She had to go, regardless of the immediate consequences. Yes Temer, Cunha and the others are thieves. THIEVES. However so is Lula and also, Dilma. Unless she is chronically, grossly, impossibly negligent and incompetent, she knew what went on in Petrobras regardless of what the kangaroo inquiry who condemned no one of matter said. $2B dollars went down the drain. She had to go.
Given the way the president would be investigated and tried, it's almost impossible to even begin collecting evidence or following any leads. The only reason Operation Lava-Jato was able to start investigating Lula is because he was no longer president, but he gained immunity when Lula was appointed Dilma's chief of staff.
Dilma probably is chronically, grossly, impossibly negligent and incompetent. And she was choosen by the people to be president so she must be president.
There is not a single piece of evidence that indicates that Dilma could be a thief, or that she broke any law. So she has to stay.
She has to stay to prevent that the thieves like Temer and Cunha take over.
> So to summarize: Brazilian financial and media elites are pretending that corruption is the reason for removing the twice-elected president of the country as they conspire to install and empower the country’s most corrupted political figures. Brazilian oligarchs will have succeeded in removing from power a moderately left-wing government that won four straight elections in the name of representing the country’s poor, and are literally handing control over the Brazilian economy (the world’s seventh largest) to Goldman Sachs and bank industry lobbyists.
Contrary to what we see in the US, where each network favors a specific side (Fox, MSNBC), in BR the main print and TV media are all in one side of the aisle. While the internet helps, most people in BR don't read anything that isn't posted on Facebook. This, IMO, is the biggest problem with the way things are being debated and decided here.
Only informed people share your thoughts.
Unfortunately, the vast majority in Brazil is not very well educated and misinformed since they have no other source of news than Globo.
A lot of unusual stuff has been going on with the government, from a VP been distant from the president to the president offering positions for receiving support. I believe this president government fall a part by lack of political support, and the opposition received it with open arms.
Then this government actually had some irregularities which have been ignored in other situations, but this time they are using it to process the president, which are going to be judged or not if Senate understand that she didn't commit any crime.
Media here always supported one side only, I don't remember seeing it divided.
The process she is going through is not about corruption, is about fiscal responsibility, some money had to be passed to public banks and the government delayed it to close the balance without showing some financial problems.
And the post says that only 2% would vote for Temer, but forget to tell that the president has a rejection of 70% and Temer is only there because of the president party. I don't believe this is going to be so well, but its complicated to she keep going because the other politicians doesn't support her anymore.
The facts are that the media are opposed to the president and that they are an important factor when we consider the opinion of the people.
It is not a matter of believing, but looking at the facts. Dilma is right when she says that since the beginning of the second term, congress has not done anything good.
And you should know that there is no evidence whatsoever that the president committed the crime that she is accused of. Nothing! not even a single shred of proof that she did anything against the law.
Presidents may not be impeached because other politicians do not like her. A president is choosen by the people to serve the country and the other politicians must respect the wishes of the people.
> And you should know that there is no evidence whatsoever that the president committed the crime that she is accused of. Nothing! not even a single shred of proof that she did anything against the law.
People who defend Dilma want to bring Petrobras and Lava-Jato operation to tell that there is nothing against Dilma. But the impeachment is not about that. Is about fiscal fraud and there is proof about that.
> A president is choosen by the people to serve the country and the other politicians must respect the wishes of the people.
What about the 70% of rejection ? 70% doesn't approve her, that's is the people you are talking about.
Actually there's evidence, they are not saying that they didn't did the fiscal maneuver, they are saying that other governments did the same and not got impeached.
I agree with your point about the impeachment, it's a political maneuver.
We are stuck with two options (and both are bad):
1) 2 years of stagnation and political fight inside the government
2) 2 years of maybe a recover or a complete disaster
The post also forget to tell that that 54 millions vote for the vice president too, when you vote for president you vote full aware of who is the VP. And people know that if the president is out (death or impachment) the VP takes place, both situation happened before.
