▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ⟶
The Intercept Brasil’s Inacio Vieira yesterday reported one of the most significant pieces of evidence yet about the real reason for the impeachment of Brazil’s elected president, Dilma Rousseff. Speaking to a group of U.S. business and foreign policy elites, the country’s installed president, Michel Temer, admitted that what triggered the impeachment process was not any supposed “budgetary crimes,” but rather Dilma’s opposition to the neoliberal platform of social program cuts and privatization demanded by Temer’s party and the big-business interests that fund it.
But what’s as revealing as Temer’s casual acknowledgement of coup-type motives is how Brazil’s large media — which is united in favor of impeachment — has completely ignored his comments. Literally not one of Globo’s countless media properties, nor the nation’s largest newspaper, Folha, nor any of the nation’s large political magazines have even mentioned these stunning and incriminating remarks from the country’s president. They’ve imposed a total blackout. While numerous independent journalists and websites have reported Temer’s admission, none of Brazil’s major media outlets have uttered a word about it.
The only exception to this wall of silence was a columnist from the right-wing newspaper Estadão, Lúcia Guimarães, who spent several hours on Twitter yesterday completely humiliating herself in a spirited attempt to deny that Temer actually said this. She began by insinuating that The Intercept Brasil made a suspicious “cut” in the video that altered reality — basically accusing Vieira of committing fraud without the slightest evidence, all to protect Temer.
Then, after a Folha columnist sent her a link to the full video showing that nothing was distorted, she nonetheless announced that she would only believe Temer said this once she saw the drives from each camera simultaneously played, and she added that what made the story so suspicious was that President Temer is a best-selling author of a book on constitutional law who would not say such a thing about impeachment. Only once the full transcript of Temer’s remarks was posted would she finally admit that he really said it, but rather than retract her false accusations or apologize to Vieira and The Intercept Brasil for having implied the video was fraudulently edited, she instead simply posted the relevant part of Temer’s remarks without reference to her prior efforts to smear Vieira, as though she were the one who discovered and was reporting these comments for the first time. Even once she did finally admit the truth about Temer’s remarks, she bitterly claimed that impeachment opponents were turning the story into a “carnival” and celebrating the revelation.Although she was forced into it by virtue of having embarrassed herself, all to defend Temer, at least this Estadão columnist acknowledged the existence of this obviously big story. The rest of the large Brazilian media has completely ignored it. Just contemplate that: 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.
There’s a reason Reporters Without Borders dropped Brazil to 104th in its world press freedom rankings and denounced the country’s large corporate media as a threat to democracy and a free press. As the Brazilian activist Milly Lacombe put it this morning: “Temer confesses to the coup, there exists a recording of the confession, and our corporate media hides what he said. Is that sufficient, or do you need more?” Through their disgraceful silence, they just provided one of the most vivid examples yet of the truth of RSF’s denunciations.
Why is this anomalous?
Here in the US, this is the norm. US media always sides with the political elite for ideological/political/economic reasons.
This is the whole problem with Trump.
An honest media could have — would have — ended his candidacy months ago. Instead the most recycled bit of unwisdom about Trump is his ability to defy standard norms with impunity.
Think about that.
Exactly the people responsible for vetting this buffoon cannot wrap their collective heads around his ability to get away with such nonsense as thousands of cheering Muslims in New Jersey during 9/11 or his spectacular bankruptcies.
Imagine the IRS auditing someone’s taxes describing a return as so innovative that they can’t audit it. “Gosh Mr. Jones. You made a billion dollars investing a billion dollars on a website that showed no profit. That’s impressive.”
Imagine a fire marshal in West, Texas inspecting a fertilizer plant declaring, “looks good here. How do they do it? This much fertilizer couldn’t possibly be a danger.”
Imagine a government investigating an explosion on a drilling platform that kills 11 people and pollutes the entire Gulf of Mexico issuing a press release, “We have no idea how this tragic tragedy happened. It’s so unusual we don’t know how to explain.”
To reinvent Reagan: “The media isn’t the solution, the media is the problem.”
The actual coup would be if she had adopted those measures they suggested, because then, they would let her crimes slide and not accept the impeachment process to begin, even if that in the end would be to save the country economy. What ended up happening was the strict following of the law, not letting the financial crimes pass and opening the impeachment process as the constitution says it must be done. Either way, what could not go on was the economic disaster Dilma was conducting in Brazil.
Tell me about big bullcrap. He never “admitted” anything that is said on this issue. He never said that the impeachment “was not any supposed “budgetary crimes”. Because those budgetary crimes actually happened, whatever other interests might be on board, they were only achieved because Dilma did committed those crimes in first place. Second, he never said that the “real reason” was “Dilma’s opposition to the neoliberal platform”. He said she refused to apply measures they called a “bridge to the future”, thus leading to economic crisis she left Brazil in, insisting on her failed and criminal measures. All those words like “social cuts, privatization and big business interests” was never said, so you can’t just say he admitted something he never said. That is your interpretation of the very few words he said.
Dilma committed fiscal fraud and financial crimes that are forbidden by the brazilian constitution. Period. All the rest, if true, is only a consequence of that, not the cause.
Oh-Oh!!! More problems on the horizon:
When the first digital machines came out..who could have predicted “Angry Birds” would be the outcome decades later. Now quantum computers may poop all over everything we know about information security.
Ok, this is just weird, Barton Gellman thinks that the Washington Post owners doesn’t share the view of their own secret group of editorial writers that just trashed their own paper’s Snowden scoops…
.
I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure big papers like the WP don’t just randomly choose opinions, and publish them as an “editorial”. You don’t see the Post writers one week printing an endorsing of Jill Stein for president…and the next week calling for marijuana use to be mandatory for airline flight crews. Everyone knows who owns the Washington Post. The secret writers, whoever they are… are selected by the owners. They called for Snowden to surrender in 2013. They haven’t changed their opinion. If the owners aren’t of that opinion….they have a funny way of showing it.
Yes. If there had been an actual coup, it would be BOTH illegal and illegitimate.
I think What gives Greenwald some trouble is that both America and Brazil have presidents. And both systems suffer from the drawbacks of such a system.
Because there is some of the same terminology in both countries, “impeachment” for example, it’s difficult for observers to not suffer interference in the way they view the situation. Impeachment in Brazil, is not impeachment in America…and in neither country, will a legalistic view of impeachment, suffice to explain it.
And…taking another step back, on the choice of having a presidential system. That brings with it a set of problems. Impeachment is necessary to remove a president. While, in UK for example, when the PM has lost the confidence of the house, he is simply replaced by the other members. After all he is only “first among equals”.
Ultimately, let’s be serious, an impeachment process, either in America or Brazil, is far from a respectable trial. The “judges” are elected politicians. They will vote to impeach, or not to impeach, based on their self interest, based on their poling data.
That said, no system is perfect…I could go on…for example, who was the genius that changed the unelected US senate into an elected body? Deriving it’s legitimacy from the same source as the house of representatives? So that it could have the standing to stalemate the lower house? Why not go for three elected houses while you are at it? Or four? Of course they have gridlock! I’m surprised the same genius didn’t add a second US president for good measure!!!
Mani:” James Madison stated his belief that the President should be impeached for non criminal offences such as “mal-administration”
Mona :”Are you completely illiterate “?
This is James Madison “The Father of the Constitution” on June 16, 1789 talking to the First Congress, First Session a year AFTER the Constitution he drafted and signed was ratified. available at the Library of Congress: memory. Loc. Gov
“The danger then consists merely in this: the President can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the President can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place he will be im-peachable by this house, before the Senate for such an act of MAL-ADMINISTRATION ;for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.”
Another signatory of the Constitution Abraham Baldwin stated the same day that the President should be impeached if his decisions are the results of “a fit of Passion”
James Madison raised concerns at the Convention that the term mal-administration could be abused, but he NEVER remotely stated that mal-administration should not be a ground for impeachment. He clearly stated on June 16, 1789 that mal-administration is indeed a ground for impeachment.
Do you want to listen to James Madison “The Father of the Constitution” or the self proclaimed “well informed” “lawyer” Mona who obviously lacks critical thinking skills and is ignorant of American history?
Now, Mona since I demonstrated your ignorance again, please continue to “agitate for my removal” with your lies and your weird stories so you can prove my point: this is just an entertaining venue.
it’s possible that the founding fathers did not possess the modern “bugs eye” of legal vision, with every issue and reason subdivided by the due course of several million appeals into millions of split judicial hairs … or heirs, as the case may be
in other words: maladministration might have satisfied Madison as a reason for impeachment, but not Mona
OH THE HUMANITY
“modern “bugs eye” of legal vision”
Let’s also not forget that this was drafted in formation of Federalism and the country’s first stab at a Federal Government with zero laws on the books or who relied on the Articles of Confederation laws and precidents, our first stab at unifying the 13 colonies.
Temer lacks democratic legitimacy in the political sense. But constitutionally, he is the legitimate president. Likewise, the impeachment was undemocratic and illegitimate, but it was legal, carried out by the democratic elected legislative branch, in the legal exercise of its authority, under the most democratic constitution that Brazil ever had, in the most advanced stage of development of its democratic institutions so far.
Saying that it was legal but illegitimate may sound absurd, but this is due to the state of the political and legal order.
The entire political system in Brazil is suffering a crisis of legitimacy. The corrupt essence of the “coalition presidentialist” regime has been exposed. A presidentialism with de facto aspects of parliamentarism, with alliances built on organized graft, cronyism and bribes. The multi-party system has proven governable through high-level of corruption only.
Democracy had been subverted in Brazil much before the impeachment. In fact, democratic regime was born compromised. The country has been in a state of exception for a long time, it is de facto essence of the constitutional order. Brazil is not a nation of laws, but of institutional realpolitik.
It is the culmination of the process of deployment of constitutional authority since 1988, by the institutions and branches of the state, and the outcome is not stable. The prerogatives and limitations of authority are being challenged from all sides, officials are acting outside strict constitutional authority, the center of gravity of power is moving. The contradictions of the constitutional order, the unresolved questions, the gaps, overlaps and conflicts of authority, between executive, legislative, judiciary, and the unique law enforcement 4th branch, between states and federal government, is coming to boiling point.
That’s a pretty smart take. One I’m not sure Greenwald himself would much disagree with.
I’d only observe regarding the legality of the impeachment, the procedure may have been legal, but the issue of whether the charges themselves fall within the types of offenses for which your laws provide impeachment as a remedy, that appears to be a highly contentious and unresolved question.
legal proceedings are not open to interpretation, review, or appeal based on decisions by scholars or other persons outside the legal process
and any appeal to “political legitimacy” in the sense of social commentary is completely idiosyncratic to the commenting individual, and has zero legal bearing on anything
much like this website
That is true only within the framework upon which the legal proceedings rely. Every legal decision ever produced – as well as every political and economic one – and the framework from which they arose can be altered or entirely discarded.
This can and has been done many times: sometimes peacefully with democracy, sometimes violently through revolution.
. . .and exactly like this commentator.
You said “The entire political system in Brazil is suffering a crisis of legitimacy. ”
I say “The entire political system in USA is suffering a crisis of legitimacy. ”
Lets call this whole thing off.
The law is there to protect democracy. Yes, the impeachment was democratic. Being democratic isn’t alway a beautiful thing, you know. But it is on the hard times that it is most important to be democratic. It is easy to find democracy when you elect the president you vote for. But when that president commits a crime against the constitution, and they have to be impeached, that is the time where democracy goes against your personal interest, but is still democracy and you should still support it. Of course there were many interest on the board, waiting and wanting Dilma’s impeachment. But those interest would never be enough for the impeachment if Dilma had not commited any crimes, which she actually did. So she opened the door for those guys, she gave them what they wanted. And that was a good thing because despite of her crimes, she was already burying the country economy and showed zero capacity to drive us out of that crisis. Should we sit and watch 12 millions of people lose their jobs as we say – well, she was elected, we can’t do anything. She has full rights to destroy the country for the next four years and there’s nothing we can do. ? Of course not!
