report all the facts which is exactly what Bill Keller warned me would happen. Greenwald is without a doubt arguing the dangers of advocacy journalism.
“…….[Unequivocally], Greenwald is [not] calling for more objective reporting[: Greenwald is explicitly praising those who abandon the facade of objectivity in their reporting…….”
I agree with you to a certain extent although not unequivocally (as I said in my original post), but I must have missed the part in Greenwald’s articles where he praised the Brazilian media for their political advocacy. Had the Brazil media been “fair, truthful and nonpartisan” (objective) with their reporting, Greenwald would never have criticized the Brazil media in this case. Is this not obvious? His complaint is exactly with the advocacy journalism of the Brazil media. You will never convince me that if the Brazil government had been pro US implementing neoliberal policies with the current state of the Brazil economy, Greenwald would have criticized a left wing media for bringing down the government. Above all else, Greenwald is politically-motivated – and it has very little to do with democracy (see Venezuela for example).
“…….Greenwald had a response to Keller, which I of course left out…..”
Keller and Greenwald had a lot of responses in their long debate. Am I supposed to post everything? Here was Greenwald’s response which you posted:
“……“Why would reporters who hide their opinions be less tempted by human nature to manipulate their reporting than those who are honest about their opinions? If anything, hiding one’s views gives a reporter more latitude to manipulate their reporting because the reader is unaware of those hidden views and thus unable to take them into account…..But whatever that mindset is, it is most certainly not “objective.” It is nationalistic, subjective and activist, which is my primary point: all journalism is subjective and a form of activism even if an attempt is made to pretend that this isn’t so..”……”
That in no way refutes or negates what Keller said. In fact, I have already shown where Greenwald agrees with him. It is just that you have your nose so far up Greenwald’s ass that you can’t see the forest for the trees. There are a lot of ways to manipulate the public, but as Greenwald has pointed out with the Brazil media, one of them is advocacy journalism (sometimes disguised as adversarial journalism). Doesn’t the Brazil media support the neoliberal policies of the US and isn’t the media in the pockets of the oligarchs and corporate interests (at least according to Greenwald)? But is Greenwald any different? The current article discusses the corruption only on the right, but arguably the most important political figure over the last half century in Brazilian politics is charged with corruption (Lula da Silva – or is that Lula da Silver?). Where is this mentioned by Greenwald? Lula da Silva just happened to grant Greenwald an interview and Greenwald vehemently opposes the current government which is pro-US. Sounds political and manipulative to me. There are dangers inherent in all types of journalism including (if not especially) advocacy journalism. Again, Keller pointed this out. And yes, more objective (non partisan) journalism is exactly what Greenwald is (for all intents and purposes) calling for from the Brazil media – or he wouldn’t have criticized them for their advocacy. Just like the pro-Hillary US media omits facts because they oppose a Trump Presidency, Greenwald omits facts about the corruption on the left (Lula etc.) probably because he vehemently opposes the current pro US government.
“…….These are just several of the many] examples where [I have misrepresented what] Greenwald [said, from claiming that he] complained [when he actually said, “I’m glad,” to just plain and stupid lying]. I[f you ignore all of his] words [or at least divorce them from their meaning, then] in [some] cases[, maybe my lies could pass unnoticed.] This doesn’t mean that Greenwald has become an unabashed supporter of objective journalism [when he vigorously argued the opposite; it just means I’m stupid or dishonest or some combination of the two], but [these] examples serve to bolster [my status as a troll] – and also serve to prove to Greenwald [and everyone else] the potential inherent danger of unchecked a[nd dishonest idio]cy. [Like he really needs another example from me.] Maybe he has actually learned something (although [if] not [from the] current [pile of poo I’ve plopped, there’s my hundreds more posted to the same effect])?”……”
Just your standard personal attacks without any beef.
Thanks Doc. It’s always a pleasure; however, it would make things a whole lot easier if you dropped the current format to reply. Of course, it is a whole lot easier for Mona and others to hide behind your personal attacks (mostly without substance) than actually reply to what I post.
It seems to me that the Oligarchs currently in power are struggling to remove any and all obstacles to a new era of autocratic power.
The US is also on that same path.
The solution in both countries will be the result of revolt, which will happen suddenly. It will happen when the corruption leads to government illigitamacy.
craigsummers squats again:
The posts lightly [edited] for accuracy:
“Just like when [I] presented my position(s) on torture, I am not required to [be honest. On the contrary; my contradictory claims are so distorted that when the truth is revealed, I just become more dishonest; it will never, ever occur to me to reconsider my beliefs just because they’ve been falsified. Not even when I’m the one presenting the words that expose my lies.
Take for instance, when] Greenwald posted calls for more scrutiny of Hillary’s political record i.e.[I.uh.lied. . . by changing what he said from calls for more “scrutiny” to] more “OBJECTIVE” reporting [because maybe no one would notice if I press and hold the {shift}key while changing scrutiny to objective that scrutiny can be objective or subjective]:
“………The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms. . .have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux objectivity. . .”
[Unequivocally], Greenwald is [not] calling for more objective reporting[: Greenwald is explicitly praising those who abandon the facade of objectivity in their reporting.
[So of course I claimed he is saying the opposite]
Greenwald delivered a scathing critique of the [deceitful] media coverage of the protests in Brazil (“Brazil Is Engulfed by Ruling Class Corruption — and a Dangerous Subversion of Democracy”) [that he characterized this way:
“Put simply, this is a campaign to subvert Brazil’s democratic outcomes by monied factions that have long hated the results of democratic elections, deceitfully marching under an anti-corruption banner: quite similar to the 1964 coup. Indeed, much of the Brazilian right longs for restoration of the military dictatorship, and factions at these “anti-corruption” protests have been openly calling for the end of democracy.a campaign to subvert Brazil’s democratic outcomes by monied factions that have long hated the results of democratic elections, deceitfully marching under an anti-corruption banner: quite similar to the 1964 coup. Indeed, much of the Brazilian right longs for restoration of the military dictatorship, and factions at these “anti-corruption” protests have been openly calling for the end of democracy.”]
I [skipped] all of the above [and much more] written by Greenwald [so that I could make-up something and then dismiss my misrepresentation] as (extreme) adversarial, politically-motivated coverage by the Brazil media.
Greenwald has a legitimate basis [and provides many facts to support what he wrote, but I used my illegitimate misrepresentations to falsely claim he offers] criticism simply because of the lack of objectivity in the coverage by the media [and ignoring what he actually “put simply”]. Th[at I am such a] Braz[en liar] shouldn’t shock anyone at the Intercept [passingly familiar with my dull-witted deceit]
Greenwald has promoted and defended adversarial journalism on numerous occasions [which I’ve ignored or misrepresented, sometimes to humorous effect.] Bill Kelly [it’s Bill Keller] – “Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News?”, New York Times, October 27, 2013 said:
“……The thing is, once you have publicly declared your “subjective assumptions and political values,” it’s human nature to want to defend them, and it becomes tempting to omit or minimize facts, or frame the argument, in ways that support your declared viewpoint. And some readers, knowing that you write from the left or right, will view your reporting with justified suspicion…….”
