A glorious day in Brazil

A glorious day in Brazil: former president Lula da Silva expected to be sent to jail soon.

Contrary to what the Washington Post says, there is no “political chaos” in Brazil. Former president Lula was ordered to jail, plunging Brazil into cosmos ahead of a presidential election.

Contrary to the Guardian, most Brazilians don’t hold any affection for Lula. Lula had support while he was able to feed the poor. Many poor people are already migrating their votes to Jair Bolsonaro.

Also contrary to the Guardian, Brazilian democracy is not connected to Lula. The country’s democracy will be alive and well without him. As for the “parliamentarians, academics and others” who say “Lula should be allowed to stand in the presidential elections,” please, be my guest: take him to run in your country.

A good day for Brazil, Latin America, and the world!

9 thoughts on “A glorious day in Brazil

  1. Leftists are quite good at “commanding the narrative”, as they call it. They hold an international solidarity network made of members of parliament, journalists, artists and activists, which helps them propagate false ideas and overstatements, such as those replicated by the newspapers Rosi mentioned.

    The bare truth, as seen from within Brazil, is that the only sizeable street protests were those demanding Lula’s imprisonment. He still has very restricted support only from his party and social organisations linked to it. Even the largest chunk of the Brazilian Left has already moved on and has been for months rallying around other leftist post-Lula candidates for the october election.

    Lula behind bars and Lava-Jato as whole are taking Brazil to a whole new level of soft power, by showing how a developing country can have strong institutions and effectively take on corruption. If we set aside American and European left-leaning newspapers and have a look at South American newspapers, we will find that the Brazilian experience has been truly inspiring.

    • Lula’s case is directly related to the stability of democratic institutions, because the violation of his liberal rights implies destabilization of the rule of law (especially its principle of presumption of innocence), which is the base of Democratic State. We need to respect the article 5 in its subsection LVII, and not violate it because the justice is slow in judging judicial resources in higher instances. This is a pseudo-judicial argument with implict political interest. The constitutional posibilities are only two:

      – or we alter the article 5 in its subsection LVII in order to allow the imprisonment after second instance, but this requires a constitutional amendement (PEC) that can only be made by the Congress through its legislators, because we need to respect Montesquieu´s principle of state tripartite structure. We cannot alter the rule during the game according to personal interests and withouth collective deliberation and agreement;

      – or we improve the judcial system by creating mechanism to accelarate the judgment of judicial resources in higher instance

      See my commentary below for a reply about the fantasy that Operation Car Wash is ending with impunity and that it´s not politically being instrumentalized to deconstruct the public image of Left, in order to establish a neoliberal State to attend the interests of economic elite (especially the finance elite) with the anti-labour and anti-national counter-reforms.

      You all that are commemorating Lula’s prison are defending the violation of Constitution, defending the arbitrariness acoording to political intersets. And this is one of the factors that founds the reascension of fascist tendencies, which doesn´t respect the rule of law, the human rights, the objectivity of law´s instantiation despite economic-political interests.

  2. Glorious may be a bit premature, at least by my standards. We see so many investigations and indictments that in their end go nowhere and amount to nothing more than delay tactics meant to appease the people.

    This chicken hasn’t hatched just yet. When it actually happens and he is behind bars – then glory! Presidents are so very, very rarely held accountable for the crimes they almost all commit.

  3. No. Lula’s case is directly related to the stability of democratic institutions, because the violation of his liberal rights implies destabilization of the rule of law (especially its principle of presumption of innocence), which is the base of Democratic State. We need to respect the article 5 in its subsection LVII, and not violate it because the justice is slow in judging judicial resources in higher instances (about that, which is in fact pseudo-judicial argument with implict political interest, see below, in part 2 of this commentary). You all that are commemorating Lula’s prison are defending the violation of Constitution, defending the arbitrariness acoording to political intersets.
    Lula has around 35% of vote intention; he has a very large support that was made visible in his travels around the country and that was not reported by the corporate media. This media only reorted negative fascist’s facts about the last of his travels to the south of Brazil. He has a very huge popular support. You need to inform yourself not only through the narrative of the corporate media.

    PART 1
    His condemnation was based on a series of liberal rights violations. This is an objective fact independent of any ideological affection for Lula.