The real deal is that she belongs to a (so called) left party that not only is actually a big crime organization that was stealing big time from all the federal institutions in Brazil, especially Petrobras, but also they have this modus operandi of making a lot of noise, of paying lots of union people to make riots in their name, that always defend themselves and paint themselves as big victims of the big companies, of the rich, of the mean white people and the USA who is behind all this and want to steal our oil, and yadda yadda yadda. So they make this big noise saying this was a cup but, come on, just look at the numbers, at the facts, at the corruption, at the economic failures, and see for yourself if you go with the facts or with the populist speech.
There are many questions about the ease with which this obvious coup was carried out. Most of them begin with “What has the Workers Party being doing all these years in power? ”
But the real question is why the Brazilian workers/peasants movement does not produce a radical, honest tabloid media? The cost would be small, compared to the immediate effect it would have on the oligarchs’ choir.
What the Workers Party needs is political education, beginning with an explanation of why it will never employ the Armed Forces in future as subcontractors for yanqui imperialism.
Temer is exposed and will soon attempt wagging the dog to create a distraction.
May his current fortune of power evaporate quickly, like Eike Batiste’s money.
Apologies, it’s “Batista” – though to Brazilians one probably just has to say “Eike.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eike_Batista
Again I note: The first comment in this thread was by rr heard, who asked:
Amend that to include various anti-Greenwald trolls and ankle-biters such as (but not limited to) Craig Summers, Mani etc., and do use your Ctrl-F function, find them, and see how they address — or don’t — the fact of Temer’s confession. Mostly, they ignore it, preferring extended digressions (some of which I abetted) into discussions of anything else.
replacement government via the previous government is now a practical reality everywhere
all the media stuff and the votes are just make-believe
At some point people simply give up and turn away.
My fellow friend, you’re a left media distorting playing with words or with a bad understanding of Portuguese. Brazilian main media didn’t gave any credit to this, just because the coup thesis is ridiculous and Brasil got over it. Saying that a process begin doesn’t meant that it was illegal. What it means is that the government was raping the treasury with the consent of most of the Congress. Once people went to the streets against outrageous and numerous corruption cases, government lost its support at Congress and they unleash a political-constitucional process to make her pay for her crimes. They were, as matter effect, condecendent for a long time because their pockets were fill. If theres a confession, thats it. Now you’re trying to sell this Marxist narrative that’s dividing Brazilian people. Go mind your bussiness, you’re thinking you’re smart, but you’re actually playing the fool.
It’s not illegal to say something. Why does Rousseau get to lie but not Temers? The president was lying when he “admitted” the “real” reasons for impeachment. He misspoke, made a mistake, had a brain fart. Something that apparently never happens to liberals.
All you need to do is change the names of the players and media organizations, and one could imagine the same scenario taking place in the the US.
You have a problem here: Temers has an easy out if there was even a PARAGRAPH about corruption/”Budgetary Impropriety” in his “A Bridge to the Future” treatise. And those kinds of papers ALWAYS talk about government corruption. Plus he has the secondary out of claiming that the “Process” was just how they decided that Temers would not be impeached alongside Rousseff because the legislature liked his book.
No attention was given because the news is irrelevant. An impeachment cannot happen while a government holds the majority in Congress. Therefore, it follows that any coalition supporting the government in Congress must first fall apart before an impeachment can take place. The key factor here is that PMDB walked away from the coalition and it is not surprising at all that ideology was partly to blame. Really? What is so surprising about this?
If the population had meant to offer PT such a strong mandate to govern, why didn’t it give PT the majority in Congress? The claim that PT had such a strong mandate that has now been usurped by the impeachment is ridiculous. It never held the majority in Congress and, as such, was always forced to negotiate a coalition in order to govern. Some would argue this is precisely what caused all these scandals given that PT decided to hold the coalition together by paying bribes to its members (i.e., Mensalao, Petrolao, etc).
His comments show an awful disrespect for the republican institutions and his ineptitude for the presidency. Aside from any other consideration about Dilma or the impeachment charges, it is a fact that Temer acted as if he was running in indirect presidential election, which is highly improper. He started his mandate lacking legitimacy and this kind of comment hurt his legitimacy even more.
For the record, I am against the impeachment, which I believe was an opportunistic manoeuvre to seize power. I believe Dilma did commit irregularities but they did not amount to the severity that would justify an impeachment.
The article Greenwald talks about was very poorly written though. In the original article, how can the writer possibly argue that the natural conclusion of paragraph one is that no irregularities were committed? Honestly, I would expect much more of Greenwald. Is this what he left ‘The Guardian’ for?
I don’t understand you complaint. Greenwald’s column is primarily a piece of media criticism. You claim he concluded ” that no irregularities were committed.” He didn’t.
If you mean this bit:
The operative word in his scare quotes is “crime.” He agrees with you that whatever fudging she did with the budget does not “amount to the severity that would justify an impeachment.” And Temer has just admitted it; the budget issue was a pretext.
The thrust of the entire piece is the wall of silence in Brazilian media regarding Temer’s confession.
I am criticizing the original piece written by Inacio, which Glenn refers to here. It was very poorly written and sensationalistic.
There is no wall of silence. This is not news and this is why the media is not reporting it. Really? It was a marriage between PMDB and PT. Is it so surprising that the coalition would eventually fall apart due to ideology? The minute the coalition fell apart the president was vulnerable but not doomed just yet. What did her in was how astonishing unpopular she was and the fact that she committed the irregularities that could justify a legal impeachment. Bingo! 2+2=4. It is obvious. Why is the article making such a big deal about this. You may not like the opportunistic move (and I don’t) but that does not give a free pass for the PT and the whole nonsense about coup d’etat. They made the bed they laid in.
Actually, who does not get a free pass on this one is Temer and PMDB. This is seriously messed up, way worse than Dilma trying to bring Lula into her cabinet and look at the scandal that was in the media.
It is incredibly cynical to suggest it is ok for Temer and PMDB to move against Dilma, the head of the presidential ticket he ran, beof cause differences in ideology. Yes, Dilma and PT made their bed, but the PMDB’s motives are a “crime” of their own.
That he openly admited it is absolutely newsworthy. That the media has not reported it is a shame.
It is not a crime. It is perfectly legal for them to walk out of a coalition when they realized the ship was going to sink. You may argue it is opportunistic, you may argue it is amoral, but it is not against the law and hence it is not a crime.
Funny how there are people here super opinionated about the legal aspects of the impeachment in Brazil but still believe that it is actually a matter of debated whether or not budget matters are impeachable offenses in Brazil.
There is a chapter on the impeachment dedicated for crimes of responsibility against the budget law.
IS The Intercept is at fault for avid readers being so misinformed about this case, which has gotten considerable coverage here? Or are these readers to blame?
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L1079.htm
CAPÍTULO VI
DOS CRIMES CONTRA A LEI ORÇAMENTÁRIA
Art. 10. São crimes de responsabilidade contra a lei orçamentária:
I agree that Mr. Temer appears to be very confused about the reasons for impeachment. I therefore conclude that he must be a reader of The Intercept. This is the danger of irresponsible journalism; it may mislead impressionable politicians.
The Brazilian press understands this danger, and is therefore careful to attribute only the most noble of motives to the government. When government leaders read those articles, they believe them. They are fooled into believing themselves to be honest and competent and, as a result, their behavior actually begins to improve. But then they read The Intercept and start to realize what scoundrels they really are and all that good work is destroyed.
It’s a real shame.
:)
At the heart of the debate is whether or not President Rousseff committed impeachable offenses:
Auditors: No creative accounting by Brazil’s Rousseff – June 27, 2016
RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — 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.
For supporters of the embattled leader, the report underscores how fragile the case is.
But backers of her once ally-turned-enemy and acting President Michel Temer say that the document requested by the Senate’s impeachment commission won’t change her slim chances of returning to office.
The report says Rousseff did not delay payments to state-run banks as charged. That would have violated Brazil’s fiscal laws.
But the auditors did say that it is “without controversy” that Rousseff authored three 2015 decrees releasing additional credits without Congress’ consent. The auditors said a fourth presidential decree seemed legal.
Two-thirds of the Senate voted in May to suspend Rousseff for allegedly breaking fiscal laws. Lawmakers don’t have to follow the auditors’ findings when they vote again, probably in the end of August.
In an interview with Radio Guaiba, Rousseff said the report shows there is no legal basis to impeach her and insisted she might order a plebiscite on Brazil’s political future if she is returned to office.
“The auditors don’t even say I signed those three decrees deceitfully, which is required in our laws,” she said. “This impeachment is no more than an indirect election (of acting president Temer) in Congress.”
Rousseff, who has presided over Brazil’s worse recession in decades amid a sprawling corruption scandal at state-run oil giant Petrobras, was removed from office on May 12.
A recent plea bargain deal with a former oil executive revealed that some of her alleged allies were willing to help remove her from the presidency to stop the Petrobras probe and the possibility that they themselves could be exposed of wrongdoing.
This AP news is not correct.
The “auditors” did not say that she “did not delay payments to state-run banks as charged.” They said her administration did indeed delay payments but there was no evidence of any role – action or ommission – by Rousseff herself on the delays. It’s different. Also, they did confirm that it is incontroversial that she acted on the decrees of supplementary credit, after she signed the decrees.
But you are right, there is a debate on whether or not President Rousseff committed impeachable offenses. But my comment was a reference to Mona who insists that constitutional scholars in Brazil debate whether or not budgetary infractions are impeachable offfense, which is definetely not true.
Except that this site, as well as the LA Times — quoting a professor of constitutional law at Rio de Janeiro State University — say it is a matter of debate. I’ll take their words over yours.
“I’ll take their words over yours.”
You don’t have to take anybody’s words here. But if you were a real lawyer (not a lapdog) then you would have read and analyse the Brazilian Constitution, compare the Professor ‘s view with those who disagreed with that opinion.
But again you are an ignorant troll, an entertainer with no critical thinking skills who thinks she knows better than those who signed the US Constitution. So, when you start writing your own legal articles, your own legal book then your legal argument might not be laughable anymore.
In your opinion, did Rousseff commit an impeachable offense, budgetary or otherwise?
I do think she committed impeachable offenses, but the situation is complex. The roll of impeachable offenses is very broad and include things like:
“Act in a manner that is incompatible with the dignity, honor and decorum of the office.”
“Infringe, patently, and in any manner, provision of the budgetary law.”
“Not make effective the responsibility of subordinates, when manifested in functional offenses or the practice of acts contrary to the Constitution”
It is not hard to build a legal case for impeachment, that’s why every President in the democratic period was subject to impeachment accusations.
I’m convinced that Dilma failed to uphold the law with respect to corrupt practices in her administration. I think she did cook the books and benefited from kickbacks to her party and election campaign. But, most of these cases happened in her first term and only offenses during the current term can be object of the impeachment trial.
There were only 10 months of her second term when the impeachment proposition was received by the house speaker. There was a decent case made that she committed offense in the second term, in particular that the decrees of supplementary credit were issued without the authorization by the Senate, but it is not a very substantial case. The controversy, in the end, was overly technical and the case too flimsy for an impeachment, in my opinion.
Thanks
You should read the Brazilian Constitution Article 85, 86. And Special Law 1079/50.
I read Articles 85, 86, and 167 of the Federal Constitution, Special Law 1079/50, and the transcript of Janaína Paschal’s Senate testimony.
I would like to know Diogo’s opinion, but neither he nor his opinion is mentioned in any of them.
Thing is, reading another nation’s laws, including their Constitution, is a dicey business. Even Americans — and even American lawyers — have to take care. Frequently key words in statutes have special meanings not understood by laypeople. Indeed, sometimes the statutory scheme has a section giving definitions of terms as used therein. And statute books used by lawyers are annotated with the case law interpreting them.
In general, it’s better to consult knowledgeable scholars and lawyers who know how to construe the terms of laws and who are familiar with the the jurisprudential treatment of them. This is especially true vis-a-vis foreign legal systems.
Hmmm. . .
Come to think of it, Mona, I have on occasion encountered in my own professional work something akin to the phenomenon you describe
:D
I read the documents, about the convoluted case and its politics, and some of the analyses, but that was for background; I would never try to independently interpret constitutional or federal law: not in Brazil, not in the USA, not anywhere.
Your advice is sound, and it should be heeded.
Not all nations have had almost 250 years of jurisprudence to subvert the meaning of the words in their constitution. Brazil’s constitution is relatively young, so it’s possible that it still means what it says.