Kell[er] was 100% correct [because I say so.
Greenwald had a response to Keller, which I of course left out:
“Why would reporters who hide their opinions be less tempted by human nature to manipulate their reporting than those who are honest about their opinions? If anything, hiding one’s views gives a reporter more latitude to manipulate their reporting because the reader is unaware of those hidden views and thus unable to take them into account.”
I left that out, just as I left out what else Greenwald said later in the same exchange:
“But whatever that mindset is, it is most certainly not “objective.” It is nationalistic, subjective and activist, which is my primary point: all journalism is subjective and a form of activism even if an attempt is made to pretend that this isn’t so. {emphasis added to illustrate the disgraceful way I have misrepresented Greenwald’s position so that I could degrade myself even further by claiming that] the criticism leveled at the Brazilian media [by Greenwald] is all about “objectivity” whether Mona wants to believe it or not.
These are just several of the many] examples where [I have misrepresented what] Greenwald [said, from claiming that he] complained [when he actually said, “I’m glad,” to just plain and stupid lying]. I[f you ignore all of his] words [or at least divorce them from their meaning, then] in [some] cases[, maybe my lies could pass unnoticed.] This doesn’t mean that Greenwald has become an unabashed supporter of objective journalism [when he vigorously argued the opposite; it just means I’m stupid or dishonest or some combination of the two], but [these] examples serve to bolster [my status as a troll] – and also serve to prove to Greenwald [and everyone else] the potential inherent danger of unchecked a[nd dishonest idio]cy. [Like he really needs another example from me.] Maybe he has actually learned something (although [if] not [from the] current [pile of poo I’ve plopped, there’s my hundreds more posted to the same effect])?”
Mona
“……..Craig is many things, but I’ve never called him an idiot, or synonyms for same. That could, change, however, if he doesn’t finally get it through his skull that, as you know, Glenn does not expect or ask for “objectivity.” (From time to time he mocks those who claim they are “objective,” but not because he thinks they should be or because he aspires to it himself.)………This isn’t the first time he’s made this mistake, and he’s seen it corrected in others as well…….”
Just like when you misrepresented my position on torture, I am not required to immediately respond to your posts (“…..This isn’t the first time he’s made this mistake…..”). In addition to what I posted below to Vic Perry concerning Greenwald’s criticism of the advocacy journalism by the Brazil media, Greenwald also posted an article recently about the pro-Hillary media in the US (“The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting About Hillary Clinton”) in which he calls for more scrutiny of Hillary’s political record i.e., more “OBJECTIVE” reporting on Hillary’s record:
“………The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and the Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and most major New York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux objectivity……. That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as much scrutiny as Donald Trump’s…….”
Essentially, Greenwald is calling for more objective reporting by Clinton media supporters (“Vox, and the Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and most major New York-based weekly magazine”). That is two examples where Greenwald is either complained of media bias (Brazil) or complained because the media provided unfettered political support for a candidate (Hillary Clinton). In other words, in both cases Greenwald effectively called for more objective journalism. This doesn’t mean that Greenwald has become an unabashed supporter of objective journalism, but both examples serve to bolster Jim Kelly’s point – and also serve to prove to Greenwald the potential inherent danger of unchecked adversarial (advocacy) journalism. Maybe he has actually learned something (although not based on the current article)?
The PT was also involved in the maneuvre, therefore the claim that it had anything to do with the impeachment is absolutely false. The PT has worked with the corrupt politicians they call golpistas to bury Operation Car Wash.
standwithlula.com
Glenn and other liers, you really should stop with this type of “article”, or you might get into some unimaginable “trouble”!
The mafia of the Chicago Prohibition days. The Sicilian mafia of the 50’s & 60’s. The Russians. The drug cartels of Columbia and Mexico. They are still here. Brazil. Argentina. I missed a few dozen more, in the Middle East, Africa and S.E. Asia – lol. Now all these gangsters are running our planet’s governments. I see a book here. Anyone? Thanks, again, Glenn.
9/22 in Brazil one more TEMER GET OUT! day. #standwithlula.
No surprise at all. Hellary – actually criminal wallstreet backers of Hellary – need her to be president so she can sell pardons. That’s where the road of corruption leads to. Run a criminal election campaign, falsify information and voting, get sworn in, and issue pardons. That’s where the US politics is headed. The pardons will also be *secret* and *sealed*.
murphy’s law.
At least they didn’t just kill Dilma. The last time a corrupt VP wanted to seize the presidency in the U.S. to protect himself from prosecution, the first lady had to pick her husband’s brains off the trunk of the Cadillac.
On another note, was this article written in Portuguese first, then translated into English?
Are Brazilian legislators brain dead? They should know that retroactive immunization always looks bad. The United States has shown that pre-emptive immunization is simpler and better. Ask the Supreme Court to rule that all donations to candidates are a form of free speech and thereby legal under the Constitution, and these corruption scandals would all go away.
This theory that this episode confirms that “the real goal of removing Dilma” was to shield themselves from investigation and prosecution is nonsense. First of all, the impeachment had no impact on this at all. It did change the balance of power in Congress, it did not “enable” this to happen at all, its chances of success would be the same with or without impeachment. This is nothing other than Greenwald trying too hard to find confirmation for its prior statements.
Also, the article clearly obfuscate the fact that PT was one of the parties pushing for this amnesty. Are we supposed to believe that Dilma’s party is now supporting the “real goal” for removing her. Please…
Besides, Caixa 2 is the least of the concerns for these people. It is not even a crime in Brazil. It is not the object of Car Wash prosecutions.
Also – this statement that Temer at the UN “praised impeachment as a “model” against corruption” is a fabrication. He did not say anything like that.
“Also, the article clearly obfuscate the fact that PT was one of the parties pushing for this amnesty.”
Exactly. They squeezed a sentence about PT because more details about PT involvement would dismantle the whole point of their argument.That’s a basic case of disproportionate coverage. Journalists or writers use it to avoid being accused of omission. They don’t have to be balanced in their opinion, but journalists owe the public a balance coverage so readers can understand what’s going on. When I mentioned this to the writers Greenwald used the typical foolish messenger tactic (ironically used heavily by Donald Trump surrogates to hide his bigotry) by saying he found it “hilarious” because they wrote a sentence stating PT support for the amnesty. It’s like having five Israeli officials on TV for a hour and one Palestinian official for two minutes and then claim we reported on both sides. They surely expect most of their readers to be completely ignorant of writers or journalists’ common tricks as well as Brazilian politics.
