3 ms·

> But he was guilty, was he not? Not according to justice. > No court has ever declared him quote-unquote "innocent". No, because he is innocent until proven

> But he was guilty, was he not? Not according to justice. > No court has ever declared him quote-unquote "innocent". No, because he is innocent until proven guilty. Which he was not, since as yourself has said, due process was not followed - which annuls the validity of the entire thing. There are good reasons why nearly all justice systems in the world follow that principle, and you seem to not only be aware of it but also in favour. There are very few concrete pieces of evidence against him. Unsigned contracts; a lot of declarations from lenience accords (either accuse him or serve tens of years in jail), some were even retracted later; literally the opinion of judges (who had been leading the prosecution - check Geoffrey Robertson's opinions on the matter for an expert analysis); the list of vices, illegalities and other problems with all the processes against him go on. He was politically persecuted because otherwise he would have won the elections against Bolsonaro, and some of the judges in those processes were due for political advantages.

airstrike 4y ago
You seemed to have misread my comment, and I'd wager it's due to your own bias. > Not according to justice. I'm arguing that according to common sense, he is guilty of corruption. I didn't say he should be in jail. In fact, I said the opposite -- he should be free. But I also said why vote for someone who's implicated in so many corruption scandals? The pile of evidence is astounding. I can understand "I voted for him because Bolsonaro is terrible", but I can't understand "I voted for Lula because he's great". I don't think any court in Brazil is "impartial". Corruption is absolutely rampant. The decision over who gets prosecuted and convicted hinges more on the ides of march than on actual merit or graveness of crimes committed. So every politician is, by definition, "politically persecuted". Someone else had asked on this very thread in a now-deleted comment: > Do you believe the judge was impartial in finding him guilty nonetheless? Or are you saying you've seen the evidence itself and would believe he was obviously guilty even if the court had ruled otherwise? The latter. From the perspective of public opinion and objective facts, he was implicated in a variety of corruption scandals. The courts were able to prove wrongdoing. They did so by using illegal means, hence the conviction was annulled. But his wrongdoing wasn't magically undone. From the perspective of the electorate, there's no reason to vote for him if you believe these crimes should bar someone from office.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  Oh I understood your comment perfectly. Sorry if mine didn't reflect that. > I'm arguing that according to common sense, he is guilty of corruption. And I argue that it's a good thing that _common sense_ is not a criterion for convicting someone - in theory. Which clearly you agree with. > But I also said why vote for someone who's implicated in so many corruption scandals? The pile of evidence is astounding. Is it really? Evidence that implicates him as a person, showing that he used his political influence for personal gain? Evidence other than people who had already been convicted themselves and were facing an option of either saying what the courts wanted to hear and get lenience, or facing life or near-life sentences? (Not in the technical sense, since Brazil doesn't have life sentences, but for all practical purposes yes) Evidence other than unsigned contracts? A visit to a flat that was actually sold to a third party, not involved in any of this? Evidence other than a paddleboat in a country house of a friend of his family? Evidence other than words like "I don't have proof but I have the conviction" from the judge who condemned him? Real evidence that would justify putting him in prison? Note that I'm not saying he hasn't committed any crimes but what I do know is that other than through a lot of undue process and fabrications they managed to condemn him. I believe in fair justice, and the only logical conclusion from these processes is that he is innocent. They turned his life around for years and still had to resort to a process fraught with illegalities and wrongdoing to condemn him. That's not fair, and in fact it's downright criminal, so he's not guilty. Since he's innocent until proven guilty, which he wasn't, the only possible conclusion is his innocence. In any case, according to _common sense_ he should be in office. That's what elections are for. Which he now is and, in my opinion, both Brazil and the rest of the world are better off for it. You're very welcome to disagree, of course.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Are you seriously claiming the entire corruption case against him is fabrication? If that's true, why would they throw out the case based on some "jurisdiction" nonsense?
    - cassianoleal 4y ago

airstrike 4y ago

You seemed to have misread my comment, and I'd wager it's due to your own bias. > Not according to justice. I'm arguing that according to common sense, he is guilty of corruption. I didn't say he should be in jail. In fact, I said the opposite -- he should be free. But I also said why vote for someone who's implicated in so many corruption scandals? The pile of evidence is astounding. I can understand "I voted for him because Bolsonaro is terrible", but I can't understand "I voted for Lula because he's great". I don't think any court in Brazil is "impartial". Corruption is absolutely rampant. The decision over who gets prosecuted and convicted hinges more on the ides of march than on actual merit or graveness of crimes committed. So every politician is, by definition, "politically persecuted". Someone else had asked on this very thread in a now-deleted comment: > Do you believe the judge was impartial in finding him guilty nonetheless? Or are you saying you've seen the evidence itself and would believe he was obviously guilty even if the court had ruled otherwise? The latter. From the perspective of public opinion and objective facts, he was implicated in a variety of corruption scandals. The courts were able to prove wrongdoing. They did so by using illegal means, hence the conviction was annulled. But his wrongdoing wasn't magically undone. From the perspective of the electorate, there's no reason to vote for him if you believe these crimes should bar someone from office.

cassianoleal 4y ago
Oh I understood your comment perfectly. Sorry if mine didn't reflect that. > I'm arguing that according to common sense, he is guilty of corruption. And I argue that it's a good thing that _common sense_ is not a criterion for convicting someone - in theory. Which clearly you agree with. > But I also said why vote for someone who's implicated in so many corruption scandals? The pile of evidence is astounding. Is it really? Evidence that implicates him as a person, showing that he used his political influence for personal gain? Evidence other than people who had already been convicted themselves and were facing an option of either saying what the courts wanted to hear and get lenience, or facing life or near-life sentences? (Not in the technical sense, since Brazil doesn't have life sentences, but for all practical purposes yes) Evidence other than unsigned contracts? A visit to a flat that was actually sold to a third party, not involved in any of this? Evidence other than a paddleboat in a country house of a friend of his family? Evidence other than words like "I don't have proof but I have the conviction" from the judge who condemned him? Real evidence that would justify putting him in prison? Note that I'm not saying he hasn't committed any crimes but what I do know is that other than through a lot of undue process and fabrications they managed to condemn him. I believe in fair justice, and the only logical conclusion from these processes is that he is innocent. They turned his life around for years and still had to resort to a process fraught with illegalities and wrongdoing to condemn him. That's not fair, and in fact it's downright criminal, so he's not guilty. Since he's innocent until proven guilty, which he wasn't, the only possible conclusion is his innocence. In any case, according to _common sense_ he should be in office. That's what elections are for. Which he now is and, in my opinion, both Brazil and the rest of the world are better off for it. You're very welcome to disagree, of course.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Are you seriously claiming the entire corruption case against him is fabrication? If that's true, why would they throw out the case based on some "jurisdiction" nonsense?
  - cassianoleal 4y ago