Certain dissenters keep stating in very vocal and incorrect terms that maladministration is an impeachable offense. The Framers actually contemplated and debated this as part of the constitution. Here is what Madison recorded and how it was withdrawn as a valid reason for impeachment.
[2:550; Madison, 8 Sept.]
The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up.
Col. Mason. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after “bribery” “or maladministration”. Mr. Gerry seconded him–
Mr Madison So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.
Mr Govr Morris, it will not be put in force & can do no harm– An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.
Col. Mason withdrew “maladministration” & substitutes “other high crimes & misdemeanors” agst. the State”
As Madison states, the President doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the Senate. And as Gov Morris states, maladministration is cured by an election every 4 years. Those that believe maladministration is an impeachable offense are not consistent with the logic of the Framers or the meaning of impeachment as written in the constitution. (for the US)
You need to improve your critical thinking skills and your research skills. Mona is not a lawyer and if she is then she is the dumbest lawyer in the city. She is just a bad loser.
1) Read the history of the Convention again and the States ratifying the Constitution. Even those who opposed the Constitution did not argue that impeachment offenses had to be limited to criminal offences. Charles Pinckney, Edmund Randolph, Hamilton, James Madison were all scholars among others who agreed impeachment offenses should go beyond criminal offences. When faced with those facts ( that all current scholars support) the “lawyer” start talking about some Founders being authoritarian.
2) There is a huge difference between having a medical condition that could temporary prevent a president from fulfilling his duties (Ronald Reagan) and a long term medical condition that could even jeopardize national security (alcoholic). The patient might even deny he suffers that medical condition and refuses proper treatment.
3) Section 4 of the 25th Amendment does not allow Congress to act by itself. Cabinet members MAY inform Congress that the President is a drunkard if they choose to. They might hide the President condition for political or even for any corrupt reason. They are not required to tell Congress the President is a drunkard. This is not a far stretched example. Cabinet members in Russia refused to admit that the leader of a country with thousands of nuclear weapons had a alcohol problem.
4) If you don’t believe an intoxicated judge on the bench or an intoxicated president leading national security meetings should be impeached then you have a very serious problem.
Madison, of course, prevailed. Mani’s hero, Alexander Hamilton, an authoritarian elitist, was rejected.
And yes, Governour Morris noted elections cure the problem of maladministration (as opposed to judges with lifetime appointments, hence the congressional authority for removing those failing to show “good behavior”). And in the case of presidential “drunkenness” (or coma, psychosis etc) that so concerns Mani, the 25th Amendment ensures that others in the Executive can initiate the line of succession via a notice to Congress. (It would be absurd to impeach a president for being clinically psychotic; that’s what the 25th Amendment is for.)
Well, Galactus, this has been fun, but I feel some guilt because I’ve promised several I wouldn’t much engage Mani, butI pretty much did so on this subject. The topic actually is an interesting one, but all that’s left now is me repeating myself and Mani doing his Mani-level spewing that so many hate and which my engagement with him promotes. So, I must leave this discussion before Vic decides I’ve gone back on my pledge to stop inducing Mani to trash the board.
Let’s forget about Hamilton since you don’t like him.
That was the First Congress First Session of the United States. BTW that was AFTER the US Constitution was ratified . That reminder is necessary due to your ignorance of your own history:
James Madison June 16, 1789
“The President can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it…he will be impeachable by this house, before the Senate for such an act of mal-administration”
Abraham Baldwin
“If the President in a fit of passion removed all the good officers of the Government… we would impeach him and turn him out of office as he had done others”
Fisher Ames
“they may be numerous causes for removal which do not amount to a crime”
This is how ignorant you are. The first congressmen of the US, those who signed the US Constitution including James Madison believed impeachable offenses do not have to be a crime. That’s exactly what US Congress repeated 200 years later, and exactly what legal scholars stated many times.
You are the dumbest lawyer in the city. Should we take your words interpreting the US Constitution or the words of those who wrote it, signed it, and those who studied it for years? When you drop your lapdog hat and become a legal scholar then your words will be significant.
I posted a reply to this several hours ago and it has not shown up. The gist was, with supporting quotes: Pinckney and Morris didn’t want any impeachment provision for the President, fearing it would mean he’d serve at the pleasure of Congress. Madison talked them into it, and made sure the language permitting impeachment for “maladministration” was removed and only the “high crimes and misdemeanors” remained with treason and bribery.
Sometimes when the commenting software snags a comment for inscrutable reasons it shows up hours or even a day later. [shrug]
You may keep running around as you please. This is part of your entertaining game. These are the facts :
1) Somebody who claims to be a lawyer (rrheard) stated impeachment offenses have to be a crime in America.
2) I replied this is factually incorrect.
3) You stated rrheard was a right. I was a “moron” a fool who doesn’t understand the Constitution. And as usual you started a long argument that had nothing to do with the article.
4) I was repeating the belief of those who wrote the US Constitution AFTER they signed it.
You did not call me a moron or a fool. You called James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Fisher Ames and many others a “moron”.
There is a difference between a big dummy and a mentally impaired individual. I am inclined to believe you are the second one as your arguments become more and more idiotic.
Historians call James Madison the Founder of the US Constitution. James Madison stated his belief that the President should be impeached for non criminal offences such as “mal-administration” AFTER he signed it. Other signatories such as Abraham Baldwin supported that view. 200 years later, lawmakers, historians, legal scholars keep repeating that view.
You are not a legal scholar. You have not written a single article about law. Should we listen to your nonsense or to James Madison or the contemporary scholars?
Are you completely illiterate?!
So, when you ask:
I absolutelywant you and everyone else to listen to Madison saying that “maladminstration” is “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.”
Brazilian media that is dominated by 3 families is one of the worst I’ve seen. Globo and Estadão supported the military coup in 1964 and now they’re doing it again. They lie all time about Lula and the left parities and always hiding bad facts about PSDB and DEM, two of the right wing parties in Brazil. They are trying to destroy Lula and PT for they can win the next election in 2018. The country is going backwards and all the social achievements during the last 12 years are being destroyed by those corrupts and neo liberals politicians.
“Temer confesses to the coup, there exists a recording of the confession, and our corporate media hides what he said. Is that sufficient, or do you need more?” Through their disgraceful silence, they just provided one of the most vivid examples yet of the truth of RSF’s denunciations.
Let’ extrapolate. The other day Elisabeth Warren grilled John G. Stumpf ceo wells fargo. She was honest, he was not. She mentioned a lot about the rise in profits and stock price. Now imagine the US corporat media’s role in declaring the lies and harm that Liz caused wells fargo profits with Hillary’s approved version of the TPP which wallstreet wants and whom she works for.
WTFU america
Brazilian supreme court(STF) decided today 9/23 to open an ivestigation against Temer . That´s why we say: Temer get out!
Actually the investigation is a second coup: they’ll let it simmer instead of actually doing anything about it until next year, so they can demote him in favor of an INDIRECT election held by Congress which will indubitably elect Aécio Neves, simply the MOST MENTIONED NAME in all the investigations going on. And as soon as Aécio enters, they’ll most definitely end the direct election system, so that people won’t be able to have a say in federal politics anymore.
Couple that with the way our politicians already changed the elections for Congress, by making it possible for one well-voted for name (usually someone with popular appeal among the dumb masses, like an actor or a pastor or whatever the hell is fashionable at the moment) to carry over all the other “internal” candidates who never had a vote – which is a system that will perpetuate the gang system in Congress forever, because brazilians are just way too cowardly and stupid to do anything about that.
In the end, we’re screwed. And now with the Army openly stating they’re infiltrating social movements, who knows what else is coming.
It´s true. Our political and social situation is extremely complicade. We have a illegitimate and corrupt governemnt, a big part of the population is blind manipulated by Globo network , by the other hand the governemnt supporters are in its majority facists. To let the situation worser, the justice is too slow, the big media is parcial, the big companies support the coup and big part of the congress is charged of receiving bribes. This is our current scared scenario.
Thank you for that update and notice of the state of media.
Thanks for link to reporters without borders, didnt know about it.
i would like to point out, imho, US media objections to Donald Trump is actually a tactic to mask their wallstreet support for hellary clinton. I do not know if Trump wants to privitise public property but i do know that hellary wants to privitise the entire u.s. government and court system with the TPP etal.
The first comment in this thread was by rr heard, who asked:
Amend that to include various anti-Greenwald trolls and ankle-biters such as (but not limited to) Craig Summers, Mani etc., and see how it went. They either ignored the FACT this article is about, or, as with Diogo, he tap-danced around it vis-a-vis his prior assertions about the legitimacy of the impeachment and the motives of those driving it.
I won’t reply to some of these trolls/authoritarians, even if they reply to this, because many have requested that I not encourage them in their spewing of dreck. But I do ask good faith readers to note how the usual suspects have dealt with — or not — Temer’s words in the video.
Count how many comments you wrote about the above article (at least this time you wrote three, last time you did not write none) and compare that number to the ones written by those you describe as trolls. You started writing BS about me even before I read the article!!
This your pattern: You write a bunch of BS about commenters. Even when they write about the articles you respond with more BS about them ignoring the article. Then, you call them trolls. There is no entertainment without you!
Mona, I’m not tap-dancing around my prior comments – or maybe I am , I’m not sure what that means, actually.
Look, I know I criticized Greenwald, and I criticized you, maybe too personally even, but can we move on? I’m not anti-Greenwald, and I’m sure you are smart and a competent lawyer.
But you should take my word when I say my views are. I’m not on the internet to fool anyone and I’m not afraid to say if I change my mind. You shouldn’t be calling me names, like authoritarian, even if you disagree with what I’m saying. I also haven’t read comments from anyone else here that would lead to the conclusion that they are authoritarians, although there is inflammatory rhetoric and a lot of misinformation, but that’s internet. Let’s keep it mature, shall we?
See, here’s the thing. I don’t care, at all, whether it’s Mani ranting that I’m dumb and the world’s worst lawyer, or it’s you telling me I am, in fact, smart and competent. I Don’t. Care. My ego strength is not remotely wrapped up in what anonymous Internet trolls and/or gadflies say of me.
That’s why I virtually never substantively reply to the endless litany of personal attacks from Mani, Craig, Karl and etc. Only when one of them says something so manifestly preposterous about me — such as that I lack all analytical thinking skills — do I address it, and that is for the purpose of pointing out that the person spews grossly improbable claims; in this instance one of their inane claims just happens to be about me. I do not address it for the purpose of defending myself or objecting to how “mean” he is & etc.
“Authoritarian” is a perfectly proper political descriptor (as opposed to juvenile spewings such as “lapdog” from your most ardent fan). Nevertheless, I have not called you that. If and when I do, it will be because you demonstrate the beliefs of one, as your other big fan, Craig Summers has so often done.
When I label Mani a “moron,” that’s because he actually is a fool, something I’ve not said of you, or of Craig. Nor do I mean it as an insult per se; it is my honest description of him.
“I Don’t. Care. My ego strength is not remotely wrapped up in what anonymous ..”
Say the one who starts pasting her CV whenever her ignorance is exposed.
You demonstrate why I write to Diogo about you: “When I label Mani a “moron,” that’s because he actually is a fool, something I’ve not said of you, or of Craig. Nor do I mean it as an insult per se; it is my honest description of him.” It’s because so much of your output is like that silliness about me “pasting my CV.” It’s just not true, and anyone reading this board for two seconds knows it.
You can, on rare occasion, post substantive material. But the vast bulk of your shtick is like what you did here: posting inanity that is either substanceless, or manifestly untrue — like you did vis-a-vis your grossly dishonest misquotes of Pedinska and similar falsehoods about any number of other respected commenters.
If you actually want to be taken seriously — and I don’t think you likely do — you are going to have to preponderantly stick with intelligent substance.
Can you?
“that silliness about me “pasting my CV.” It’s just not true, and anyone reading this board for two seconds knows it.”
Yes I should have written “part” of CV instead of your CV. That’s why I know you are a lawyer, you studied religion, you worked with Greenwald etc..Your CV consists mostly of your education and work history. When you keep writing about those data then you are reporting part of your CV
“either substanceless, or manifestly untrue — like you did vis-a-vis your grossly dishonest misquotes of Pedinska and similar falsehoods about any number of other respected commenters.”