Temer’s speech wasn’t delivered in English, but what he said has been translated by a wire service this way:
“. . .impeaching a president is certainly not a trivial matter in a democratic regime. But there is no democracy without rule of law — without rules applicable to all, including the most powerful. This is what Brazil is showing the world.”
The NYT translated Temer’s comments to mean that the process has been “an example for the world.”
Yes, he said example to the world in terms of democratic procedures, not in reference to “against corruption”. This is key. This article is trying to say that Temer and others are saying the impeachment is needed to fight corruption, hence the hipocrisy since, according to GG, his ministers are accused of corruption (which ones?), but that’s not Temer’s take. He simply did not say that, the Intercept completely made this up.
Diogo, your last comment made me question your integrity. You are straightforwardly saying Temer didn’t say what he said.
You agree Temer said what Doc posted, yes?
You saw the part about “rule of law” in his statement, yes? That impeachment is necessary to uphold it…? Still with me?
Now for the finale. Corruption is a breach of the rule of law, yes?
All this is rhetorical, by the way.
Are you kidding? Or are you seriously saying that “rule of law” is synonymous to “against corruption”?
Temer did not say the impeachment was a model against corruption. The impeachment was not about corruption, Temer was referring to the charges against Dilma and the fact, in his mind, that the impeachment obeyed the rule of law.
What is the difficulty in understanding it?! There is no ambiguity whatsoever here. He didn’t say it. The Intercept made it up. Is it denial, because it is unpleasant to face that the Intercept is making things up?
By your “logic” one could say that Temer said that the impeachment was a model to fight drug trafficking, murder and rape, because, hey, these crimes are a breach of the rule of law and the Temer did refer to the “rule of law”…
I mean, you are illustrating how ridiculous this whole thing is. The Intercept can literally make things up and get away because the fan base will accept anything and do anything to pretend it is not happening. This is bad!
That would be true if Temer wasn’t directly linking the impeachment to corruption (not other crimes). You are claiming that Greenwald is misrepresenting Temer, and I don’t agree because I interpret Temer’s meaning the same way Greenwald does. And you think that’s “bad.” Who cares?
Tell me how you came to the conclusio. that Temer is “directly linking the impeachment to corruption”? TBecause he referred to “rule of law”?!
“Misrepresenting” is an euphemism. This is a complete fabrication.
I and others have demonstrated you wrong myriad times before, and I no longer consider it a good use of my time and energy to get tangled in your casuistry. I do note, however, that you have huge support from one of the most stupid trolls here — Mani. That’s appropriate to your level.
“……..I and others have demonstrated you wrong myriad times before, and I no longer consider it a good use of my time and energy to get tangled in your casuistry……”
Then why are you responding? No one cares when you pretend that you demonstrated that someone was wrong myriad times. Diogo posts clear concise responses to Greenwald. Speak about cluttering the comments section, you should really focus on DocHollywood who rarely says anything worthwhile (including today).
Thanks Mona.
I very seldom reply to Craig Summers for reasons explained here.
“…….I do note, however, that you have huge support from one of the most stupid trolls here — Mani. That’s appropriate to your level……”
What I really have enjoyed about Greenwald’s series on Brazil is how he demanded more objectivity from the Brazilian media even as he has continued to advocate on behalf of Lula, the incompetent Rousseff and the PT Party. The hypocrisy is so blatant that a person apparently has to be stupid to notice it.
Thanks Mona.
if Glenn Greenwald literally demanded “more objectivity” from the Brazilian media as you claim?
I’d be surprised though. Proof please.
Craig is many things, but I’ve never called him an idiot, or synonyms for same. That could, change, however, if he doesn’t finally get it through his skull that, as you know, Glenn does not expect or ask for “objectivity.” (From time to time he mocks those who claim they are “objective,” but not because he thinks they should be or because he aspires to it himself.)
This isn’t the first time he’s made this mistake, and he’s seen it corrected in others as well. I really don’t think he’s an imbecile like Mani, Karl, Charliethree & etc. (He traffics in whining and fallacies — especially whataboutery — and his values are repugnant, but his fact claims are usually accurate and he doesn’t generally evince a cognitive deficit.)
Perhaps his neurons simply misfire and his brain insists on coupling Glenn’s name with the standard of “objectivity?”
If Glenn Greenwald does not expect objectivity from Globo, what exactly does he expect from them?
Vic Perry
Greenwald delivered a scathing critique of the politically-motivated media coverage of the protests in Brazil (“Brazil Is Engulfed by Ruling Class Corruption — and a Dangerous Subversion of Democracy”):
“……..Brazil’s corporate media outlets are acting as de facto protest organizers and PR arms of opposition parties. The Twitter feeds of some of Globo’s most influential (and very rich) on-air reporters contain non-stop anti-PT agitation…….For months, Brazil’s top four newsmagazines have devoted cover after cover to inflammatory attacks on Dilma and Lula……..The largest outlets are owned and controlled by a tiny number of plutocratic families, virtually all of whom are vehement, class-based opponents of PT and whose media outlets have unified to fuel these protests……the business interests owned and represented by those media outlets are almost uniformly pro-impeachment and were linked to the military dictatorship……….”
and,
“……Meanwhile, the dominant Brazilian media organs of Globo, Abril (Veja), Estadão — which Miranda’s op-ed discusses at length — are virtually unified in support of impeachment, as in No Dissent Allowed, and have been inciting the street protests from the start. Why is that revealing? Reporters Without Borders just yesterday released its 2016 Press Freedom Rankings, and ranked Brazil 103 in the world because of violence against journalists but also because of this key fact: “Media ownership continues to be very concentrated, especially in the hands of big industrial families that are often close to the political class.”…….”
If all of the above written by Greenwald is true*, then I would refer to this as (extreme) adversarial, politically-motivated coverage by the Brazil media (not withstanding it was Brazil’s largest newspaper, Folha de São Paul, which exposed the conversation between _ Romero Jucá, and former oil executive Sergio Machado). Greenwald has a legitimate basis (in my opinion) for the criticism simply because of the lack of objectivity in the coverage by the media. The Brazil media is politically-motivated which shouldn’t shock anyone at the Intercept which is also very politically motivated.
Greenwald has promoted and defended adversarial journalism on numerous occasions (New York Times with Bill Kelly; Democracy Now! etc.) and it is written into the Intercept mission statement. Bill Kelly warned Greenwald about the consequences of political advocacy by the media in a debate over the role of the media – “Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News?”, New York Times, October 27, 2013:
“……The thing is, once you have publicly declared your “subjective assumptions and political values,” it’s human nature to want to defend them, and it becomes tempting to omit or minimize facts, or frame the argument, in ways that support your declared viewpoint. And some readers, knowing that you write from the left or right, will view your reporting with justified suspicion…….”