> Media here always supported one side only, I don't remember seeing it divided.
Not true. There are leftist magazine, blogs (some of them got gov's money) that support Dilma and PT. There are also colunists on both sides that got space in newspapers.
In TV ok, there are not television hosts or journalists openly in defense of the government or against the impeachment. But I really don't see this "media is always against me" thing.
This is so clear. Their excuses are for the "whole" government, not for what the process is really about. They say "She knew about everything", but they do not have anything else other than that.
They also say that what is in the process is a crime. But she just moved money from one place to another, in order to keep social programs running. Did she delay banks payments for this money? Yes, but also paying all interest rates later on as well. So it is not about getting some illegal loan, it was all about delaying payments. Same acts are and were done by other governments, including state and presidential up to today. Will they also be removed? Sure not.
Unfortunately, the reality is these people want to open up the country to external investments by means of allowing the use of natural resources by international companies. This is what being planned with, for eg., Pre-Salt layer. The new ministries which are going to take over the current ones, in case of victory, were all-in for such a bill just approved in Senate.
They are trading six of one for half a dozen of the other, playing with Constitutional mechanisms which are there to protect the country, not to be used as in a Parliamentarism system. The real problem is in the old thinking people of the lower house and Senate, owners of big amounts of lands, supporters of current great media and stealers. Just look at who started this whole process, a guy accused at the Panama Papers of laundering money in Switzerland. Who is he? The President of the lower house, Eduardo Cunha. The guy who is leading this take over. That's just stupidity to support..
> They also say that what is in the process is a crime. But she just moved money from one place to another, in order to keep social programs running.
That is just the lie that she and her party are saying to justify. What put social programs in danger was the incompetency of her government in economy.
> it was all about delaying payments.
No, it was about fiscal fraud. There is law against it.
>Unfortunately, the reality is these people want to open up the country to external investments by means of allowing the use of natural resources by international companies. This is what being planned with, for eg., Pre-Salt layer...
This and the rest are just leftist bullshit.
YES, Cunha is a thieve and a corrupt. But he was was not the sole responsible for the impeachment, 367 lower house members vote for the impeachment. Senate will vote for it too. And the supreme court is overviewing the whole process. So why don't stop this BS about the whole process being invalid because of cunha.
Did you see the vote where the 367 lower house members declared their opinion? They all were angry, hateful and voted in the names of their sons, grandsons, wife and their hometowns, and even the country. None of them stated that Dilma broke a law. A few mentioned that Dilma was "bad for the country" without being specific.
So it all boils downs to differences of opinion.
That may not be a reason to impeach a president!
The president was chosen by the people and the other politicians must respect the opinion of the people.
Yes, nobody is perfect and I also do not think that Dilma is very competent. But I think that Dilma does not take bribes from nobody. Temer and Cunha do.
Brazil is degrading itself from a third world country to a lawless fourth world country with the impeachment of Dilma.
We are here debating and this is really of little importance. What is important is what happens with the economy in Brazil.
Do you really think that Temer and his friends will do something good for Brazil. Have you heard from them what they will do to stimulate the economy? Because cost cutting seems easy but is not. The best way out is to stimulate the economy. People must have trust to invest, to start a new business and to expand. Do you think that Temer and his friends give this trust to Brazil?
Do not forget that foreign investors are allergic for political instability. Impeaching a chosen president without a good reason is the best way to keep foreign investors away.
>Did you see the vote where the 367 lower house members declared their opinion?
Yes, I did. It was indeed sad. All of them, pro and against the impeachment, made a shameful spectacle.
> So it all boils downs to differences of opinion. That may not be a reason to impeach a president!
No, it all boils down to : a fiscal fraud commited by the president, an economic crisis, political inability of Dilma, crescent lost of popular support.