This is not about me. You see this site as your private property thanks to your connection with TI. So, when dissenters embarrass you with proper arguments supported by facts you keep repeating falsehoods about them so you can get them removed. That’s a comedy show. Since you called me a liar again, so let’s review your lies again. Shall we?
1) Pedinska claimed the Clinton Foundation did not fund the reconstruction of the health centre in Haiti.
I am stating again that is factually incorrect. I know personally the director of that Center. I gave you his name, my name and his phone number with his permission. If I am lying why is it so hard for you to contact him and prove everybody that I am a liar ?
2) You called me a vicious Zionist who despises Muslims.
If it’s true why you cannot find ONE statement from me supporting Israel. Why is it that hard for you to find ONE statement from a vicious Zionist in support of Israel?
3) You stated clearly that I was not a Muslim after I told you I was. Then you wrote many statements saying you never wrote anything about what my religion is.
4) You stated you knew me and I wanted to harm you in real life. Then you apologized to me for confusing me with that “intelligent” stalker who wanted to harm you. Since when it was “intelligent” to harm another being?
5) You stated Malala opinion about drones matters because she LIVES in Pakistan.
I replied that was factually incorrect. Malala does not live in Pakistan but the UK. Was I wrong? After I corrected you you called me a troll.
6) I repeated James Madison the Father of the US Constitution, Abraham Baldwin views AFTER they signed the Constitution. Members of the First Congress repeated that view ;
Impeachment offenses do not have to be a crime.
You called me a moron for repeating that view.
You have an extensive history of lying about me and turning around saying that I am a liar. So, please you should agitate for my removal so my point will be confirmed: it is a comedy show where liars. trolls, crapflooders, false statements, ignorant arguments, name calling are tolerated as long as you are TI lapdog.
When relevant, yes I have. But so infrequently that your other troll pal, Craig Summers, has accused me many times of “failing to disclose” that I’m Greenwald’s former law partner. He insists it’s relevant, no matter what I’m writing about.
The rest of your spewing is replete with distortions and mischaracterizations of older arguments in which the fact of your being a moron became increasingly apparent. I’m not spending a bunch of time debunking it all, point by point. I’ll look at just one:
Your inane announcement that X is false because you know Director A who says X is true, and “here’s his number, call him and ask him,” is just absurd. All the documentation I located demonstrated the falsity of X — and THAT was the your “defense”; call the director. Almost no one is going to take such a ploy seriously.
Most of your arguments are just that weak, misleading and/or silly.
You have reached the level of mental instability:
X cannot be true or false because I know Director A
X can be true or false if Director A confirms or deny the information.
It’s not a defence. It’s your opportunity to prove that I am a liar because so far you have been the one lying blatantly. Of course you will never contact him because you take this site too seriously to sustain embarrassment. You spend weeks writing falsehoods about this matter while you could spend five minutes contacting the individual who received the funds to prove that I am a liar.
You are lying again:
“All the documentation I located demonstrated the falsity of X”
That is FALSE.
YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY DOCUMENTATIONS THAT STATE THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DID NOT FUND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRE GHESKIO. You will find many documents, videos of the director praising the Foundation.
Are you a pathological liar?
If Temer says he staged a coup, and the Brazil media doesn’t report it, has he made a sound? I say no. News doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Brazil’s establishment admits to a coup, but nothing punitive is done about it because the same establishment owns the media, and the people are too propagandized to rise up in mass protest against an obviously self-protective elite.
The United States establishment admits to torturing people and pursuing an illegal war, but nothing punitive is done about it because the same establishment owns the media, and the people are too propagandized to rise up in mass protest against an obviously self-protective elite.
The oligarchy in both nations can do as it wishes, for the ‘democracy’ is largely a sham. Obama can drone ‘some folks,’ hitting the intended target only 1% of the time, and Hillary Clinton can be extremely careless with information and still be a presidential candidate, Donald Trump can talk about reinstating torture and not be arrested – all because the establishment has different rules for itself and for the commoners, and has propagandized the populace to accept that. Brazil is similarly perverted.
o’bummer (cant believe it has come to this) vetoed the “victims can sue the saudis” bill enacted by the congress of the people of the United States.
dude is getting ugly.
I don’t think you can describe Temer’s rhetoric as a confession but more likely it is twisting the nose of the PT to elicit more hand wringing and pain from their loss and humiliation.
It seems that Lula/ Rousseff/PT were tolerated so long as the gravy train still flowed but once it dried up their corruption didn’t appear any better that the rest. Rousseff’s last election could be viewed as fraudulent because she cooked the books to make her rule appear more productive and that action opened the door to her later impeachment and removal to be replaced by another elected crook.
Rouseff should call for new elections. Since Temer has been banned for 8 years, he is ineligible to run.
As a US citizen, I find this report chilling in its confirmation of corporate press serving corporate manufactured politicians through repition of lies, and silence on dissenting information. We see it here too, of course, and the great problem we face is the continued reliance/trust of “mainstream” media.
Thank you for the Intercept. I hope we will see many more genuine investigative reporting sources operating with integrity.
imagine the corporat planet with the TPP courts from hellary “the corrupter” clinton. SCARIER.
What we have here is a pathological case of cognitive dissonance.
This is from a commenter who claims to be a lawyer:
“In America we don’t “impeach” our sitting officials for anything other than “crimes”, which are the “real reason” and basis for any legitimate impeachment” rrheard.
That is false and shocking from somebody claiming to be a lawyer. Impeachable offenses in America DO NOT HAVE TO BE A CRIME. An impeachable offense can be an abusive act that causes lawmakers to believe that the official is unfit to serve.
“An impeachable offense can be an abusive act that causes lawmakers to believe that the official is unfit to serve.”
Can you name some? What is ‘unfit’ to serve mean?
(I’m not trying to be a smart-*ss here. I’m wondering what some of those things might be that were not actually illegal as well)
Well….it’s been hours with Mani running around screaming his head off, yet unable to give one example of this simple request.
Figures.
No. You are the one who has no clue what you are talking about:
“The framers of the Constitution deliberated extensively on what offenses were impeachable, finally agreeing (after a great deal of debate) on “Treason, or bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.””
Mani is, in all sincerity — not Internet snark — a true moron.
Are you a lawyer as well?
Please tell us you’re not. You cannot even construe the Supreme Law of the land, i,e., the Constitution.
Please do not take my words for it. This is from Elizabeth Bazan:
“In some of the impeachments, which have gone to trial and conviction, some of the articles DID NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME, but which did involve serious misconduct” ( Impeachment An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice p. 33)
Elizabeth B. Bazan is a legislative attorney at the Congressional Research Service, former Vice Chairperson for the Federal Bar Association Administration. What you would call a “moron”.
Yup, and in the very next sentence she says: “…the standard for impeachable offenses may be somewhat different for Presidents and members of the Executive branch than for judges.”
Not pertaining to whether an impeachable offense has to be a crime big dummy! Even the lawmakers who were against Clinton impeachment stated not all impeachable offenses are crimes.
How can somebody be so ignorant? What if the US president was an alcoholic who goes intoxicated in national security meetings but refuses to resign? You can’t possibly believe that is not an impeachable offense, based on precedents, legal scholar and lawmakers opinion.
You are more a comedian than a lawyer. You also have a reading comprehension problem. The difference in standard (that Congress refuses to accept) is not whether an impeachable offense has to be a crime. That difference relates to some conducts that members of the executive branch might get away with as opposed to judges. Nevertheless, scholars agree the impeachable offense does not have to be a crime.
Ok, you are just spewing now. Time to revert to ignoring you.
Clearly Mani won that one. But it does confirm what I always suspected. You ignore me when you really have no answer.
Thanks Mona.
I ignore Craig Summers 95% of the time, and shall do so here. This is the result of multiple reader requests who objected that my engaging him increased his output of massive walls of dreck-text.
Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 4.:
Are you saying as a lawyer that my statement:
“Impeachable offenses in America DO NOT HAVE TO BE A CRIME. An impeachable offense can be an abusive act that causes lawmakers to believe that the official is unfit to serve.”
is wrong?
I am saying, as a citizen and a lawyer, what the Constitution says. I will add: some scholars hold that, based on Nixon v. United States, only Congress may determine what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor.” I will further add that an impeachment pertains to a criminal offense.
And I will reaffirm that you are a moron.
You should be careful when you brag about yourself. You need to go back to law school or at least leave the computer alone and start reading .
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES IN THE UNITED STATES DO NOT HAVE TO BE A CRIME. ANY ABUSIVE ACT THAT CAUSES LAWMAKERS TO BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL IS UNFIT TO SERVE IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
Please do no take my words.
This is from the United State Congress Research, October 2015,
“The notion that ONLY criminal conduct can constitute sufficient ground for impeachment does not, however, comport with historical practice”
“Many of the impeachment approved by the House of Representatives have included conduct that did not involve criminal activity…Judge Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench in a state of total intoxication…”
You moron, you cite language about a federal judge. Article II, Section 4 is not the only constitutional provision pertaining to judges. As one site puts it:
And why is Congress charged with upholding the “good behavior” of federal judges?
Because of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution:
The Founders purposely omitted “maladministration” from Article II Section 4. They’d seen how it become practice in Britain for politically motivated impeachments.
You. Are. A. Moron.
A federal judge that WAS IMPEACHED for his CONDUCT among other things. He is not the only example by the way.
But as you wish. What about the executive branch?
This is from the House Judiciary Committee 1973
“The Constitutional Convention…quite clearly rejected a dual standard for judges and civil officers. The treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors clause thus serve as the sole standard for impeachable conduct for both executive branch officials and federal judges.”
In 1974, the same committee concluded the impeachment of judges was CONSISTENT with impeachment of non judicial officers.
During Clinton impeachment the House Judiciary Committee minority view was
“NOT ALL IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE CRIMES AND NOT ALL CRIMES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES”
“Impeachment was reserved for CONDUCT that constitutes an egregious abuse or subversion of the powers of the executive office” Congressional Research Service October 2015.
I stated that impeachable offenses in the US do not have to be a crime. Legal scholars support that statement with historical facts. Legal scholars and even lawmakers who were against Clinton impeachment agreed that a crime is not necessary for a member of the executive to be impeached.
As usual you are wrong and as usual you can pretend to yourself that you are smart. That’s what makes this site so entertaining.
You overlooked a key word. Let me help you:
Now, if you were not a moron you would have stumbled upon the fact that, at the time of the Founding, the word “misdemeanors” did not have to mean a crime. For that reason some argue that such things as “maladministration” and such can be cause for Executive branch impeachments. But that overlooks that the Founders explicitly deleted proposed language that would allow such out of fear of political impeachments as in Britain.
There is not one remotely modern example of an Executive impeachment in which non-criminal “charges” were not tossed in with criminal ones precisely to avoid this issue, the exception being Andrew Johnson and the matter wasn’t taken to court. As one historian put it about that impeachment (which failed to convict): “The charges were clearly political and no real evidence of high crimes and misdemeanor was introduced.”
And that’s why you keep citing drunkenness and other impeachments charges re: judges.
We really have to get Doc Hollywood to do a characterization of Mani. That guy makes me laugh so hard.
You have no idea how hilarious you are! Specially when you are just “laughing” at something you do not understand.
Let me help in third grade logic:
1) Mani : impeachable offenses do not have to be a crime.
2) You and Mona a ” lawyer”: that is false.
3) Mani: based on historical facts, scholars opinions, lawmakers opinions: that is true
4) Mona “lawyer”: but these are impeachment against judges not members of the executives. There is a difference in standard between judges and executive officials.
Suddenly the argument moved from “false” to these are “judges” although we are talking about the same country and the same constitution!
5) Mani: Congress has consistently repeated there is not a dual standard since the 70s. Scholars pinpoint the difference relates to conducts that members of the executive can get away with while judges cannot. The difference has nothing to do with whether impeachment offenses have to be a crime. They do not believe they have to be a crime.
It is so funny when surrounded by fools. The impeachment process for centuries around the world have never been for just crimes. The funnier is the “lawyer” reading legal point of view she does not comprehend. The minority view consisted of lawmakers who were against the impeachment. The majority view was worse. They wanted EXACTLY the same standards between members of the executive and judges.