Kelly was 100% correct. Ironically, Kelly’s quote (above) and criticism of adversarial journalism applies directly to Greenwald’s criticism of Brazil’s media. This applies whether the media openly declares their political advocacy or not (as in the case of Brazil). The rise of Fox News certainly came about because conservatives viewed the main stream media as biased liberally (not objective/neutral) in their political coverage. The peasants aren’t as stupid as the elite left tries to paint them.
Greenwald was clearly taking aim at the political advocacy of the Brazilian media (who took an adversarial position against the Rousseff government). Just as obviously, he would not have had they been more objective (less biased) in their coverage. The criticism leveled at the Brazilian media is all about “objectivity” whether Mona wants to believe it or not. Finally, it should also be noted that Greenwald/Intercept never covered the ongoing investigation of the corruption within the PT government even though the investigation had been in progress for a several years. Greenwald became politically involved advocating on behalf of the PT government only when there was a threat of impeachment of Rousseff. Political advocacy has been the primary motivation of the Intercept and Greenwald – not democracy/corruption. The hypocrisy is transparent.
Thanks.
*Greenwald also in the same article winged out the possibility that the US government might be behind the “coup” without – as Greenwald noted – any evidence. So it was clear that Greenwald was lashing out to protect the PT government (for political reasons).
Your quote of Bill Kelly’s words is perfect. I think that is exactly the problem with GG’s work: he uses “advocacy journalism” as a license to mislead, distort the facts to advance his arguments and his cause. As a journalist, he continues to act as a litigation lawyer.
Thanks Diogo.
Traditionally, Green-bots have opposed alternate political viewpoints. Many respond with name-calling (like Mona in this article). To be honest with you, I have discussed the issues with Mona for several years, and that never used to be how she responded. She protects Greenwald.
Take care.
Sure, sure, keep pretending that nobody can see the fact that you have nothing to say on topic but will, as a troll that you are, make such stupid comment against me because you feel butthurt for your idol.
Uh, you have attracted the support of the actual trolls here, including one who cannot possibly have a triple digit IQ — Mani. Him, and a torture-endorsing authoritarian like Craig Summers who’s a Trump supporter. How impressive.
Greenwald’s comments section has historically been characterized by an especially smart set of regulars; many of us, me included, having been discussing issues in his comments since he began blogging in 2005. Not that the conversation has been so lofty since l’affaire Snowden; Glenn’s having hit journo superstar status has attracted so many trolls, authoritarians and misfits that the conversation has dumbed down. Many of the best have left or drastically reduced participating — largely because of a flood of idiots just like you.
But even still, whiny authoritarians who hate Glenn’s attacks on the corrupt and unjust don’t do well here, not with the caliber of the well-informed commentariat that still remains. We’ve been running circles around such as you for over a decade — you’ll be just another embittered ankle-biter in the rear view mirror in due course.
Altho, frankly, if it’s going to continue to be so many like Mani, Craig, you and the inundation of similars, I’d as soon they ended comments. Many sites have rather than see stupidity take over.
“smart set of regulars; many of us, me included, having been discussing issues in his comments since he began blogging in 2005″
That doesn’t mean you are smart. It just means you are a spoiled lapdog. You feel you own the comment sections. ALL YOUR COMMENTS HERE HAVE NOTHING WITH THE ARTICLE. You are just attacking dissenters. You are essentially crapflooding and trolling because TI made it clear that they will never get rid of you since you are the most dedicated lapdog. Again if it is that bad for you feel free to ask TI to ban me and whomever disturbs your laughable arguments with facts.
“…….Many of the best have left or drastically reduced participating — largely because of a flood of idiots just like you…….”
Great. Thanks for the motivation Mona. And another terrific rebuttal…….
Well, your comment demonstrate clearly how out of touch you are. You are a quintessential troll who does not have anything relevant to say but will post frequently with the sole purpose of provoking others and making you feel smart. And yet, you believe trolls are the others and you are the smart one. That is one extreme case of lack of self awareness and false sense of self. You are clearly ill informed about Brazil and yet you believe you are part of the “well informed commentariat”! You lack the basic critical thinking skills to question what you read here, dazzled by greenwald like a naive grade school child in love with her teacher.
But, sure, knock yourself out believing you are “running circles” around me with your trolling.
You think Greenwald is attacking the corrupt. But his motivation is clearly not that, it is attacking the impeachment, not corruption. He dedicated a lot of word to attack people like Serra and Aloysio Nunes who have not actually been implicated, but has shielded the trully corrupt who were caught in the act. He never published a article to inform his readers about the incredible details revealed about the corruption scheme at Petrobras, how it worked, how the government used the the company’s main divisions as a cash cow to buy politicians, etc. He never mentioned the names of Delcidio do Amaral, Jose Dirceu, João Santana. Or Leo Pinheiro, Eike Batista and other ultra-rich capitalists with corrupt ties to the federal government, to Lula, Dilma, etc. He completely distorted the political history in Brazil to distance PT from people like Renan Calheiros or Sarney, falsely describing these guys as long time opposition to PT.
But how would you know any of this, you’re ignorant and don’t care to know, you just want to believe GG is a hero beyond reproach and will cover your ears and eyes to any evidence to the contrary, no matter how blatant and obvious. That’s not smary. That’s not wel informed. Frankly, its a pathetic attitude of adulation, arrogance, group thinking, alienation. You should go read a bit more, from other sources, and then come back and try to see if the crap you write has any meaning at all, beyound just basic trolling.
“Model”
The NYT translates it this way; “an example for the world.”
CSPAN has this in it’s translation of the entire speech. “The fact that we gave the world that example is a clear token of the fact there can be no democracy without the rule of law.”
Clearly, there’s an interpretation. An example can be construed as a model. Should it be?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?415588-3/brazilian-president-un-general-assembly-address
And where is the reference to corruption?
The “key members of PT are also implicated in caixa dois investigation” include Dilma and Lula, whose campaigns have been benefited from caixa 2. Why won’t the Intercept name them? Greenwald choices of word was that Dilma was not accused of “personal corruption” – because caixa 2 is electoral infraction, not corruption for personal enrichment. And yet the same accusations against the other parties are described in unambiguosly negative terms.
There is a clear pro-PT bias and distortion.
Here is what the Intercept will not report: the Workers Party is the most dedicated and loud force fighting against efforts to punish corruption in Brazil. Not just the politicians, but also the ordinary supporters. It is unbelivable and sad. They campaigned hard and dirty against every person who responsible for investigations, the prosecutors and judges. And it did not start with Lava Jato. Former Supreme Court President Joaquim Barabosa suffered an ugly and racist campaign of character assassination because he was tough on corruption. He was a progressive Justice in every way, but PT operatives convinced their supporters that he was some kind of nazi at the service of the plutocrats for the sole reason that he sent high profile politicians to jail.