    (1) Moro´s judgment doesn´t proved the indictments of the federal public ministry (MPF). The accusation says that: the Triplex was given to Lula by OAS as bribe in exchange for 3 contracts between OAS and Petrobrás.

    – The 3 contracts was not identified through any evidence by investigation AS COUNTERPARTS of the referred bribe.
    – The official act of corruption by Lula was NOT DETERMINED with any evidence by investigation. Offical determinate act is a juridical objective requirement To condemn someone of corruption crime.

    Then Moro made a series of mistakes, motivated by political interests:

    (A) he made a contradiction. In the sentence he said, following MPF, that the contracts “Consórcio CONEST/RNEST” was the counterpart of the bribe.

    “Mesmo tendo parte dos benefícios materiais sido disponibilizada posteriormente, durante o ano de 2014, tendo eles origem em créditos decorrentes de contratos da Construtora OAS celebrados em 10/12/2009, considerando aqui somente os contratos do Consórcio CONEST/RNEST, configuram vantagem indevida disponibilizada em razão do cargo de agente público federal, não só para o então Presidente, mas para os igualmente beneficiários executivos da Petrobrás” (MORO 2017)

    But in response to Lula´s lawyers in virtue of “embargos de declaração”, he said that he never said that the bribe was derived from Petrobrás contracts.

    “Este Juízo jamais afirmou, na sentença ou em lugar algum, que os valores obtidos pela Construtora OAS nos contratos com a Petrobrás foram utilizados para pagamento da vantagem indevida para o ex-Presidente. Aliás, já no curso do processo, este Juízo, ao indeferir desnecessárias perícias requeridas pela Defesa para rastrear a origem dos recursos, já havia deixado claro que não havia essa correlação (itens 198-199). Nem a corrupção, nem a lavagem, tendo por crime antecedente a corrupção, exigem ou exigiriam que os valores pagos ou ocultados fossem originários especificamente dos contratos da Petrobrás.” (MORO 2017)

    Then, in the paraconsistent wonderful world of Moro, the principle of non-contradiction is not valid. Paraconsistent logic and other nonaristotelian logics that exclude this principle cannot be applied in juridical argumentation in that way (with some excpetions).

    (B) If Moro judges cases related to Operation Car Wash, and if this Operation Car Wash is related to corruption cases in Petrobrás, and if Moro said that he not said that Lula´s triplex bribe is a counterapart of contracts between OAS and Petrobrás, then Lula´s case is not under Operation Car Wash’s scope, and then Moro should not be judging Lula´s triplex case.

    (C) Insofar as Moro doesn’t indentified with any evidence the official determinate act of corruption that Lula made in order to make OAS-Petrobrás contracts viable, then Moro made a juridical inovation: he invented the concept of INDETERMINATE OFFICAL ACT. He said that, although was not possible to determinate with any evidence what Lula made in order to make OAS-Petrobrás contracts viable, it is still possible to subjectively suppose, with high subjective probability, that in fact he made something (inference to the best explanation based on subjective probability). And objectivity adn reasoning based on evidence was made garbage. And the in dubio pro reu principle was made garbage. And the exigence of an DETERMINATE OFFICAL ACT was made garbage. And Globo’s and EUA’s prizes to Moro, mediatically propagated, was made huge.

    (D) All the other supposed evidences are only weak indications that doesn´t prove the bribe reception. Weak indications like: in blank, not signed and shaved contract of Triplex found in Lula´s house; a photo of Lula with Leo Pinheiro inside the Triplex apartment (Lula was only once at the apartment, this not prove that the apartament was reserved to him; visitation not implies possession (non sequitur)); the accusation of Leo Pinheiro that not showed any evidence to prove his allegations (Leo Pinheiro made his accustion as co-defedant, what implies that he is not constrained to said the truth under the risk of lost the benefits of the negotation).