Do you really believe that Dilma has the capacity to "do something good for Brazil" ? Dilma had 5 years to do that and the result is a inflation getting high, unemployment getting high, GDP getting low. Even Lula complained about her destroying the good things he had achieved. Sorry, but with the lower house and senate against Dilma ANYONE has more chance of that than her.
>Do not forget that foreign investors are allergic for political instability. Impeaching a chosen president without a good reason is the best way to keep foreign investors away.
The political instability are already set, the impeachment is a way to stabilize things (new elections is another).
> Impeaching a chosen president without a good reason is the best way to keep foreign investors away.
There is reason, and keep Dilma will definitely keep foreign investors away. It's the economic crisis that keep them away and she is unable to change that.
I used to be an investment analyst at Itaú in Brazil writing reports and modeling companies in Brazil. I spent time working in the NYC branch through which many American investors invested in Brazil. I can tell you without any reservation that while foreign investors are allergic to political instability, they are far far far more allergic to the PT, Dilma and Lula. Absolutely none of those actors have been good for getting foreign investors interested in Brazil.
Brazil's great economic fortune from the 90s through around 2008 were pretty much entirely due to the Plano Real creating a stable economic environment (ending hyperinflation) and allowing growth to take place.
Dilma's administration and economic shenanigan's directly and negatively contributed to Standard & Poor's, Fitch's and then Moody's downgrading of the country, such that many foreign investors can't even invest in Brazil any more because it's junk status. Fortunately, most debt is domestic so the threat of default is low, but it's still possible to finances to worsen and threaten that.
The only way to get out of this mess and get back on the path where the rating agencies upgrade us begins with her impeachment. No one, and I mean no one, who actually knows these foreign investors and wants them to invest in Brazil is in favor of Dilma sticking around.
The article does not mention the process of the vote for impeachment. At the impeachment vote, all politicians had 1 minute to declare their opinion and the ones who voted for impeachment did 2 things:
1) they voted for impeachment in the name of their sons, their city and their country and showed hate against the president.
2) none of them accused the president of wrongdoing. None stated that the president should be impeached because she broke the law.
This shows very clearly what the motives of the politicians are: we want to get rid of this president becuase we do not like her and we use any illegal excuse to do it.
I feel embarrassed living in Brazil.
They used their 60 seconds to be as demagogue as humanly possible. A reflection of the functional illiteracy of the majority of the Brazilian population.
Lula is a master demagogue.
Imagine what the $2B dollars stolen from Petrobras, while Dilma was minister for Energy and Mines, would do to the education levels in Brazil.
I'm ashamed that all of PT is not already in jail.
I really like Glenn Greenwald, but he's really jumped the shark on reporting on Brazil. The amount of corruption surrounding Dilma, Lula and the PT in general is crazy out of control. Greenwald likes to wash over and not mention or barely mention the petrolão scandal like it's a mere footnote.
Dilma was chairperson of the board of Petrobras during the entirety of the scandal. Given the magnitude of the corruption, either she was involved or was incompetent. Furthermore, her administration has cooked the books in terms of reporting on the economic health of the country and her administration is responsible for the biggest economic decline in years. Furthermore, we can't really investigate wrongdoing because without things getting political because the constitution in Brazil makes it so only the STF, the equivalent of SCOTUS, is allowed to investigate and bring to trial the president and congresspeople. This bottle neck and the politics of bringing a trial mean that almost no one can be investigated. Dilma even used this fact to shield the former president from investigation by appointing him to a cabinet position just as he was about to be deposed.
I'm not saying those other side of this (politicians and media) are without wrongdoing. He does a good job of pointing out why they are scum too, but to gloss over many details in order to make Dilma out to be some sort of blameless victim of injustice is laughable.
No one on either side of the aisle is innocent in all this. It's positively shameful.
28 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 69.6 ms ] threadhttps://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva...
There is at least enough proof that Dilma went out of her way to end a lead in investigations that would have led to her if she is/was involved.
There is not a single piece of evidence that indicates that Dilma could be a thief, or that she broke any law. So she has to stay.