GG has promoted the narrative that the impeachment was a maneuver to shut down the corruption investigations. But in Brazil, the narrative accepted by the Workers Party supporters is quite different: that the corruption investigations are nothing more than the engine of the “coup”. PT supporters have actually developed this pseudo-ideology that anti-corruption stance is a moralist, reactionary and apolitical stance because it is not rooted in class strugle and does not aim at social injustices. They propagate the view that the investigations and are an American plot to ruin the Brazilian economy, that jailing the CEOs of the biggest constructions companies and undermining their business is anti-brazilian move to hurt the economy, an argument that Lula himself has made publicly. It is a disgrace what has become of the left in Brazil.
E’ Temer corrupto ? E’ Aecio corrupto? E’ FHC corrupto ? E’ lula corrupto? Quem dos mencionados não são corrupto? .Deixe de fingir imparcialidade vem so tirando contra Lula e o PT !!!! Hilariante e’ vc passar de imparcial
craigsummers v craigsummers
The post lightly edited for accuracy:
“Mr. Greenwald
You have been adept[ly] exposing the [subversion of democracy in Brazil and “the real goal of the coup: to enable the truly corrupt to use their undemocratically obtained power to protect themselves from investigations and prosecution.”
You wrote about conversations – secretly recorded – between the new planning minister (then-senator), Romero Jucá, and former oil executive Sergio Machado explicitly discussing the coup as a means to end the “Car Wash” corruption investigation in which they have both been implicated.
You wrote about a sleazy attempt by some of the plotters to realize the goal of their coup: retroactive amnesty for themselves and their political allies.] Rousseff’s management of the economy [was not what drove the coup-plotters.] Today, prosecutors backed by a judge filed corruption charges against Lula da Silva which [was not what drove the coup-plotters either.]
Ye[s], you seem to be [well-]focused on the co[up and subversion of democracy while identifying] the right [politicians who plotted it.] Here is what you said in an article about the [the subversion of democracy] in Brazil:
“………I am not writing in defense of PT. If I were, your critiques – and demand for greater complexity – would be valid. I’m writing in defense of democracy……..”
Political corruption undermines democracy – left or right wing [no sh!t, Sherlock, and a coup is one of the most destructive ways this can be done. that’s why this is so important. So never mind.
My whataboutery has reached new lows. My Fruit-Loop insinuations drawing together] the alleged corruption of a Brazilian politic[ian who was not in on the coup and your] interview [with the democratically-elected President is bad] enough. [Now I claim that] your primary criticism of Judge Moro (“…..that he was now abusing his power by becoming a political actor…..”) [can be applied to you. This shows just how far I’m jumping off the couch: the only similarity between you and the judge is that your avocations both begin with the letter “j”] Your fixation on the role of] corruption is certainly not shocking, but it is [the lunacy] of the above [unrelated] statement[s I’ve made] which would seem to demand more [need for counseling and sedation].
Additional[ whataboutery:] there has been a clear violation of democratic principles [elsewhere.]
[I] have entirely [distorted] the story [in many different elsewheres many different times. That’s because I’m not] really writing about [elsewheres or] in defense of democracy [or principles of any kind, but just for p[ersonal] reasons in de[nial] of the corrupt and incompetent [way I think].”
I really do enjoy your posts. Thanks.
My pleasure.
Yes, Doc. They are always a treat, and much, much more readable than your subject’s actual dreck.
“……My advice: play hard to get. Really hard to get……”
Romero Jucá, btw, was the leader of Lula’s government in congress for close to 8 years. And while Greenwald reported about his leaked conversations, he did not report on all leaked conversations, which taken togethet reveal a quite different picture. Ot reveals that Jucá, Sarney and Calheiros were indeed conspiring against the investigations, but conspiring with the workers party. The leaked conversations, including of ministers of Dilma and her top Senator – who was the first sitting senator to be arrested in the history of Brazil – revealed that the plot was initially to put Lula as a Chief of Staff of Dilma to rally the troops and shut down the investigations, which politically incompetent Dilma was failing at. When the public reacted and that attempy failed, Jucá and others moved on to plan B, which was, on their words, to offer Dilma as the “piranhas cow” – the cow trown upstream to the piranhas to allow the herd to cross to the other side dowstream. So this attempt to create a gap between the bad guys of PMDB and Dilma, Lula and others is total bullshit, they’ve been together this entire time and continue to be.
Btw, this news about amnesty for caixa 2 is a red herring. Caixa 2 is not a crime, it is not the main concern of the Car Wash investigation, on contrary, it is something that the accused resort to when trying to dismiss corruption charges (“It was not kickback, it was just caixa 2″). In fact, congress was voting to criminalize caixa 2, a reform that comes on the heels of another recent measure that ban corporate campaign donations. These are are very positive changes happening in Brazil. The impeachment is part of a institutional and political crisis which has deep roots in the flaws of the political system brought by the 1988 Constitution, it is crisis that Brazil very much needs to go through.
The articles in the Intercept have been nothing but superficial proselitizing, same thing you can find on facebooks timelines. You want to understand what is going on in Brazil you’ll need to look elsewhere.
Thank you, Diogo. I’ve been reading elsewhere but still find this a hard story to follow. It’s not like the NYT, WaPo, or Fox News are covering it well.
Links to English-language sites you consider reliable would be especially helpful.
Diogo
DocHollywood is clueless about this story which is why you received such a short answer to your response. He writes:
“……Thank you, Diogo. I’ve been reading elsewhere but still find this a hard story to follow……”.
At least he willingly admits he doesn’t know anything about Brazilian politics – and he wants you to provide the links so he can better understand your response. Let him look it up. Doc is a classic far left wing Green-bot. I have yet to see him disagree with Greenwald on any topic. In other words, you are wasting your time.
GET OUT TEMER! #standwithlula
Mr. Greenwald
“…….IN A MOVE that shocked even the most longtime, jaded observers of corrupt Brasília plotting, the leaders of the House of Deputies late last night attempted to sneak into their voting schedule a sleazy bill that would grant themselves amnesty from having violated campaign finance laws……..”
You have been adept at exposing the corruption on the right in Brazil calling the impeachment of Rousseff a “coup” and a “subversion of Brazilian democracy” putting aside Rousseff’s mismanagement of the economy which sparked widespread protests in Brazil. Today, prosecutors backed by a judge filed corruption charges against Lula da Silva which could severely damage or end his potential run for President in 2018. Yet, you seem to be entirely focused on the corruption on the right (not withstanding one link to an article written in Portuguese). Here is what you said in an article about the political unrest in Brazil:
“………I am not writing in defense of PT. If I were, your critiques – and demand for greater complexity – would be valid. I’m writing in defense of democracy……..”