Oops.
“Let me help in third grade logic”
I must have really made an impression on you, huh. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
As for the rest of this comment, you have too much time on your hands to keep bringing up stuff that you’ve been proved incorrect on time and again. Perhaps you should move onto something new, like finger-painting.
“you’ve been proved incorrect on time and again. ”
I am not trying to be a smart ass, but I hope you are not teaching anything to anybody. You have documented majority opinions from US Congress stating there is no difference between judges and non judicial officials when it comes to impeachment. You have documented minority opinion stating essentially there should be a difference, but the impeachable offense does not need to be a crime. Yet, with the opinions of many scholars, historians, lawmakers who clearly stated that the impeachable offense does not need to be a crime you actually made that statement. I wonder do you just want to feel good by agreeing with Mona whose argument is beyond stupid or it is just your norm that critical thinking is off limit. So, this is a question you should answer to yourself:
Suppose the US president is an alcoholic who refuses to resign, what should Congress do?
( there were rumors that Boris Yeltsin, a leader of a nuclear power state was alcoholic, so the example is not far stretched)
“Suppose the US president is an alcoholic who refuses to resign, what should Congress do?”
Why should he resign? Shouldn’t a person suffering from a medical condition receive treatment? Isn’t that overkill to expect an elected official to be kicked out for a medical condition?
Reagan underwent surgery and was under anesthesia for several hours and then in recovery for more time. Yet, people didn’t feel he should either resign or be impeached.
I don’t think having a medical condition is grounds for impeachment.
It’s not.
I got tired of tutoring Mani. But the Constitution, in the 25th Amendment, has that taken care of. If the President becomes psychotic, a hopeless drunkard, or falls into a coma, then Section 4 of that Amendment would apply:
Moreover, a President cannot sit for more than four years between elections. By contrast, federal judges are lifetime appointments. So, the Founders provided their removal upon failure to evince “good behavior.”
Mani is a moron and doesn’t know about the 25th Amendment — or much else.
Again you are the dumbest lawyer in the city.
The 25th Amendment does not REQUIRE members of the cabinet to inform Congress. They MAY transmit to Congress the President is a drunkard and cannot fulfill his duties. Cabinet members may (as they did in the case of Yeltsin) for political reason continuously deny that the President is a drunkard.
Congress actions through the 25th Amendment Section 4 strictly depend on what the cabinet reports to it.
I misworded this: “the exception being Andrew Johnson.” I meant that was an ancient and sole example from 1868. Had it succeeded it could have destroyed the Republic; the overwhelming historical consensus was that it was a purely political impeachment, like Dilma’s.
Since then, the House has made sure to include criminal charges.
This is very interesting. Can you let me know how I would fin the documents from which these quotes are taken? Are they available on the internet.
Also, do you know how much this topic – whether impeachable offenses of members of the executive branch have to be crimes or not – is covered in literature and jurisprudence? Overall, is the literature mostly silent, or is there a lot of published debate on the topic?
Careful. Mani doesn’t get that the discussion is about impeachments against members of the Executive branch. He’s completely clueless that the Constitution does not provide removal of that branch’s members if they fail to show “good behavior,” as it does solely for judges.
“He’s completely clueless that the Constitution does not provide removal of that branch’s members if they fail to show “good behavior,” as it does solely for judge”
1973 “The House Judiciary Committee reviewed the history of the phrase and concluded that the Constitutional Convention quite clearly rejected a dual standard for judges and civil officers”
1974 ” The House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry asked whether the “good behavior” clause provides an additional ground for impeachment of judges and concluded that IT DOES NOT”. It emphasized that the House’s impeachment of judges was consistent with impeachment of non judicial officers”
“The House Report on the Impeachment of President Clinton affirmed this reading of the Constitution, stating that impeachable conduct for judges mirrored impeachable conduct for other civil officers in the government”
Scholar opinion: ” it is uncertain if conduct meriting impeachment and conviction for a judge would fail to qualify for a non judicial officer”
During the Clinton impeachment even the minority view, which seemed to admit a difference between impeachable conduct for a judge and impeachable conduct for the President clearly stated that impeachment offenses DO NOT HAVE to be a crime, but a CONDUCT that constitutes an egregious abuse of power.
Mona claims to be a lawyer. So, she is a dumb lawyer. The majority view in the House since the 70s has been clear: no difference between judges and presidents when it comes to impeachment. The minority view was simple: they could be a difference between judges and presidents when it comes to impeachment. But both views categorically concluded that the impeachable offense does not have to be a crime, which is what scholars agree with.
Try this Diogo. it explains 4 different schools of thought on the subject.
http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html
No one thinks it wise not to include criminal charges, for fear of what the courts would say. OF COURSE you can find House reports claiming — but not acting upon– a power they do not have. It’s when they admit to a lack of power that one should notice it, for it’s remarkable nature. Note that Mani sites no judicial opinions — something Congress wants to avoid.
The Founders were not morons who included the “good behavior” language solely for judges if it was redundant of the Article II impeachment provision.
“The Founders were not morons”
Alexander Hamilton Federalist 65: impeachable offenses:
“Those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the ABUSE or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political…”
US House Judiciary Committee Clinton Impeachment Minority View
Impeachment was reserved for
“Conduct that constitutes an egregious ABUSE or subversion of the powers of the executive office”
You need to go back to law school, review American history, and improve your reading comprehension. Hamilton was not referring only to judges and it is clear that his definition of impeachable offenses went beyond the notion of crimes. No, he was not a moron. You are the moron as you cannot see that scholars, historians, lawmakers base that particular opinion on him. Moreover, you are dumb lawyer. No reasonable judge, legal scholar, or lawmaker would find it unfair to impeach an alcoholic president or a vice president who never shows up to work.
Ok, one exception to now ignoring you. Yes, Hamilton wrote that in the Federalist, before the Constitution was adopted. It is not law, and of the Founders Hamilton was the most authoritarian. Only other authoritarians admire him, like this guy from the Naval War College:
It’s not a “caricature”; it’s accurate. To be sure, Hamilton was not a moron — but he was an elitist authoritarian. James Madison’s plan was debated and adopted; Hamilton’s was rejected as “too British” and like what we had fought against. In any event, the “good behavior” language would be redundant, interpreted as you do.
And now I’m off again — I posted that for the benefit of others. You are not salvageable.
Poor analytical skills:
You have not proved Hamilton wrote this BECAUSE he was an authoritarian.
Edmund Randolph: the President may be impeached if he “MISBEHAVES”.
Charles Pinckney the impeachment power of the House reaches “those who BEHAVE amiss, or betray their public trust”
Abraham Baldwin : if the President “in a fit of passion” removed” all the good officers of the Government” and the Senate were unable to choose qualified successors, the consequence would be that the President “would be obliged to do the duties himself; or, if he did not, we would impeach him”
Fisher Ames
“there may be numerous causes for removal which do not amount to a crime” impeachment was available if an officer misbehaves and for mal-conduct.”
Should we listen to you or:
1) the people who signed the US Constitution who stated that impeachable offenses do not have to be a crime
2) Lawmakers on both sides who repeated decades after decades that impeachable offenses do not have to be a crime
3) Legal scholars who have stated for centuries that impeachable offenses do not have to be a crime.
I will definitely listen to the Framers, the signatories of the Constitution, the legal scholars, the lawmakers instead of a self proclaimed “well informed” “lawyer” who is so “smart” that she goes online to lie about others, crapflood a site she thinks she owns without having a single legal book on her name or a single legal article on her name.
But he was an authoritarian, and like you, supports impeachment of presidents for all kinds of trivial reasons when the Executive does something he doesn’t like. Charles Pickney and Governeur Morris didn’t want there to be any impeachment provision at all for the President, fearing it would enslave the President to the Congress — which didn’t bother the noxious Hamilton one bit. As a Judiciary Committee report put it:
They were eventually persuaded to a limited impeachment provision by James Madison, who saw to it that impeachment was only for “high crimes and misdemeanors” and removed “maladministration” from the draft, correctly stating “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” (You know, like what has happened to Dilma.)
Now, Mani, you’ve been posting quite a bit of substance, yet you cannot seem to contain your urge to spew nonsense about my purportedly poor analytical abilities, the absurd claim I should be translating and studying the Brazilian Constitution, and that I lack credibility because I have not authored legal books — neither has anyone else here, you moron. (Tho I have drafted legal briefs that have won on federal appeal; perhaps the appellate panels failed to recognize a total lack of analytical skills. Perhaps they are not as insightful as an Internet troll called “Mani.”)
Moving along, Mani, I rely on ACTUAL Brazilian legal scholars as reported by credible outlets such as the LA Times — as opposed to anonymous Internet commenters — for views of the Brazilian Constitution, a legal document in which I have no education or training to construe. I trust those who do have such training, and cited one of them.And you or Diogo? You absurdly cite yourselves as authorities based on nothing, while ranting that *I haven’t written a legal treatise. [eye roll]
So, Mani, stop that shit and stay with the substantive material, or I will ignore you for adding nothing but dreck o the board. Keep it substantive, or more and more people are going to agitate for your removal. I haven’t, but some have. And I cannot keep my word to them if I engage you but you continue in your noxious, board-polluting ways.
“Keep it substantive, or more and more people are going to agitate for your removal.”
By any means do, so you can prove my point that is a comedy show. An entertaining venue.
YOU DIDN’T COMMENT ANYTHING ABOUT THE ARTICLE AFTER YOU READ IT. YOU JUST WROTE A BUNCH OF BS ABOUT ME EVEN BEFORE I READ THE ARTICLE.
That’s exactly what trolling and crapflooding are! As the favourite lapdog you are well aware TI will never ban you for writing NON SUBSTANTIVE comments so blatantly . That makes the venue a theatre.
Your CV is irrelevant to me. You can claim to be a lawyer, you worked with this or that…but if you cannot comprehend what James Madison and many others stated about impeachment AFTER they wrote and signed the Constitution then you lack critical thinking skills.
So please remove me from the site because like James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Fisher Ames..the US Congress l state
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES DO NOT HAVE TO BE A CRIME.
“Those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the ABUSE or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political…”
This was written 200 years ago when many of the things this statement contemplated were not written or codified into law. That’s not really true any longer. Things like corruption for example.
Actually, I had read somewhere today that the word ‘corruption’ was actually inserted in a version of the constitution under the impeachment sections but was contemplated and removed by the Framers.
So, when reading statements like that, you need to also consider the state of the legal system and society in general.
Here is Alexander Hamilton’s full paragraph that is quoted above so that reader may understand the context.
“A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly or inimical, to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will inlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparitive strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
I detect cherry-picking.
EVERY SINGLE SCHOLAR WHO READ FEDERALIST 65 AGREED HAMILTON MEANT IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES SHOULD GO BEYOND CRIME.
Do you even understand what you are reading?
Thank you!
Try this too, Diogo.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_5.html
It has lots of thoughts of the Framers of the US constitution.
Yes, there is a lot of literature about.
Albert Broderick, “What are impeachable offenses”
Willet Van Nest “Impeachable offences under the Constitution of the US”
Committee on the judiciary house of representatives (Nov 1998) ” Impeachment”
Congressional Research Service ( Online)
An overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice
Your very source includes this:
Because of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution pertaining to federal judges.
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:
This is true, there is no consensus. Just like there is no consensus on a number of SCOTUS decisions and yet they have the final word.
What is not true is that the Supreme Court “allowed” the Senate to make the final decision. The Constitution gives the authority to make the final decision, there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the Supreme Court to allow or not. The only role for the SC is to decide the rite and for the Chief Justice to preside the final session of the impeachment trial i the Senate, without a vote though.
Um, no, Ima gonna take the view of a con law prof from Rio de Janeiro State University before that of Some Guy on the Internet already demonstrated to traffic in misleading and fallacious nonsense.
Suit yourself. It’s not like you ever cared to know and understand.
I doubt she said that, probably a misunderstanding by the LA Times. Again, not that you care, you are just looking for something that confirms your views as usual – or, more accurately, what you think is GG’s views.
Diogo translated: “I’m right, dammit! And you’d see that a professor of constitutional law at Rio de Janeiro State University either didn’t say it, or the LA Times got her quote wrong if you weren’t [argle, bargle, don’t want to understand, blah, blah, you don’t care, argle bargle].”
