"As garantias e liberdades estão sequestradas neste País. E a prisão [local de detenção dessas garantias e liberdades] é em Curitiba”.
José Roberto Batochio, advogado de Guido Mantega.
O ex-ministro foi detido, por ordem de Sérgio Moro, no hospital Albert Einstein e mantido preso por cinco horas "por ameaça à ordem pública". Overdose de copy-paste?
Fonte: Sonia Racy, 23.09.2016
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Friday, September 23, 2016
Thursday, September 22, 2016
What moves the (still ongoing) coup in Brazil?
Know the fuel of the coup? Pre-salt. Exploration cost is only $8. All the A-list business schools in São Paulo have been 'teaching' the reverse: the cost is too high to be viable. A big share of the best of pre-salt was already sold (three weeks ago) to Staitoil (Norway) - severely underpriced. Denounced at Brasileiros magazine, Aug edition.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Brazilian Estadao already designed an excuse for Temer's - imminent - failure
Authors of daily fierce editorials against Dilma Rousseff over the past months, the chiefs of O Estado de S.Paulo show their anger also today, even though Dilma has been removed.
The right-wing newspaper publishes three editorials daily. The tone of two of today's essays sound like the end of the world.
Newspaper Estadao: hard to look ahead
The main editorial accuses the leader of the impeachment trial, Supreme Court minister Ricardo Lewandowski, of not being aware of article 52 of the constitution. At the same time, the editors call the senators attending the session supervised by the minister a "chusma de irresponsáveis" (rabble where everyone is irresponsible), and also refer to them as "políticos agrupados em matilhas" (politicians gathered in packs of hounds).
Why is that? Dilma was definitely removed from the office she had been invested in but did not lose her political rights. Indeed, this is akin to a mixed sentence, condemning and acquitting at the same time. According to that article 52, impeachment would automatically impose the loss of political rights for eight years, penalty suffered by Collor de Melo in 1992.
When about to vote yesterday, senators asked Lewandowski to separate the decision about the impeachment from the decision concerning the political rights. And he accepted it. On writing today, the editors mentioned opted to declare that the minister, in the final days of his regular mandate as the president of the Supreme Court, was not familiar with that article. But, of course, he might very well be aware of it.
Mr. Sanches, playing Lewandowiski's role back in Collor's case, is reported today in Folha de S.Paulo newspaper as ironically commenting that such result indicates the senators were not that convinced of Dilma's crime.
Anyway, the reaction of O Estado de S.Paulo (or Estadao) was much more intriguing. Making use, as usual, of uncommon vocabulary ('chusma' is one example), the main essay could find a slang and calls the decision to keep Dilma's political rights a "maracutaia" (trickery), besides proclaiming it "an immorality". On top, the opiniated prose pictures the future now gloomier than before!
The other essay, below the first one, on the same page of the print edition, asks in the title: "Dá para olhar para a frente?" (Is it possible to look ahead?)
The right-wing newspaper publishes three editorials daily. The tone of two of today's essays sound like the end of the world.
Newspaper Estadao: hard to look ahead
The main editorial accuses the leader of the impeachment trial, Supreme Court minister Ricardo Lewandowski, of not being aware of article 52 of the constitution. At the same time, the editors call the senators attending the session supervised by the minister a "chusma de irresponsáveis" (rabble where everyone is irresponsible), and also refer to them as "políticos agrupados em matilhas" (politicians gathered in packs of hounds).
Why is that? Dilma was definitely removed from the office she had been invested in but did not lose her political rights. Indeed, this is akin to a mixed sentence, condemning and acquitting at the same time. According to that article 52, impeachment would automatically impose the loss of political rights for eight years, penalty suffered by Collor de Melo in 1992.
When about to vote yesterday, senators asked Lewandowski to separate the decision about the impeachment from the decision concerning the political rights. And he accepted it. On writing today, the editors mentioned opted to declare that the minister, in the final days of his regular mandate as the president of the Supreme Court, was not familiar with that article. But, of course, he might very well be aware of it.
Mr. Sanches, playing Lewandowiski's role back in Collor's case, is reported today in Folha de S.Paulo newspaper as ironically commenting that such result indicates the senators were not that convinced of Dilma's crime.
Anyway, the reaction of O Estado de S.Paulo (or Estadao) was much more intriguing. Making use, as usual, of uncommon vocabulary ('chusma' is one example), the main essay could find a slang and calls the decision to keep Dilma's political rights a "maracutaia" (trickery), besides proclaiming it "an immorality". On top, the opiniated prose pictures the future now gloomier than before!
The other essay, below the first one, on the same page of the print edition, asks in the title: "Dá para olhar para a frente?" (Is it possible to look ahead?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)