Political corruption undermines democracy – left or right wing. Your unwillingness to write an article about the alleged corruption of such a major leftist player in Brazilian politics who granted you an interview suggests that politics not democracy is your primary focus. Interestingly enough, that was your primary criticism of Judge Moro when he released the tape of the conversation between Rousseff and Lula (“…..that he was now abusing his power by becoming a political actor…..”). Your fixation on right wing corruption is certainly not shocking, but it is in lieu of the above statement which would seem to demand more objectivity in defense of democracy.
Additionally, there has been a clear violation of democratic principles by the leftists governemnt next door to Brazil in Venezuela like the arrest of opposition leaders, the killing of 43 people demonstrating against the government and delaying a recall referendum on the Maduro government for political expediency. People have been crossing into Columbia for food because of wholesale food shortages and extreme inflation. Up to 1,000,000 people marched against the leftist government in Caracas. The country (much like Brazil but only worse) is in economic turmoil mostly because of the incompetent Maduro. Polls indicate 80% of Venezuelans want a change in government. This is very similar to Brazil.
You have entirely ignored the story in Venezuela. Were you really writing about Brazil in defense of democracy, or just for political reasons in defense of the corrupt and incompetent left wing Rousseff government?
Your comment reflects exactly my own observations regarding Mr Greenwald’s articles.
It comes as no surprise to anyone that Congress is corrupt to the core and it’s hardly shocking that Brazilian politicians would attempt to maneuver themselves into a more “comfortable” position, seeing how the popular sentiment behind Sergio Moro’s purges pushes each of them closer to a day of recogning.
While Lula describes himself as the most honest man after Jesus Christ and Roussef refuses to address the core of the accusations against her, namely that she falsified the republic’s finances in order to clear the way for her re-election (aside from the fact that she was in charge of Petrobras while a culture of deep corruption was firmly established), Greenwald seems blind on one eye.
An opinion piece in the Estadao expresses very accurately what actually took place during the PT years of government.
http://opiniao.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,o-colapso-da-vontade,10000073972
N Monrad
Thanks for your response.
“…….Greenwald seems blind on one eye……”
He may be, but it’s because he put a patch over it to create his tunnel vision.
“You have entirely ignored the story in Venezuela”
Perhaps the reason Greenwald ignores Venezuela is because the article is actually about Brazil.
What ya think? A possibility? It’s in the title.
That’s a general point of view. Greenwald does not write about Rwanda or Chile. Maybe he is not well informed about those countries, maybe he doesn’t care, maybe they are not his priorities. He does not have to because in a free press writers write about whatever they want. That is different for Venezuela. TI wrote about Venezuela before, so they are well informed about it. That is bizarre for an international journalist (or any journalists at TI) to ignore the country next door that is in serious political and economic turmoil.
But what you are talking about is Scope Creep. There is no obligation for a journalist to introduce what I would consider Red Herrings into the focus of the article. This whole series of Greenwald’s articles have been about the ousting of Rouseff and the misuse of the impeachment process, not Just Political Turmoil.
You’re basically nitpicking or what other would call ‘Whataboutery’. Sure, it might be interesting to note facts about Venezuela, but it’s not relevant to this series of articles that have been written as there isn’t any impeachment proceedings or coup attempt in Venezuela.
Yea, yea, I know you don’t believe the logic of the coup attempt and that the impeachment was for corruption. No need to restate it.
I don’t consider it TI not writing about Venezuela in this series of articles deceptive. I don’t think its relevant.
Galactus-36215
“…….Perhaps the reason Greenwald ignores Venezuela is because the article is actually about Brazil…….”
Perhaps. Or perhaps he ignores the story in Venezuela because he is protecting another corrupt leftist anti-American government. Or perhaps, he ignores the story for the same reason he ignores that Lula was indicted for corruption – because “objective journalism” should only apply to Globo and other Brazilians media outlets – not the Intercept. Perhaps Greenwald has a double standard?
“he [Greenwald] is protecting another corrupt leftist anti-American government”
Really? Don’t make me laugh to hard, cuz it hurts….seriously, you expect someone to believe Greenwald is a providing political cover when EVERYTHING he’s done is exactly the OPPOSITE of that for his entire career?
“…….Greenwald is a providing political cover when EVERYTHING he’s done is exactly the OPPOSITE of that for his entire career?…..”
Greenwald is a self-described advocate – and he is not shy about supporting advocacy journalism. I have given you two examples. Where is the story about the corruption charges against Lula? Greenwald is providing political cover for the popular 2018 leftist Presidential candidate. Have you seen Greenwald even mention the charges leveled by the prosecutors and supported by a judge (France24)?
“……A Brazilian judge accepted corruption charges Tuesday against former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, after prosecutors accused the populist leftist of masterminding a massive embezzlement ring at the state oil company Petrobras……”
In my first post (above), Greenwald said he was writing (about Brazil) in defense of “democracy”, but he is clearly focused on attacking the corruption of the current right wing government while ignoring the corruption on the left. Seems very politically motivated in my opinion. None of this should be shocking to you. Greenwald is an extreme political advocate.
Thanks.
“Where is the story about the corruption charges against Lula?”
See my comments on Scope Creep. This series of articles is not about other judges, but about the misuse of the impeachment process against a political adversary to gain power and take control of a government.
Accusations of corruption were the excuse (basis) used by the usurpers. Greenwald points out their hypocrisy as many of them are far more corrupt than anything Rouseff has done.
Again, these (Brazillian Judge and Lula) are Red Herring issues to what the series of articles he’s written.
“…….Again, these (Brazillian Judge and Lula) are Red Herring issues to what the series of articles he’s written……”
Well, of course they are…….for political expediency. Just as a reminder, Greenwald interviewed Lula as a part of those “series of articles he’s written”. Lula is likely to run for President in 2018. Seems fairly pertinent to the conversation. Limiting the discussion to right wing corruption (as this article essentially does) does not make for a better “democracy” which Greenwald is defending – or at least he says he is.
Thanks.
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/11/watch-exclusive-interview-with-former-brazilian-president-lula-da-silva/
Here is the Lula interview. Truthfully, I haven’t read it yet, but will.
Again, I don’t think Lula running for president is anyway pertinent to coup of a democratically elected official like Rouseff. Who cares if Lula runs in 2018.
So, not all stories written about Brazil, it’s leaders or issues is related to the coup. I see them as independent stories as I’m sure they were meant to be.
You say Lula is pertinent to the conversation but you also agree that it’s a Red Herring.
Your comment: “Well, of course they are…….for political expediency”
You seem confused to me. I’m not sure where you stand other than the fact you don’t like Greenwald.
I appreciate your civil response. I’m not confused and I was being sarcastic when I mentioned the “red herring”. I like Greenwald. I just generally disagree with him politically. I would believe his commitment to “democracy” if he took a more objective approach to the corruption problems in Brazil instead of solely focusing on the right. He also has a staff of thirty journalists or more so why can’t the Intercept report on the political problems in Venezuela? What kind of a commitment to democracy is that?