Can some “LOLs,” and a few “lapdogs” a la your huge supporter, Mani, be far behind?
If you were not a lapdog you would have searched for a copy of the Brazilian Constitution, translated it and analyzed it so you could compare the articles with what the professor said. But since you do not have any critical analysis skills you just repeat whatever other people say.
It is wholly improbable for that to be true; nigh unto impossible. First, I passed the Law School Admissions Test with a very high score, including the Logic and Analytical Reasoning sections or I could not have been admitted to a rather elite law school. Second, I’ve passed two notoriously difficult state bar exams (one was New York) on the first try each.
You post much inane drivel — you seem to revel in it — but should at least keep in mind that many here know who I am, as in, in real life. They know my CV. You simply make a further fool of yourself posting such inanity. I suggest you find a more plausible line of insult where I am concerned.
Based on your understanding of what constitutes an impeachment offense in the US the appropriate conclusion is that you are the dumbest lawyer in the city you are located. I am trying to be nice by not saying the whole country.
You have a better chance in comedy. You start writing crap about me even before I read the article and you are talking about inanity. This is after ALL your comments in the last article were about me and other dissenters. You did not write a single sentence about the article. Again do not apologize to me. Apologize to TI for changing their comment sections into a theater.
Mani translated: “Ok, granted, it’s wholly implausible that she lacks critical analysis skills, but I’ll just spew some more name- calling and non sequiturs because I’m a moronic troll and that’s mostly what I do. LOL. Lapdogs. Argle bargle.”
I hereby apologize to the readership for having extensively engaged the inane troll known as “Mani” and thereby caused it to spew even more of its usual bilge, and I shall now revert to ignoring it.
But in this case you have the wrong information, got the chance to understand that and verify it but chose not to, preferring to stick to your ignorance based on the trust you have that the LA Times would not make a mistake. Even though this should be an easy case for a lawyer to exercise some critical and be cautiously incredulous suspicipous of the claim, since the Supreme Court “allowing” the Senate to have the final decision on impeachment would not be the most logical scenario. And yet, once again, you did not have the critical thinking skill to question what you’re reading nor care to check, to ensure you have the right information.
Resort as you wish to your believe that your person and others know it. The fact speak for themselves. This is not isolated case, I see you acting like consistently.
Says Some Anonymous Guy with a track record of errors, distortions and general unreliability. By contrast, a respectable reporter at a top tier newspaper quotes and cites a professor of constitutional law at Rio de Janeiro State University. This Guy — you — says I should believe him, than the LAT as it quotes the professor of Brazilian Con Law. To borrow from Mani, your huge fan and supporter: LOL
Oh, absolutely. As between an anonymous Internet commenter on the one hand, and a reputable reporter and outlet citing a professor of Brazil’s Constitution on the other, I’m always — ALWAYS — going to go with the latter.
And as for your quote of the Constitution below: it’s irrelevant. It pertains to who has the jurisdiction to try the Brazilian President under certain conditions; it does not address what offenses fall within the terms of the provision of that jurisdiction; that is, it does not elaborate on what offenses are those which only the Federal Senate may try.
Professor de Barcellos says the Court “allowed” the Senate to decide that budget irregularities fall within the provisions of Senate jurisdiction; the Constitution doesn’t say that, however, and does answer that question.
This site so, so needs an edit function. Above I meant to write this final phrase with the bolded word added: “and does not answer that question.”
I will help you out. This is the English translation of the Brazilian Constitution offered by the Federal Electoral Court.
http://english.tse.jus.br/arquivos/federal-constitution
SECTION IV
The Federal Senate
Article 52. It is exclusively the competence of the Federal Senate:
I – to effect the legal proceeding and trial of the President and Vice-resident of the Republic for crime of malversation, and the Ministers of State and the Commanders of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force for crimes of the same nature relating to those;
The original, in Portuguese, it is more unambiguous. The literally translation goes as:
“…
I – to try and judge the President…”
Is very impressive how a big country changes too quickly. Less than two years ago we are still living in a freedom country, unfortunetly today we get a deep dive in the darkness. We have only our cry as our letal weapon against the media, the justice and the coupist government. TEMER Get out!
The final paragraph from above merits special emphasis:
I hope the good people of Brazil can find the representation they want and deserve, actually for all people in every nation. Cute names for policies like ” The Bridge To The Future” make them sound so promising, who are they kidding? If the public could have a mic in every closed door meeting between the corporate elite and their representatives they would be shocked at how candid they are. What Mr. Temer means by ” Bridge To The Future ” is, we are going to lease the land to loggers, miners and developers, build a bridge on the backs of brazils’ citizens and bridge leads right to the bank for a handful of corrupt degenerates. That’s my interpretation of these BS political slogans.
Once again, thankyou to The Intercept
Globo has been a right wing rag since its inception – especially as a result of its unmitigated support for the military coup in 64 and the subsequent censorship of the democratic movements that flourished post coup.
That they would support yet another coup is hardly surprising.
The press in Brazil has forever been the lackey of corporate interest. If not for some independent journalism (The Intercept BR being a case in point) there would be no real information available to Brazilians (as there wasn’t for so many years).
Great stuff, as usual Glenn! Can you speak about any other details of the video? Do you know if Temer was unaware he was being filmed, LOL!? Do you know where the video was originally posted?
Americas Society/ council of the Americas sponsored this lunch in New York, and they posted part of the press conference. They edited this part out, however, but many journalists filmed: SBT, GLOBO, BANDNEWS, and international press. They did not allow any independent media into the event, such as Midia Ninja or Jornalistas Livres. Everything was highly monitored and the protesters outside were viewed by the presidential team as criminals, except that the New York Police respects the right to free speech.
I agree and say more.
With the help of the press, Michel Temer is destroying education in Brazil to allow recolonization my country: https://jus.com.br/artigos/52305/a-marcha-da-recolonizacao-do-brasil
the slug for this piece is rather overcomplicated … except for those who were not fooled by the previously discredited re-contextualization of the subsequent explanation!
Someone should hack Temer’s twitter and post his comments
I noticed that not just the big media ignored it, also others like CartaCapital and CartaMaior have not published anything on this. Very strange and unfortunate.
No, decidedly not “strange.”
What do you know? Do you even know the Brazilian media landscape to judge that? Do you even read Portuguese?
Diogo–I’m from Brazil and know the Brazilian media very well. Mona is not wrong.
So you don’t think it is strange that outlets like CartaCapital and CartaMaior have not published this news?
She is wrong, she doesn’t even know who they are – do you? – but she gives her usual ignorant and false-confindet pontifications that “decidly” not strange…
But..but.. they did…
http://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/temer-impeachment-ocorreu-porque-dilma-recusou-ponte-para-o-futuro
Thank you. It looks like they just published it, or maybe I missed it earlier.
These things:
1. Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept;
2. Your commenting history of errors, distortions and whining about Greenwald’s/The Intercept’s fact-laden articles about Brazil; and,
3. What English-language outlets such as the LA Times report about Brazil and its media.
By both professional training and temperament I am able to detect casuistry and fallacious reasonings, regardless of subject matter. That is, I have determined your modus operandi.
So there you go: you have no clue who CartaCapital or CartaMaior is but you still contested what I said. Clueless.
Nor do I have a clue how quantum physics works. When I want to know something on that topic I read those who do. The writers at this site, and at the LA Times, know what those outlets are, if they are important to this discussion.
And, as I said, I do know how you operate.
Another example of Form Over Substance type of argument. One does not need to know ‘Brazilian Media Landscape’ to understand their silence and its meaning.
Their silence speaks volumes. FYI, silence is neither Portuguese, English or any other language. It’s universally understood.
He and his pals offer lots of that and various other modes of fallacious posturing. As you say, that is recognized by intelligent people in any language.
At least you’re making it quote explicit how it works for you guys:
“One does not need to know …‘to understand…”
Unfortunately, the internet is full of people who think and act like that. It has empowered all kinds of ignorant people to be aggressively opinionated.
Here is my quote in it’s entirety. I reject your mis-charaterization of my comment.
One does not need to know ‘Brazilian Media Landscape’ to understand their silence and its meaning.
Their silence speaks volumes. FYI, silence is neither Portuguese, English or any other language. It’s universally understood.
I think my characterization was fair. You think you can reach conclusions about the motivations about all the media, specifically the 2 that I mentioned, without knowing the media landscape, but that’s wrong. They are not not a monolith, with all the same motivations. One of them, Carta Capital, just published it, as Alvaro let me know, clearly the reason for their initial “silence” was different from what you inferred.
And this perfect illustration of the problem of people thinking they can reach overarching, across the border conclusions without understanding the myriad of reasons and motivations, making everything so black and white, when in fact there is indeed many shades of gray.
Er, no, that is not at all “clear.” Your mere assertion of clarity is, um, insufficient. And a person from Brazil affirming my statement goes a long way to undermining this:
It was not strange. It is not strange. Not at all. At some point even Globo is going to have to show at least a part of this video. As it goes around the world, they’ll have to in order to pretend they are an “objective” media outlet.
“conclusions about the motivations about all the media”
Diogo, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the motivations of Main Stream Media. They are Corporate and/or National/Political interests. The same in every country. Here is proof.
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/19/brazils-largest-newspaper-commits-major-journalistic-fraud-to-boost-interim-president-temer/
The MSM are corporate tools. I’d admit there could be other reasons, but I’m highly skeptical. I still would say that the reason for their delay would be to figure out how to minimize or spin their stories to most deceive the general public, especially in light of the link I just posted.
That’s the reason why sites like The Intercept are needed. To call out their lies and deceptions or at least provide a different opinion.
Let the public decide.
http://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/temer-impeachment-ocorreu-porque-dilma-recusou-ponte-para-o-futuro
Rouseff and the PT should put out public statements, emails and other social media statements and watch them spread like wildfire.
I wonder (or can see the possibility of) if Rouseff might call upon the military to arrest Temer and his cabinet.
She can’t do that, Galactus, since the military is completely on Temer’s side.
Right, she can’t because “military is completely on Temer’s side”, not because, say, it would be a coup d’etat and, obviously, unconstitucional.
The hipocrisy is unbelivable!
Nah, Galactus is not a hypocrite. He’s an American, and one of our seminal documents states:
THAT’s your argument to defend a military coup d’etat in a foreign country?!
That’s quintessential American arrogance right there. That puts you in the company of a long list of imperialist pigs.
Slowly the façade comes down…
Well, no, actually many oppressed people’s around the world have cited the Declaration as inspiration and justification for throwing off the yoke of oppression just as we did wiht the British Crown. Moreover, I have not done this:
I know that The Intercept (Brazil) has had substantial reach in reporting to the Brazilian public, but if you, Glenn, could qualify that to us here about this story, that would be appreciated. My, what some might say, overly optimistic nature leads me to hope or believe that much of the Brazilian public will become aware of this story because it’s being reported by The Intercept Either way, I sure would like to have it confirmed one way or the other.
It’s gotten a huge number of readers in the first 24 hours since it was posted yesterday in Portuguese, and is getting many more today for its English version. So many people in Brazil are seeing it, but until it penetrates big Brazilian media – especially Globo TV – it won’t have the impact it should
“…but until it penetrates big Brazilian media – especially Globo TV – it won’t have the impact it should”
ok … until the story does what it should do, it wont do what it should do
What exactly do you want from the Brazilian media? Specifically Globo? Do you want them to be objective?
It seems you are blaming them for a lack of objectivity because they support the parties in power now, but in the past you made it clear you don’t believe in objectivity.
Wonder what it’s like to have no self respect. You can’t possibly have any self respect since you willingly post nonsense such as that comment.
What Glenn, and any self respecting person, would like Globo to do is to at least air the video of Temer saying what he said. That’s the very least they could do. After that, they can go about whatever objective or non objective spin that they choose. But by having aired the video, which shows exactly what Temer said, the Brazilian public would have a better chance of seeing the truth for themselves.
That is all too obvious to anyone who is not, as Mona has blatantly stated of you, a moron; a moron with no self respect.
Kitt, in Glenn’s last Brazil thread this crew wasn’t even aware that Glenn doesn’t recite the “objectivity” in journalism mantra. They didn’t know it until *I* told them. (And Craig Summers did as Craig is wont to do, by prattling on and endlessly on — with his usual massive walls of dreadful text — about how Glenn has “essentially called for “objectivity” in reporting on Hillary Clinton.)