She has to stay to prevent that the thieves like Temer and Cunha take over.
Contrary to what we see in the US, where each network favors a specific side (Fox, MSNBC), in BR the main print and TV media are all in one side of the aisle. While the internet helps, most people in BR don't read anything that isn't posted on Facebook. This, IMO, is the biggest problem with the way things are being debated and decided here.
I'm Brazilian and that is not true. Leftist love to talk about the how media is always against his side.
Then this government actually had some irregularities which have been ignored in other situations, but this time they are using it to process the president, which are going to be judged or not if Senate understand that she didn't commit any crime.
Media here always supported one side only, I don't remember seeing it divided.
The process she is going through is not about corruption, is about fiscal responsibility, some money had to be passed to public banks and the government delayed it to close the balance without showing some financial problems.
It is not a matter of believing, but looking at the facts. Dilma is right when she says that since the beginning of the second term, congress has not done anything good.
And you should know that there is no evidence whatsoever that the president committed the crime that she is accused of. Nothing! not even a single shred of proof that she did anything against the law.
Presidents may not be impeached because other politicians do not like her. A president is choosen by the people to serve the country and the other politicians must respect the wishes of the people.
People who defend Dilma want to bring Petrobras and Lava-Jato operation to tell that there is nothing against Dilma. But the impeachment is not about that. Is about fiscal fraud and there is proof about that.
> A president is choosen by the people to serve the country and the other politicians must respect the wishes of the people.
What about the 70% of rejection ? 70% doesn't approve her, that's is the people you are talking about.
I agree with your point about the impeachment, it's a political maneuver.
We are stuck with two options (and both are bad):
1) 2 years of stagnation and political fight inside the government
2) 2 years of maybe a recover or a complete disaster
[edit: formatting]
Not true. There are leftist magazine, blogs (some of them got gov's money) that support Dilma and PT. There are also colunists on both sides that got space in newspapers.
In TV ok, there are not television hosts or journalists openly in defense of the government or against the impeachment. But I really don't see this "media is always against me" thing.
They also say that what is in the process is a crime. But she just moved money from one place to another, in order to keep social programs running. Did she delay banks payments for this money? Yes, but also paying all interest rates later on as well. So it is not about getting some illegal loan, it was all about delaying payments. Same acts are and were done by other governments, including state and presidential up to today. Will they also be removed? Sure not.
Unfortunately, the reality is these people want to open up the country to external investments by means of allowing the use of natural resources by international companies. This is what being planned with, for eg., Pre-Salt layer. The new ministries which are going to take over the current ones, in case of victory, were all-in for such a bill just approved in Senate.
They are trading six of one for half a dozen of the other, playing with Constitutional mechanisms which are there to protect the country, not to be used as in a Parliamentarism system. The real problem is in the old thinking people of the lower house and Senate, owners of big amounts of lands, supporters of current great media and stealers. Just look at who started this whole process, a guy accused at the Panama Papers of laundering money in Switzerland. Who is he? The President of the lower house, Eduardo Cunha. The guy who is leading this take over. That's just stupidity to support..
That is just the lie that she and her party are saying to justify. What put social programs in danger was the incompetency of her government in economy.
> it was all about delaying payments.
No, it was about fiscal fraud. There is law against it.
>Unfortunately, the reality is these people want to open up the country to external investments by means of allowing the use of natural resources by international companies. This is what being planned with, for eg., Pre-Salt layer...
This and the rest are just leftist bullshit.
YES, Cunha is a thieve and a corrupt. But he was was not the sole responsible for the impeachment, 367 lower house members vote for the impeachment. Senate will vote for it too. And the supreme court is overviewing the whole process. So why don't stop this BS about the whole process being invalid because of cunha.
So it all boils downs to differences of opinion. That may not be a reason to impeach a president! The president was chosen by the people and the other politicians must respect the opinion of the people.
