4 ms·

Is there any proof of what you just said?

• felipebrnd 10y ago
  I believe he is talking about the Pasadena case, that was a really strange deal and a lot of people condemned back there.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• felipebrnd 10y ago
  I was doing some research on Pasadena case, and found this https://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://sistemas2.cgu.gov.br/relats/uploads/6677_%2520Relatorio%2520-%2520Petrobras%2520-%2520Refinaria%2520de%2520Pasadena.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwilloeY7a7MAhUDxpAKHXAtDHEQFghkMBI&usg=AFQjCNGDsa5Y7ZHIAAgDG0VN13uvLb_I2Q&sig2=ykr5hL0POaCn-LXLyGpdxw https://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http...
• malandrew 10y ago
  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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva#Corruption_investigation 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.