So now Mani is prattling about how Glenn doesn’t want objectivity as the model, a fact he learned from me.
As time permits, I shall post and quote from Glenn’s many discussions of how journalism is properly adversarial to power, and that activist journalism has a long and glorious history in American history. With attention to that “activist journalism” does not mean playing fast and loose with facts or ignoring heavily salient ones. Unreliable outlets are just that, whether of the “activist” or “objective” model.
Such nuances are beyond the ken of morons such as Mani, but other readers could probably benefit from setting all of it forth.
“But by having aired the video, which shows exactly what Temer said, the Brazilian public would have a better chance of seeing the truth for themselves.”
1) By reporting how much money was involved in the fiscal trick of Dilma, then Intercept readers would have a better chance of knowing the large scale of the crime. Do you know how much money was involved?
2) By reporting that Brazilian TV and radio stations must BY LAW provide time to political candidates Intercept readers would have a better chance if knowing that PT has had more media exposure since they have more candidates.
3) By reporting that PT used government funds to support a campaign against impeachment Intercept readers would have a better chance of knowing the extent of corruption in the former government.
I can list more important facts that TI has omitted when reporting about Brazil. As a lapdog you wouldn’t dare call them morons with no self respect. Your whole life depends on their writers thinking for you.
As Greenwald stated, he does not believe in objectivity, then he certainly can omit important facts about Brazil. But it becomes ironic and laughable when he seems to complain about Globo, which like him is omitting important facts.
You didn’t say anything pertaining to the conversation in any of that prattle, so I’ll bring you back to what the conversation was about by asking you if you think that Globo should play the video on Brazilian TV of Temer saying what this article noted that he said. I do. And I’m sure, as you had asked Glenn earlier, that he does also.
Is it possible for you to state your answer to that question without scrambling signals, bending fenders, knocking over your lego structures and just generally working like a cyclone to blow your way around the question and the answer?
Dude, are you suffering from brain damage? You did not ask me any questions in your original point. Anyway, I think Greenwald is big enough to answer questions directed at him if he wishes to. Your comments are usually incoherent and they reflect anger as if you are struggling with some illness. I hope I am wrong and if I am not I wish you a healthy recovery.
Great work, as usual Glenn! Do you know any other details regarding the video? Did he not realize he was being filmed!? Where was the footage originally posted?
I’m not sure but I get the impression that “the Intercept Brazil” is such an outlier, such an anomaly, that it’s novelty value actually boosts its impact. Whereas, in the US, the Intercept is one of untold small outfits in the outer reaches of the American media solar system.
That is not the case, there are media small online media outlets and blogs in Brazil too. But you’re impression is revealing of the stereotypical of Brazil that have been propagated.
I’m not an American and I’m not in America. But what I’d like to know is what consequence, if any, all of this will — or might eventually — have in terms of American foreign policy vis-a-vis Brazil. Can a Bernie or someone else be trusted to raise all this in the Senate and, in some fashion, formally enter it into the record so that, in future, the State Department et cetera will simply have to take heed? — And if my question is utterly naive, then please pardon me.
Be confident that all that is happening is right in line with what the US government is supporting. We support the oligarchs not the people
It is really sad to watch what is happening in Brazil and how the dominant media tries to hide and manipulate the news to defend the coup d’Etat.
Thank you for your efforts to show the world what is going on in Br.
Wonder what Diogo and all your other apparent Brazilian detractors (who say you are being biased in describing Rousseff’s impeachment as a type of coup) are going to say now given they’ve consistently taken the position that Rousseff’s impeachment was Constitutionally appropriate and specifically motivated for the very specific legal “offense” and/or purported “budgetary crime” of cooking the nation’s books?
Crickets is my guess. Only an intellectually dishonest person refuses to take a person at his word. Then again probably the kind of folks who will claim Temer simply misspoke despite all the evidence to the contrary.
“Wonder what Diogo and all your other apparent Brazilian detractors (who say you are being biased in describing Rousseff’s impeachment as a type of coup) are going to say ”
They will stick to their Form Over Substance arguments claiming that the process Temer stated was not the impeachment process. This is how they like to deceive. They will mis-characterize Temer’s comments just like the mis-characterize Glenn’s comments.
I can see that one coming a mile away.
No Galactus the Great. Our arguments have a lot of substance, you like Mona have no critical thinking skills to understand them. You have demonstrated your complete ignorance of the impeachment process. A Brazilian lawmaker could have the most corrupt motivation to vote for the impeachment, that doesn’t remotely alter the legitimate reasons for other lawmakers to impeach a President based on either an ILLEGAL act that president committed or a LEGAL act that was so abusive that the lawmakers believes the President is unfit to serve. Many of your fellow lapdogs claim to be lawyers. I am waiting for them to describe that statement as inaccurate.
Everybody knows political parties in Brazil are highly corrupt. You could even publish a video with Temer bragging about impeaching Dilma because she is woman. That would mean Temer is corrupt (which is a fact) .That doesn’t mean Dilma and PT were not corrupt. If the people feel the impeachment was not fair, then they will punish the other parties in the next elections. That how democracy works. Now like Mona, be a good lapdog and repeat your master viewpoints.
Finally something makes sense. Although the whole impeachment process was actually under the law… 90% of the country don’t care… Everyone here just want to be rid of PT.
“You have demonstrated your complete ignorance of the impeachment process.”
No, I understand the process just fine. Especially when it’s used incorrectly in an unjust way to remove an elected party/person.
What you fail to understand and acknowledge, is that is was used in a wrongful way as a pretense to justice, when in fact, it was to wrongfully take control of a government and put in place policies that were rejected by the voters.
Beat me to it, rr, I was about to post the same sentiment. What, oh what, can Diogo, his troll-sidekick, Mani — and the rest of that sad sack crews say in substantive response to this?
I predict either silence, or special pleading married to myriad other fallacies, prominently including lots of ad hominem directed at Glenn, The Intercept, and we sane folk in comments.
If they show up, they’ll no doubt be as entertaining and silly as that Lúcia Guimarães was when she embarrassed herself on Twitter yesterday.
“Crickets is my guess.”
No way. They have the biggest, loudest mouths in the comment section. There is no way they will be silent. Their arrogance is only matched by their stupidity.
Yup, especially that Mani moron. One of them, a “Thomas,” has repeatedly and explicitly rejected democracy as desirable and doesn’t care if Temer et al. use undemocratic means to get and stay in power. Others, like Diogo, simply deny and distort the factual record and whine about Glenn’s writing, what it supposedly omits or “misunderstands.”
But what can they say in the face of Temer’s confession? You are almost certainly right, however, that they will show up to spew piles of inanity.
You are such a pathetic troll! You are already writing about me without even commenting on the article.
YOU WILL NOT FIND A SINGLE STATEMENT FROM ME SUPPORTING ANY BRAZILIAN POLITICAL PARTIES.
Since your whole life consists of sitting behind a computer, lying about others, crapflooding and inventing stories maybe you can show us a statement from Diogo that remotely suggested Temer’s party and the others were not corrupt. I cannot find one. Can you?
Corruption, crimes do not get you out of jail. A crooked cop still has the right to arrest you if you are committing a crime. A judge who is a secret drug baron still has the right to sentence you for selling drugs.
It is not even necessary to watch the video to understand that most political parties in Brazil including the one in power are corrupt. That doesn’t change the facts that
1) The Budget trick is illegal under Brazilian law
2) Brazilian constitution accepted by PT was followed during the impeachment process. Dilma used all legal means to defend herself.
3)The corrupt but ELECTED lawmakers followed the impeachment procedures
Now be a good lapdog and repeat your master viewpoints without any critical thinking.
Mani the Moron translated: “I have nothing I can say in response to the Temer confession that undermines my prior inanity, therefore I shall spew non sequiturs and shriek a bunch of name-calling. Because I am a fuckwitted troll.”
Even if everything you said is true, how do you explain Temer’s apparent admission that in fact the accusations of corruptions were not the basis for the impeachment proceedings, but rather a process to remove Rouseff because of their differences in economic policy as he stated?
Are you saying Temer is now lying?
I am saying Temer as most Brazilian politicians is CORRUPT. No one knows when he is lying or telling the truth. Again, any lawmaker can have the most corrupt motivation to impeach a president. That does not erode neither the legitimate reasons that other lawmakers have to impeach the same president nor the process used to impeach the president if the constitution was followed. The people can reward or punish those who impeach the president in the next election. In a democracy they use the power of the constitution not the military as you suggested PT should do.
“No one knows when he is lying or telling the truth.”
That’s not true. When you contradict yourself, it’s inherently known that one of the statements is either a lie or a mistake.
And you have to admit, Temer’s statements contradict themselves.
Although, I would admit that the other senators who voted for impeachment may have other motivations other than either the budget issues (false corruption charges IMO) or the policy differences that Temer described.
In any case, she didn’t have the support to politically survive it.
Right, says the American who just wrote a comment calling for a military coup d’etat in a latin-american country. F-ing rich!
Yea, I’ll be the first one to admit that comment was probably a bone-head move. I’m big enough to admit it and retract it, Diogo.
Consider it retracted.
Although Rouseff should not sit idly by after Temer’s comment(s).
Absolutely! Temer has given one more reason for opposition, he has no legitimacy. In my view, the very fact that they have split like after running together and dragged the country further down a crisis makes both of them illegitimate to govern, besides everything else.
“fact that they have split like after running together ”
One has to wonder how real the alliance actually was at this point, yes?
Perhaps Rouseff should call for new and immediate elections. That might settle it.
I know Greenwald has a strong media criticism streak, and has a history of criticizing abuse of language. In that vein I’d like to hear: why the use of “coup”? It’s an elastic use of “coup” at the least. Elections were not cancelled. There’s no military takeover. It seems to me to be more of an abuse of process. Presumably many in Brazil think the use of the word “coup” will strike a chord. I’m concerned that in crying wolf….long term structural damage is done to society’s ability to ward off a real coup.
@ JLocke
I think the above is a fair “concern” if not critique. But if the “end product” is to remove your political opponents either by military force, or lying about the specific “crime” underlying an impeachment proceeding (particularly where all/most of those voting for said impeachment are under investigation or prosecution for actual corruption) I’m not sure the use of the word “coup” is necessarily inapt.
But the the charges were not lies. They were, however, not the only motivation. That’s different.
Also, the idea that all or most that voted for impeachment were under investigation or prosecutio for actual coeruption – as in, different from Dilma and her supporters – that’s a lie.
That’s what I’m referring to about distorting the facts. The narrative that you and others have learned is false.
What the hell?! Your completely misrepresting the positions I’ve taken.
There are 2 different things: Greenwald being biased towards Dilma and PT and the appropriateness of the impeachment, or it being a coup. You must escape this reductionist manicheism to understand things for what they are.
The position that I consistently taken is that the impeachment lacks legitimacy, but it is coup d’etat. That the formal charges in the impeachment proceedings were indeed just a pretext, there are many others real reasons – this is no secret to anyone in Brazil, people openly defend this as legitimate: the impeachment being a political trial with legal foundations and rites. Some of the motivations are clearly corrupt and criminal, others are very legitimate.
I’ve been critical of the Intercept coverage not because I support the impeachment or Temer, far from it, but because it has distorted the facts, reducing it to the set of factors that help it make its points and obfuscating everything else. It has distorted the politics in Brazil, the roles and relationships of the various cliques, and the currents in society at large.
Moreover, I criticize it because this strategy – which is shared by many groups, not only the Intercept – has the clearly served the objective of painting the false picture that Dilma is innocent and a victim, which is an outrageous objective for a any respectable journalist to pursue.
There is very deep crisis going on in Brazil, that goes much beyond the impeachment itself, which is only one chapter and subplot. My criticism of the Intercept is that it has not been covering the full story, it has not properly informed its readers.
Temer is one player only, what he says and does not represent everyone and eveything that is against Dilma and PT or for the impeachment.