Thanks.
yea…..sarcasm is hard to read from people you infrequently interact with. Since we haven’t interacted that much, I tried not to be a smart-ass. ;)
Lots of that around here. (I include myself in that as well, in case you’re wondering)
welcome
Thanks.
Thank you
for showing the world what is going on in Brazil!
Crickets from Washington over this terrible travesty of government just shows how hollow Obomba is.A pathetic gumby for international banksters and zion,who love that they will be able to mine the gold of Brazil just like they used to.
Agitador jornalisto americano! (Just guessing, I don’t know any Portuguese.)
Um, not you Erick.
“That removal dramatically increased their own power as part of the unelected center-right coalition that, despite not being able to win a national election, took over the government once Dilma was gone”
1) Lie: They are elected officials including the vice president.
2) Distortion: PT Brazil NEVER WON THE PRESIDENCY BY ITSELF. PT has always entered into coalitions to win the presidency. Dilma did not win in the first round (she got less than 50%). She won with roughly 52% with a coalition with Temer party. You have to make up your mind. If you suddenly consider Temer an opposition figure, then his party won national election.
“Needless to say, the anti-corruption movement that led the protests against Dilma are, as usual when it involves center-right corruption, nowhere to be found – utterly silent –”
Miro Teixeira, Joaquim Passarinho, Esperidiao Amin, Rogerio Rosso, Laerte Bessa. These are five out of eight congressmen who openly protested against the amnesty law according to Josias de Souza. ALL OF THESE CONGRESSMEN VOTED TO IMPEACH DILMA IN THE NAME OF ANTI CORRUPTION.
There is a good initial solution: Temer Get Out! Please take with you all of your corrupt staff. FOOOOOOORA TEMER!
Brazil appears to be another nation, along with the US, that sees anonymously sponsored legislation, mysteriously and without notice getting introduced.
Strangely, this only seems to benefit international corporations, and corrupt politicians.
And yet Greenwald chooses to reside in that undemocratic, oligarch-paradise.
Thank you Greenwald for exposing this and helping us to fight against the real criminals, we need journalists like you, not the Globo-like sycophants! Earth is oligarchy paradise, Brasil just another port of call
Thank you Rick for a level-headed comment, after all this sickening right-wing garbage. This is the first time I have seen a journalist criticized for writing about the country in which he resides and which he has made his own, rather than some other country. If that’s the best they can come up with in efforts to criticize him, they must be desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel.
JD:
Is this meant to be a refutation of the point of the article? I am unsure of what else you might mean by your statement, so I can only assume that to be true (I think reasonably so) and ask for clarification.
Your come-back is a “tu quoque” logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) and is therefore unworthy of a response, aside from pointing out how it qualifies as such. You do not rebut any of the claims that Glenn makes in his piece, rather you deflect by attacking him, implying hypocrisy. (You fail, in my opinion, to make the claim robust.)
This is the same logical fallacy used against Occupiers who showed-up at rallies with coffee from . I heard many attacks that those people were hypocrites for doing so, as if by living in a society, one forfeits their right to criticize it. This is, of course, absurd, akin to chastising a board game player for suggesting to their friends that they play a different game or change the ‘house rules’.
~marty
He also buried this important fact in the article.
“notably, key members of PT also are
implicated in caixa dois investigations, and the party itself thus appeared on board with this amnesty law even as particular individual members joined the objections).”
The journalist he cited, Josias de Souza clearly stated :
“Subterraneos, diz-se que os maiores interessados sao PSDB, PT e PP”
PT that voted against the impeachment in Congress appeared to be one of the most interested parties in support of the amnesty law. Greenwald just decides to focus on the parties that impeached Dilma because he supports PT and he does not want to divulge the whole truth to those who are not familiar with Brazilian politics.
We hid the fact that PT supported this amnesty by stating in the article that “key members of PT also are implicated in caixa dois investigations, and the party itself thus appeared on board with this amnesty law.”
What a weird way to hide a fact: by stating it outright.
Yes, as journalists, we do focus on those who wield the greatest power and rule the government – Temer, Maia, PMDB and PSDB – not PT. But it’s hilarious to watch you accuse us of hiding a fact that we stated so clearly that even you had to acknowledge its presence.
Yes you did bury it as the main point of your article is about the idea that Dilma’s impeachment was motivated by those seeking to shield themselves against investigations or prosecutions.
In order to conceal the weakness of that point you wrote just a sentence mentioning that Dilma’s party which voted against the impeachment supported the amnesty law. You also attempt to deceive readers unfamiliar with Brazilian politics by stating that supporters of the impeachment are silent. In fact, most of the congressmen who openly fought against the amnesty voted for the impeachment. That is called unbalanced coverage and you are an expert at it.
What is hilarious is how you still manage to succeed in having so many followers even with your blatant unbalanced and sometimes misleading coverage of Brazilian politics.
Why do you even bother reading these articles, you clearly have such a better understanding of journalism that it seems like you should be writing your own. Or are you just another keyboard warrior who trolls real journalists if you disagree with them?
Glenn, don’t bother with Mani, he’s a total moron and troll, a Hillary fanatic and a liar– you should see how he lies about people here, including Pedinska. It’s as brazen as it is disgusting.
I now ignore him 90-95% of the time. He’s well-known as a fool and most of your regular readers wouldn’t credit anything he writes, including this “burying an important fact” inanity.
“he’s a total moron and troll, a Hillary fanatic and a liar– you should see how he lies about people here, including Pedinska”
Every time you accuse me of being a liar I will provide evidence of your lies and ignorance. Then, I will laugh at you LOL LOL
Mona (Aug 10, 2016) to Mani:
“You are a hasbara troll, as has been obvious since you showed up here a few months ago with multiple accounts. Now you’re adding silly name-calling rants about various topics to your repertoire of rabid spewing in defense of the ethno-religious supremacist state you adore: Israel”
Mani (me) has used one account since commenting here. The above comment was in a thread following an article about Brazil. The article had nothing to do with Israel. Nevertheless, Mani (me) NEVER WROTE ANYTHING to support the government of Israel. Mona CANNOT find ONE statement from Mani supporting the government of Israel.
Mona to Mani:
“I know exactly who you are. Multiple of your accounts showed up at the same time. You’ve been banned many times. Should you continue, I will explain to readers the viciousness, REAL WORLD-BASED ATTEMPT TO HARM, in which you have engaged and which has gotten you banned at more than one site.”
