Error message

Deprecated function: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in include_once() (line 20 of /home/caucusni/public_html/includes/file.phar.inc).

Brazil's leading presidential candidate is a political prisoner

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva languishes in jail, but the average voter loves him.

Jailed former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva remains far ahead in a poll published Sunday of candidates in the country’s October presidential election, even though he has been behind bars for two months.
Thirty percent of Brazilians say they will vote for da Silva, who was president between 2003-2010, according to Datafolha pollsters.
...
Datafolha said that 21 percent of those polled have no preference for president, while 17 percent will support far-right-wing candidate Jair Bolsonaro and 10 percent ex-Environment Minister Marina Silva.

Da Silva on Friday received full support from his Workers’ Party, which stated in a letter that they continue to support him as their presidential candidate “to the final consequences.”

No other candidate is even close to Lula, which isn't that surprising since he left office in 2011 with an 83% approval rating. Here's the most amazing part of this story.
These events happened in the past few weeks.

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has been absolved of the charge of obstruction of justice by judge Ricardo Leito of the 10th Federal Court of Brasilia.
...
Despite being absolved of this instance, Lula remains in prison, where he has been held since April 7, over alleged charges of corruption that investigators have yet to provide evidence for.

The news comes just days after Appeal judge Rogerio Favreto of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region based in Porto Alegre accepted a habeas corpus request filed by Lula's Workers' Party and ordered that he be released.

However, the court's president judge Thompson Flores ruled that the case returns to appeal judge Joao Pedro Gebran Neto, therefore, the decision to maintain Lula in prison remains valid.

Can you imagine an extremely popular former president, headed for re-election, sitting in an American jail without any evidence against him?
It would be unimaginable.

Despite his imprisonment, an event that many legal experts and observers attribute to lawfare and a salacious mainstream media campaign ,Lula has topped every 2018 electoral poll conducted by Vox Populi, Ibope, Datafolha, Data Poder 360, Instituto Parana, the National Confederation of Transportation/MDA and Ipsos.

His two terms in office were marked by a slew of social programs, lifting millions of Brazilians out of poverty and removing the country from the United Nations World Hunger Map.

One judge ordered Lula's release before that judge was overruled.
Despite Lula topping every presidential poll for the October general elections, Brazil's largest media news conglomerate O Globo, has decided to exclude him and the Workers' Party, from a series of presidential debates.
Lula is increasingly looking like a political prisoner, and the purpose of keeping him in prison is to keep him off the ballot.

Selection_009_11.png

The increasingly undemocratic process in Brazil has caught the attention of Democrats in Washington.

The letter—spearheaded by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and signed by 27 other Democratic lawmakers as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—notes that Lula "was imprisoned following a highly questionable and politicized judicial process in which his rights were apparently violated," and that there is "reason to believe that the main objective for his jailing is to prevent him from running in upcoming elections."

"The fight against corruption must not be used to justify the persecution of political opponents or deny them the right to freely participate in elections," the letter declares, echoing calls from other world leaders that Lula be afforded his constitutional right to due process. The former president was imprisoned in April, just weeks after the assassination of Franco in March.

Praising the city councilor as "a courageous advocate for the rights of Afro-Brazilian women and members of the LGBTQ community, and a fearless campaigner against police killings of young men in the favelas," the letter points to "credible evidence" that suggests "members of the state security forces could be implicated in the killing." Although two policemen have been arrested as part of the local probe into Franco's murder, the lawmakers joined calls for an independent international investigation.

More broadly, the letter conveys concerns about the current President Michel Temer and his far-right government's "major cuts to vital health and education programs" as well as "an all-out assault on worker's rights." Sent on the heels of Global Witness's annual report on environmentalists and land defenders killed around the world, it also demands justice for the more than 70 activists who were murdered in Brazil last year. Temer dismissed the watchdog group's findings as "fake news."

If this sounds like a right-wing military coup, it is.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Lookout's picture

Lula had a very good relationship with President Bush, better than with Obama ― despite our many differences with the PT. This is something to keep in mind as the Trump administration negotiates with AMLO, who like Lula is likely to steer a moderate course that looks for compromise between the demands of the majority who voted for him, and the country’s traditional elite. Relations between President Obama and Dilma soured somewhat in 2103 when the Snowden documents revealed that Brazil was the top target for US spying in Latin America, including monitoring of Dilma’s personal phone calls and perhaps even more sensitive, our spying on Brazil’s national oil company, Petrobras. The latter was widely seen in Brazil as industrial espionage. Dilma responded by cancelling a planned trip to the US, and with a speech to the UN General Assembly that was quite unfriendly to us. We remained calm and did not respond.

When the Brazilian economy began a deep recession in 2014, in Dilma’s second term, her opposition took advantage of her sinking popularity to begin an effort that ended up successfully ousting her two years later. Her impeachment did not rest on anything that constituted a crime in Brazil ― it was basically an accounting maneuver that previous presidents and governors had also done, and did not involve any corruption or other wrongdoing. Of course we did not take a position on the issue, publicly regarding it as an internal matter. But we were able to contribute to this regime change in important ways, similar to part of our effort in the 2009 coup in Honduras. Most importantly, we were able to send an unambiguous signal to all of the important players in Brazil ― including the media ― that we supported Dilma’s ouster. This was made clear when Aloysio Nunes, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Brazil, came to Washington just after the lower house of Brazil’s Congress voted to impeach Dilma. The impeachment vote was an awful spectacle, with some of the most revanchist members of Congress expressing nostalgia for the military dictatorship and one even praising the officers responsible for the torture of Dilma herself. It caused part of the international media, which was quite sour on Dilma and the PT, to reconsider their bias. But I met with Nunes, who was leading the impeachment effort in the Brazilian Senate. Given my position at the time (the third ranking official in the State Department), and that I was widely seen as responsible for policy on Brazil, everyone knew that my meeting with him was at the very least, a show of support for the impeachment.

Then Secretary of State John Kerry backed that up a few months later, on August 5, when he held a joint press conference with José Serra, then acting foreign minister of Brazil, in front of the US embassy. They made statements looking forward to strengthening the US-Brazilian relationship and co-operating on a range of issues, as they had not been able to do in recent years (as Kerry noted). But the Brazilian Senate had yet to vote on whether Dima should be removed from office (their constitution is similar to ours, with the House voting to impeach, and the Senate trying the president). So Kerry’s press conference with Serra was another clear sign of our preference for Dilma’s removal.

https://therealnews.com/a-note-about-our-backyard-advice-that-thomas-sha...

We have a long reach, too bad.

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”