    (E) Moro illegally made recordings, without authorization of justice, of an conversation of ex-president Dilma and Lula and publicized it to the corporate right-wing media, in order to interfere politically in the process of Dilma´s impeachment. Instead of Supreme Federal Court punishing Moro because of this double violation of law (and such punishment is prescribed by the penal code), such Court accepted Moro’s public appologies for violating the law. Relativization of the rule of law to attend to the political activism of Moro against the Left. Moro also publicized recordings of Marisa (Lula´s late wife) that has nothing to do with Operation CAr Wahs investigations. In such recordings, Marisa, in a private conversation, offends some anti-Dilma and anti-Lula protesters (“paneleiros”). Moro politically acted again, using judicial instruments to vilfy the Left public image.

    (2) The validation of Moro´s condemnation in the second instance by TRF-4 was another piece of political manipulation od juridical instruments (politization of justice).

    (a) The president of TRF-4 was at corporate media (Rede Globo) BEFORE the Moro´s sentence be judged by the TRF-4’s judges and made positive declarations about Moro´s sentence, even though he said that he DID NOT READ IT! This is a violation of the Ethical Code of Magistrature, that determines in the article 12 (II) that the magistrate cannot make public declarations about pending judgment processes.

    Art. 12. Cumpre ao magistrado, na sua relação com os meios de comunicação social, comportar-se de forma prudente e equitativa, e cuidar especialmente:
    I – para que não sejam prejudicados direitos e interesses legítimos de partes e seus procuradores;
    II – de abster-se de emitir opinião sobre processo pendente de julgamento, seu ou de outrem, ou juízo depreciativo sobre despachos, votos, sentenças ou acórdãos, de órgãos judiciais, ressalvada a crítica nos autos, doutrinária ou no exercício do magistério.

    (b) Judges of TRF-4 has friendship relations with Moro, especially Gebran, that is a declared friend of Moro.

    (c)TRF-4 unethically and unusually caccelerated the judgment of Lula´s case, which in normal circunstances, following the pattern of TRF-4 judments, would take 1year or 1 ½ year to be judged. Lula´s case passed on many other cases, in order to disable Lula’s candidacy.

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————

    PART 2
    Even considering Moro´s sentence and its TRF-4 validation correct, the prison of Lula after the TRF-4 condemnation is OBJECTIVELY a violation of the Brazil´s constitution. The article 5, subsection LVII, says that nobody can be imprisoned until all judicial resources have been exhausted: “ LVII – ninguém será considerado culpado até o trânsito em julgado de sentença penal condenatória” After TRF-4 resource, Lula can appeal to other 2 higher judicial instances. Then, his sentence is not yet considered exhausted, because it is appealable. This is why Lula’ lawyers required an Habeas Corpus against his prison after TRF-4 recondemnation.

    A weak and unconstitutional argument made by corporate media and some judges of the Supreme Federal Court against Lula´s Habeas Corpus is that, if we follow the article 5 in its subsection LVII under the actual factual situation of Brasil´s justice (which is very slow), then the condemnation will be continuoulsy prorrogated, under the risk of prescription, cancellation. Then, in the face of the factual circunstance of justice’s slowness, we can relativize the article 5!

    But we need to follow the rule of law, under the risk of subjective arbitrariness acoording to personal interests and violations of human rights. The media manipulated the discussion by not stimulating the debate, omitting other two constitutional possibilities:

    – or we alter the article 5 in its subsection LVII, but this requires a constitutional amendement that can only be made by the Congress through its legislators, because we need to respect Montesquieu´s principle of state tripartite structure. We cannot alter the rule durign the game acoording to personal interests and withouth collective delibaration and agreement;

    – or we improve the judcial system by creating mechanism to accelarate the judgment of judicial resources in higher instance

    What we cannot do is violate the Constitution, the rule of law. You all that are commemorating Lula’s prison are defending the violation of Constitution, defending the arbitrariness acoording to political intersets, consequently you all are defending the reascension of fascist tendencies of human rights violations. Bolsonaro is the most representative fascist figure of such desestabilization of democartic institutions that Operation Car Wash, corporate media, economic groups and EUA are perpetrating in Brazil.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————–

    PART 3
    Operation Car Wash found corruption cases, but it made it through:

    – political instrumentalization of investigations in order to destroy the brazilian Left by destroying its most proeminent party, the Labour Party. Cases of corruption in Petrobrás before 2002, when Lula came to power, was not investigated, even with declared accusations of corruption cases before 2002. And many politicians of other right-wing parties are not adequately investigated nor imprisoned. José Serra had a indictment archived because of prescription. Aecio Neves was not imprisoned nor removed from Senate even with recordings proving this corruption, while Delcidio do Amaral, also senator but from PT, was removed adn imprisoned udner the same conditions of Aecio Neves. And the list of such selectivity is very large, I have the history of all cases in my archives. The only right-wing party that is under investigation is MDB, and this only to show imparciality, and we don´t have any guarantee that they will be punished;

    – and abusive violations of judicial instruments, like preventive and temporary imprisonments, which, although legal, was illegally used, i.e.,continuously prorrogated in order to force the prisioner to make the desired allegations or narratives required by the political interest of Federal Police and MPF. And although some accusations was proved by investigations, many other accusations was not proved by investigation, but was mediatically used to manipulate public opinion against PT and the Left.
    And some leader and coordinators of Operation Car Wash made public delcarations against Lula and other PT politicians. Some of them even offended Lula and exalted his political right-wing opponent (http://politica.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,delegados-da-lava-jato-exaltam-aecio-e-atacam-pt-na-rede,1591953).
    And there is also Tacla Duran’s accusation that agents of Operation Car Wash are illegaly negotating the indictments of its temporary or preventive prisoners. But nobody make any investigation to verify the proofs that Duran´s said that he has about that.

    We need a restructuration of Operation Car Wash, we need to depoliticize it.

    • Hey johmaje,

      Your comments should be up now. They got caught in the spam filter because they’re so lengthy.

      (Brevity is the soul of wit here at NOL.)

    • And, for what it’s worth, trying to bury Bruno with text only proves his point.

      A much better counter-argument would be to ask what sort of effects jailing former leaders have had on democracies in the past, if any. Anecdotally, it seems to me that jailing former leaders gives current leaders a big incentive to simply cling to power rather than compete in elections.

      Brazil’s problems are deeper than any one leader, and jailing one of the few thieves who gave up power voluntarily, through the democratic process, seems likely to exacerbate Brazil’s problems, not make them better.

      • (1) From the fact that somebody counter-argument another one with a text doesn´t follow that this another one is correct. If the text’ argument is well based on evidences and respect the rules of logic, it potentially can have refuting power. Your point is a non sequitur fallacy. If your point is correct, then any debate based on exchange between texts in the history of philosophy and sciences is invalid. Illogical by modus tollens.

        (2) Your proposal of a possible more effective counter-argument is not crucial to the case at hand (determine if Lula´s case will have or is having a negative impact on democracy). But I concede that past information about how jailing former leaders impacts on democracy is important to the case at hand if an only if such past information is related to former leaders that was jailed through fraudulent political-judicial processes. Even then it is important to note that historical processes doesn´t have a regularity based on nature-like laws.

        What you are not considering is the possibility that Moro´s sentence against Lula is a deliberated fraud (lawfare) based on interests of economic groups that doesn´t want the interruption of the current neoliberal state for obvious reasons (Lula is in the first place in the polls).
        Or if you are presupposing without any evidence or previous study that Sergio Moro is objective and not politically motivated, then you are not considering the possibility that his sentence against Lula could be possible wrong despite his supposed honesty and objectivity.

        The crucial point is: if the judicial system is politically and economically motived in the judgment of Lula, then his case is having a negative impact on democracy, a very destructive one. This is so because if such hypothesis is correct (and the evidences shows that it is) then the Constitution, the rule of law, the empire of law, which is the very foundation of democratic state, is under a serious attack by the arbitrariness and the influence of economic-political intersests. Moro is OBJECTIVELY violating many well founded, formal rules of legal process. I will not list them because this would made this text much longer. Judicial activism objectivating interfere and dominate other State sectors. The evidences is abdundant.

        See this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p063dcss

      • Just 2 things. Liberty is much more important than democracy. Many activists and scholars have failed to concede this point, and the developing world has continued to wallow developing because of it.

        Judges serve as a check on democracy. That’s their whole reason for being. I hope, for the sake of Brazilian everywhere, that many more judges become inspired by Moro’s bravery and begin eliminating the “many […] rules of legal process.” The more laws you have, the more corrupt the state.

Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s