Mani ( me ) has never been banned on any sites. I have used the same email address, the same nickname for months. I would not be surprised that Mona and any of TI lapdogs get me banned as I ridicule their arguments with FACTS. Moreover, accusing me of attempting to “harm” anybody in the “real world” is not only ludicrous as I do not know any of you and do not wish to know any of you, but it is also despicable and repugnant. You are essentially accusing me of being a criminal. I hope you know the legal repercussions of such accusations.
Mona (Aug 29 2016) writing about Mani:
“And I really don’t get this thing he has about my supposedly “questioning his religion”. I HAVE NEVER REMOTELY SAID A THING PERTAINING TO WHATEVER HIS RELIGION IS”
Mona (Aug 16, 2016)
” Mani is a vicious hasbara troll who despises Muslims”
Mani (Aug 16, 2016) to Mona:
” I am Muslim”
Mona ( (Aug 16, 2016) to Mani:
” No, you are not” ( a Muslim)
Mona ( Sep 14, 2016) 3:55 PM: “Malala Yousafzai LIVES IN PAKISTAN”
Mani: Malala Yousafzai lives in the UK not in Pakistan
Mona: “you are a vicious troll”.
Pedinska: Aug 26, 2016, 11:46 a.m
“If the Clinton Foundation wanted to help in post-earthquake Haiti, they’d have funded the
reconstruction of Les Centres Gheskio”
Mani: Aug 28, 2016, 1:45PM
“The Clinton Foundation did provide assistance to Les Centres Gheskio and is still providing assistance to Les Centres Gheskio ”
Not only did the Clinton Foundation provide financial assistance to the RECONSTRUCTION of Les Centres Gheskio, the foundation went further by providing FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE in the expansion of the center with a special school and a cholera center. I provided Dr Pape’s (the center director whom I personally know) office number with his permission to the public and to Mona to verify herself. She would not contact the director, but would rather invent stories about me lying about Pedinska who was factually incorrect.
Hey, this is TI site not mine. You are also TI most dedicated lapdog. You lie, you crapflood, you write comments that have nothing to do with the article, you start stupid and long arguments with other commenters and you brag about how you can get them banned. I am just here to have fun, but if you get that offended whenever your ignorance is exposed with facts, then by any means ask TI to ban me because you want a comment section free of dissent, so you can (as I just exposed) lie and crapflood as much as you want without being disturbed.
Just FYI, Mani, I’ve concluded you are not one of the accounts used by the hasbara cretin that stalked me over to this site, one who has tried to harm me through my family. You simply showed up the same time he did with his multiple accounts, and were supportive of that vile person’s Israel apologia.
He, however, while utterly vicious, is quite intelligent — I’ve never said otherwise about him. You, well, you are an imbecile. That individual would not make the stupid mistakes I’ve now seen you spew.
So I apologize for having mistaken you for one of the accounts of an intelligent, vicious stalker; you are just an idiot.
“So I apologize for having mistaken you for one of the accounts of an intelligent, vicious stalker; you are just an idiot.”
1) Do not apologize to me. Apologize to Mr Greenwald and Dau for changing their comment section into a theatre. I only expose your laughable comedy show. Your lies, your ignorance, your fictitious stories are here for everybody to see. You should call Dr Pape to confirm that I was lying then you will be in a better position to call me an idiot.
2) ALL YOUR COMMENTS HERE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE. They are all about attacking others who, shockingly disagree with the writers. That’s quite interesting for somebody whose favourite insult towards others is “TROLL”
3) Back to the article. Greenwald and Dau did a classic trick called disproportionate coverage. He blurred the fact that one of the most important parties that supported the amnesty was PT itself. He wrote just a sentence about it to avoid accusation of omission and to conceal the flaw of their argument. Then they will attack whomever points out that trick as a fool. When Fox News gives five Israeli officials a full hour to explain what happened and gives 5 minutes to a Palestinian official to explain the incident would it be fair to call it disproportionate coverage or would it be “hilarious” to point that out since they indeed gave one side 5 minutes for explanation? That’s not a matter of neither Greenwald or Dau opinion. They can support PT as much as they want. This is about journalists duty to explain the public all the facts so they can understand. You cannot see that point because you are just a lapdog.
Mani wins. The end.
NOT SUCH A THING AS A DISPROPORTIONATE COVERAGE,
OR: WHY MANI IS JUST A TROLL
Mani: “A classic trick called disproportionate coverage. He blurred the fact that one of the most important parties that supported the amnesty was PT itself.”
1) If you’ve read the article, you might notice that the event is itself all blurred. Nobody knows who submitted the project and who, arguably, would approve it. It’s only clear who have opposed it (Rede, PSOL and other leftists, including some of PT). THIS IS THE FACT.
1.1) Greenwald did notice that PT as a whole didn’t declare itself openly against the theme. As a subject of Lava Jato’s investigation, the conclusion seemed obvious. So, by inference, he concluded that it might have a shared interest with the proposal.
1.2) However, to conclude that it was ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTIES behind the proposal is just illation; specially because the control over the house is all in the right-wing hands, which holds a bold position against the presence of PT.
Today, PT or left-wing coalition ALONE hasn’t any power to propose and approve anything in congress. Therefore, if you really think and you are not only a Troll, you might say that PT might had participated in the amnesty proposal, but not that PT had a strong leadership over it. Just because, in simple words, PT does nothing in Congress without explicit approval and mutual interest with PMDB, PSDB, DEM and PP.
1.3) So, there’s no possibility at all that GGreenwald has made the “trick” called disproportionate coverage.
Is there another thesis against G.Greenwald outstanding quality as a journalist you want to share?
NO SUCH A THING AS A DISPROPORTIONATE COVERAGE,
OR: WHY MANI IS JUST A TROLL
Mani: “A classic trick called disproportionate coverage. He blurred the fact that one of the most important parties that supported the amnesty was PT itself.”
1) If you’ve read the article, you might notice that the event is itself all blurred. Nobody knows who submitted the project and who, arguably, would approve it. It’s only clear who have opposed it (Rede, PSOL and other leftists, including some of PT). THIS IS THE FACT.
1.1) Greenwald did notice that PT as a whole didn’t declare itself openly against the theme. As a subject of Lava Jato’s investigation, the conclusion seemed obvious. So, by inference, he concluded that it might have a shared interest with the proposal.
1.2) However, to conclude that it was ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTIES behind the proposal is just illation; specially because the control over the house is all in the right-wing hands, which holds a bold position against the presence of PT.
Today, PT or left-wing coalition ALONE hasn’t any power to propose and approve anything in congress. Therefore, if you really think and you are not only a Troll, you might say that PT might had participated in the amnesty proposal, but not that PT had a strong leadership over it. Just because, in simple words, PT does nothing in Congress without explicit approval and mutual interest with PMDB, PSDB, DEM and PP.
1.3) So, there’s no possibility at all that GGreenwald has made the “trick” called disproportionate coverage.
Is there another thesis against G.Greenwald outstanding quality as a journalist you want to share?