Yes, nobody is perfect and I also do not think that Dilma is very competent. But I think that Dilma does not take bribes from nobody. Temer and Cunha do.
Brazil is degrading itself from a third world country to a lawless fourth world country with the impeachment of Dilma.
We are here debating and this is really of little importance. What is important is what happens with the economy in Brazil. Do you really think that Temer and his friends will do something good for Brazil. Have you heard from them what they will do to stimulate the economy? Because cost cutting seems easy but is not. The best way out is to stimulate the economy. People must have trust to invest, to start a new business and to expand. Do you think that Temer and his friends give this trust to Brazil?
Do not forget that foreign investors are allergic for political instability. Impeaching a chosen president without a good reason is the best way to keep foreign investors away.
Yes, I did. It was indeed sad. All of them, pro and against the impeachment, made a shameful spectacle.
> So it all boils downs to differences of opinion. That may not be a reason to impeach a president!
No, it all boils down to : a fiscal fraud commited by the president, an economic crisis, political inability of Dilma, crescent lost of popular support.
Do you really believe that Dilma has the capacity to "do something good for Brazil" ? Dilma had 5 years to do that and the result is a inflation getting high, unemployment getting high, GDP getting low. Even Lula complained about her destroying the good things he had achieved. Sorry, but with the lower house and senate against Dilma ANYONE has more chance of that than her.
>Do not forget that foreign investors are allergic for political instability. Impeaching a chosen president without a good reason is the best way to keep foreign investors away.
The political instability are already set, the impeachment is a way to stabilize things (new elections is another).
> Impeaching a chosen president without a good reason is the best way to keep foreign investors away.
There is reason, and keep Dilma will definitely keep foreign investors away. It's the economic crisis that keep them away and she is unable to change that.
Brazil's great economic fortune from the 90s through around 2008 were pretty much entirely due to the Plano Real creating a stable economic environment (ending hyperinflation) and allowing growth to take place.
Dilma's administration and economic shenanigan's directly and negatively contributed to Standard & Poor's, Fitch's and then Moody's downgrading of the country, such that many foreign investors can't even invest in Brazil any more because it's junk status. Fortunately, most debt is domestic so the threat of default is low, but it's still possible to finances to worsen and threaten that.
The only way to get out of this mess and get back on the path where the rating agencies upgrade us begins with her impeachment. No one, and I mean no one, who actually knows these foreign investors and wants them to invest in Brazil is in favor of Dilma sticking around.
1) they voted for impeachment in the name of their sons, their city and their country and showed hate against the president. 2) none of them accused the president of wrongdoing. None stated that the president should be impeached because she broke the law.
This shows very clearly what the motives of the politicians are: we want to get rid of this president becuase we do not like her and we use any illegal excuse to do it. I feel embarrassed living in Brazil.
Lula is a master demagogue.
Imagine what the $2B dollars stolen from Petrobras, while Dilma was minister for Energy and Mines, would do to the education levels in Brazil.
I'm ashamed that all of PT is not already in jail.
Dilma was chairperson of the board of Petrobras during the entirety of the scandal. Given the magnitude of the corruption, either she was involved or was incompetent. Furthermore, her administration has cooked the books in terms of reporting on the economic health of the country and her administration is responsible for the biggest economic decline in years. Furthermore, we can't really investigate wrongdoing because without things getting political because the constitution in Brazil makes it so only the STF, the equivalent of SCOTUS, is allowed to investigate and bring to trial the president and congresspeople. This bottle neck and the politics of bringing a trial mean that almost no one can be investigated. Dilma even used this fact to shield the former president from investigation by appointing him to a cabinet position just as he was about to be deposed.
I'm not saying those other side of this (politicians and media) are without wrongdoing. He does a good job of pointing out why they are scum too, but to gloss over many details in order to make Dilma out to be some sort of blameless victim of injustice is laughable.
No one on either side of the aisle is innocent in all this. It's positively shameful.