I have always been against the impeachment, but I have much more nuanced view and recognize the legitinate arguments for it. I oppose Temer and his government, just like I opposed Dilma’s government, but in both scenarios I don’t agree with the unfair attacks, the dishonest opposition tactics. Dilma and PT in government had virtues and flaws, there are true/fair criticisms and fair/unfair criticism. The biggest political problem in Brazil is the debased, irrational, manicheist and unethical polarization, what we call the Fla-Flu politico, in reference to soccer rivalries. My hope is that the Intercept would be different, free of this social “sickness”. That is why I bother to comment here. I’ve following GG for years, frequently don’t like his approach but do admire his work. His focus on Brazil is good for Brazil, I think, but only if he can be better than the rest. The judgement is still out.
I meant to say “it is *not* a coup” in the third paragrahp.
3 things:
1) “Greenwald being biased towards [ex-President] Dilma [Rousseff] and [Workers’ Party or Partido dos Trabalhadores] PT.”
“Brazil’s turmoil is not confined to one politician. The opposite is true, as [the New York Times’s Brazil bureau chief, Simon] Romero notes: “almost every corner of the political system [is] under the cloud of scandal.” That includes not only Rousseff’s moderately left-wing Workers Party, or PT — which is rife with serious corruption — but also the vast majority of the centrist and right-wing political and economic factions working to destroy PT, which are drowning in at least an equal amount of criminality. In other words, PT is indeed deeply corrupt and awash in criminal scandal, but so is virtually every political faction working to undermine it and vying to seize that party’s democratically obtained power.
. . .Corruption among Brazil’s political class — including the top levels of the PT — is real and substantial. But Brazil’s plutocrats, their media, and the upper and middle classes are glaringly exploiting this corruption scandal to achieve what they have failed for years to accomplish democratically: the removal of PT from power.
. . .None of this is a defense of PT. Both because of genuine widespread corruption in that party and national economic woes, Dilma and PT are intensely unpopular among all classes and groups, even including the party’s working-class base. But the street protests — as undeniably large and energized as they have been — are driven by those who are traditionally hostile to PT. The number of people participating in these protests — while in the millions — is dwarfed by the number (54 million) who voted to re-elect Dilma less than two years ago. In a democracy, governments are chosen by voting, not by displays of street opposition.”
– Brazil Is Engulfed by Ruling Class Corruption — and a Dangerous Subversion of Democracy; Greenwald, Fishman, & Miranda, The Intercept, Mar. 18 2016
Probably they are biased towards Rousseff and the Workers Party; I am too.
But they’re also biased towards democracy. So am I.
2) “. . .the appropriateness of the impeachment”
That’s a judgement. Judgements are never entirely objective as they depend not only on matters of fact but also on ones biases; there’s just no getting around it.
If one is biased in favor of democracy, the impeachment – even if lawful – can’t be considered appropriate, especially now with Temer’s clear admission of the motives. Other biases, like a bias towards Authoritarianism or the rule-of-law, might lead to a different judgement.
3) “. . .or it being a coup.”
A leader was installed – by means that, even if lawful, were not democratic – with an announced intention of imposing policies that were democratically rejected. Call it “not-a-coup” if you like; it’s still not democratic. And because it’s not democratic, I call it illegitimate.
Well, I agree with the essence of what you’re saying. I call it illegitimate too!
But my point is that the believing the impeachment is illegitimate does not justify a journalost mischaracterizing everyone who sees it different, or mischarcterizing Dilma’s faults and the accusations against her (outside the impeachment) or the politics that led to this crisis. In sum, there is indeed some crooks behind impeachment, there are crooks against the impeachment, there is also decent people on both sides, and some who are moderately compromised, but are not “the devil”.
Temer and others don’t represent the entire pro-impachment block. Its just plainly not true that “the real corrupts” all voted for the impeachment. It is also a huge stretch to imply that Dilma is innocent. It is also simply not true that Temer and others are the long time opposition to PT who can’t get elected. All things that have beeb the central themes of the coverage here.
I also don’t buy this idea that the impeachment was this same old “coup” to remove a progressive government. There is some element of that, of course, but the fact is that Dilma was not having a progressive government. In fact, the most progressive phases of PT government had already ended, so to suggest that the plutocrats and economic elite, who lived quite well with PT during those years, would now suddenly need to depose a government who is no longer progressive, because they need to prevent that “progressiveness” doesn’t add up.
What is happening in Brazil is something much more complex than the stereotypical view of “another latin-american coup” represents. Good journalism should shine a light on the facts on their complexity.
@ Diogo
Please define Glenn’s “bias”. And to be clear, I’m not arguing Glenn isn’t biased in support of more socially and economically “liberal” governments in any country, as opposed to austerity imposing neoliberal/conservative ones. Only that until you prove that this supposed “bias” has delegitimized his arguments on this topic (and by that I don’t mean “whataboutery” but “factual inaccuracy”), or somehow delegitimized his reporting on these events, then you aren’t going to convince me.
Moreover, not once have I ever seen you take the position that the “impeachment of Rousseff lacks legitimacy”, in fact I’ve seen you at length defend the impeachment as legitimate based on the purported “crime” of cooking the nation’s books which you’ve claimed is a violation of law. If that is inaccurate, you are free to correct me with links to your posts that state unequivocally you believe the “impeachment of Rousseff lacks legitimacy” in which case I stand corrected.
I have seen you claim this position, repeatedly, and I say fair enough. But that is a semantic point, and not my point, assuming you believe the impeachment lacks legitimacy. And if the impeachment does lack legitimacy, how then would you accurately describe an “impeachment that lacks legitimacy”? Because I think it is a distinction without a difference to say it is not a “coup d’etat” of a type.
“Many other real reasons, eh? Well I’m not sure how exactly it works in Brazil after all this, but in America we don’t “impeach” our sitting officials for anything other than “crimes” which are the “real reasons” and basis for any legitimate impeachment. And the repeated assertion by, as my memory serves you and those defending the impeachment of Rousseff, is that its sound “legal” basis was not any of the investigations of corruption, or Rousseff having been established in a Brazilian court of law, or legislative investigation for personal corruption, but in “cooking the books” which you have repeated claimed is the “real” “legal” basis for the impeachment.
If my memory is incorrect you are free to correct me with links to your comments setting forth the counter position.
So which is it in Brazil, “motivations” for “impeachment” can be both “clearly corrupt and criminal, [and simultaneously] others are very legitimate”? And if some are “clearly corrupt and criminal” why rely on the “clearly corrupt ones” for impeachment purposes? In other words, I don’t believe you can have it both ways. Either all the “motivations” or “legal standards” for impeachment are “real reasons” and “non-corrupt” otherwise you can’t have a legitimate “impeachment” proceeding.
But hey you are free to do things as you please in Brazil, or feel however you’d like about it, but as a function of the concept of the “the rule of law”, at least from a modern “western” legal perspective, you can’t have a “legitimate” impeachment motivated by or relying upon “illegitimate”, or “clearly corrupt or criminal” motivations.
Again, if you’d like to provide a list of the “real reasons”, or more specifically the legal criminal charges in addition to “cooking the books”, that was the actual basis (and to prove it I need to see the resolution or charging documents for impeachment upon which the Brazilian legislative branches used to impeach Rousseff) then I’m going to stick to my “non-reductionist non-Manichean” take on your positions until corrected with proof.
Thanks in advance.
In America “motivations” are irrelevant to an impeachment, the underlying factual predicates and criminal law are generally the legal standard for bringing an impeachment.
What you are describing about my comments are simply. You either failed at understanding what I ever said, or your memory is failing or you’re lying. You should either take my word for it or go back and try to read my comments again.
I already explained explained quite well and at lenght what I see as the borderline unethical bias by Greenwald. I don’t feel compelled to repeat here just to prove it to you, because your confusion doesn’t seem sincere.
And, yes, Brazil is not the United States, our laws are different. The impeachment is a political-legal trial. But don’t tell me that there are no other reasons for impeachment in the US outside the legal dimension. If the Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under perjury, and the charges were true, would you deny that there would also be other reasons why he was impeached – like the political motivations lf Republicans? Would you say it was a coup d’etat because the Republican also had political motivations, even though the crimes inputed were true? This what I’m referring to as other reasons, don’t be thick or intellectually dishonest and try to understand what I’m saying. You may understand about law, but sounds like you have no clue about political science, sociology or human nature.
It is a political trial in the US too, otherwise the trial would happen in the Supreme Court, not the Senate.
On the legal aspect, the fact is the impeachment law in Brazil is different from the US. In Brazil, some of the scenarios that the law expressely allows for impeachment are not crimes under the ordinary penal law. The term in Brazil is “crimes of responsibility”, which is not necessarily crime under criminal law. It is weird and confusing, which is part of the problem, but that’s how it is. The crimes of responsibility includes things that are more like “administratice improbity” – if that’s a term in the US. It refers to the executive responsibility of the office holder, even if as an individual there is no criminal action. The impeachment law is hugely flawed democratic constitutional order since 1988. There are many more and they are behind the institucional and political crisis now unfolding, besides the sheer corruption and wrongdoing.
But, yes, I think the impeachment is illegitimate, even though the Senate was acting under Constitutional auhtority and had, formally, suficient legal grounds. There is a fair debate about whether the facts meet the legal definitions, but the fact is that the Senate is the one who decides. If you disagree with an interpretation given by the Supreme Court – does it make it illegal? No, because the Supreme Court has the last word.
But it is illegitimate for political reasons. In my view, besides the the actual charges having legal grounds, in my view the impeachment has to either have very serious charges or close to consensus in society. Which this one didn’t have. Too many people disagree, feel that it is a coup, and whether or not they are right the fact remains that the event inevitably will lack legitimacy under such circumstances.
But, again, the impeachment belongs in a much broader political unraveling which need to be understood to get right picture of what is going on in Brazil. In fact, it is precisely by pointing to some of the other factors that GG is building his case. But I don’t think he is getting that picture right. The corruption, the politics, the power dynamics, etc, are nit quite what he is making it sound and it gives a very different impression, one in which Dilma and PT come accross favorably and everybody else is lumped together into the most sinister aspect of it all. It’s just not like that.
“On the legal aspect, the fact is the impeachment law in Brazil is different from the US. In Brazil, some of the scenarios that the law expressely allows for impeachment are not crimes under the ordinary penal law. The term in Brazil is “crimes of responsibility”, which is not necessarily crime under criminal law. ”
bullshit
only an intellectually dishonest person would comment before reading the article
I’ve never not read an article before commenting on it, so I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
i’m just reiterating that i’m intellectually dishonest
look … its clear you’re still grieving over your lost love bernbart
and we all went from USENET to The Well to Salon to this intellectual slum so slowly and painfully that it’s easy to overlook the obvious:
“TEH HILARY” will take us right back to 1992, and how can that be a bad thing???
…well, let´s just say that so called offense which caused the impeachment is not nearly as big as what the car wash found. Sure she did something that can be viewed as illegal, but mostly by the way she did. The whole book cooking is a administrative measure to control the results….. And regardless of the political position it is clear that the whole process was in fact brought to by personal interests.
I believe that the investigations and convictions are a good thing. and most of us were happy that they were reaching the high levels of politicians, like the book cooking you mentioned.
The problem is, it became targeted investigations to create a focus only on dilma´s “crimes” (some still argue if there were any real crimes) to change political agendas without a proper elections of the one involved in that agenda. So they simply seized the power, changed who decides what in the government and called it constitutionally appropriate.
Rousseff was impeached because the polticial/business class of Brazil –which has always been fiercely anti PT, a consequence of its unabashed feudalistic, elitist, anti-equality way of life — had goals that are one sub-set of the goals of their bosses and co-horts, the political/business elite of the United States. For Temer, etc., US geopolitical interests probably mean nothing. But easy money through collaboration means everything. Hence, he is in a post-coup meeting with his collaborators, the US elite. For Clinton, CNN and the rest of the business/war class the chance to get richer off Brazilian natural resources combined with the chance to install a puppet pro-Western regime is much too good to be true. But what is, to me, the real story, is how easy it is for the US and Brazil elites to use media manipulate their incredibly gullible populaces. Rousseff, Putin, Trump can and are made into villains on the level of Castro and Hitler overnight, while the business interests re-write history (the dictatorship in Brazil, Crimea’s historic connection to Russia) and censor all news that clashes with their agenda. That so many people fall for it is the scariest thing of all.