On the impeachment of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff

One thing I want to start trying to do better is communications about such suspensions, it will dramatically increase the workload but is something worthwhile I want to establish.

I also declared my own suspension publicly because I want others to not treat it as such an offense to their ego, many of a2k members who get into debates cross the line at some point. Myself included. It's not meant as a scarlet letter or anything, or an indication of animosity. To be fair and objective we often have to act against members we like a lot, or defend members we really don't like.

It's not personal, moderators who can't be objective and act on personal preferences and vendettas are recused from moderation.

In this battle against corruption, ironically the impeached Dilma was one of the better ones. Still, her and especially her predecessor Lula seem to be guilty of some corruption. The excuse is that it is necessary, and there is a lot of merit to the excuse (e.g. Brazil has a system that generates a ton of parties, lots of fringe parties and you need to put together a coalition by giving out government positions to incompetent members of them to govern) but that is a self-perpetuating excuse that keeps Brazil mired in corruption.

From what I've read, she's being impeached for having used "creative accounting" to feign a budgetary surplus required by law. She's not directly implicated in the Car Wash investigation or the Petrobras one, as far as I've read. Apparently, previous administrations had been employing similar accounting techniques for the same purposes, but she's being held to account for hers.

I wonder if administrations to come will be more accurate in their budgetary accounting.

You read it correctly, she's not implicated in the enormous Car Wash scandal (though Lula may be guilty of similar corruption, and she tried to shield him from prosecution a few weeks ago by offering him a cabinet position that the courts had to overrule) and her budgeting irregularity is something that was done by previous administrations (though my understanding is that it was to a much lesser degree).

My key doubt is whether it is illegal. There are those who support her whether or not she is guilty of a crime, but despite preferring her to the alternatives I am of the opinion that if she is guilty she should be held accountable.

I'm hoping some of my Brazilian friends show up to this discussion to take up the other side, some of them do not believe it is illegal and I think that's a very debatable point (it has yet to be adjudicated) and is the part I am most interested in exploring personally.

Probably totally irrelevant, but I always find myself with a somewhat surprising sympathy for the person at the end of a long chain of misdoing that generations of people in their position have got away with, who finds themselves behaving exactly in the way that has hitherto been accepted, when the game changes and the buck suddenly stops..... with them happening to be the one holding the suddenly poison chalice.

There! I am a champion of mixed metaphors.

It's not as though it wasn't always manifestly wrong to behave corruptly or to give clergy abusing children a free pass etc. but I find myself with intense wincing sympathy for the one who finally gets the punishment deserved by so many.

Am I the only one who feels this?

Oh I totally get that, and Dilma's an already stubborn person, and I get why she isn't doing the right thing (cede that she has lost the mandate and call for elections so that the even more corrupt guy doesn't replace her) and is fighting this all the way.

If it weren't for the commodity bubble popping, or the enormous bribery scandal she would have likely have gotten away with the budget irregularities too. There is definitely some cosmic injustice here even if she is guilty of a crime.

Oh good. That suggests I may not be mad!

I also hate the mob mentality that often goes with being the person caught out in the game of pass the parcel

The rest of this mess also truly stinks. Her replacement is literally barred from running for office (campaigning, but can hold office) for worse corruption. And the new cabinet is regressive (all white males rolling back a lot of Brazil's advancement).

This is a clusterfuck and there are really no great solutions and I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel for Brazil yet.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book: when you get caught stealing, yell "thief" to distract attention away from yourself to absolve yourself. That what's the entire Brazilian political system (all of them guilty thieves) is doing with the charade of a "coup" on Dilma, the former chair of Petrobras, which stole BILLIONS. Her "foes" removed her to distract from the Petrobras scandal and she and everyone else who steals are grateful for the distraction. I doubt anyone will be prosecuted for the scandal. Kind of like what happened with the subprime mortgage scandal in the US...

That's very sad. Brazil looked to be one of the countries in that continent with most chance for major progress.

I'd sooner invest in Tierra del Fuego.

Unfortunately in hindsight we can see that was largely driven by a bubble in commodities.

I actually came out ahead on my Brazilian investments (very small ones) this year. Cashed out this week but for unrelated reasons (just moving it to vanguard and a more basic 3-fund type of portfolio).

I'm sympathetic to the notion that Brazilian politicians, many of whom are under investigation in the corruption scandal, are using her as a scapegoat, but I don't think this qualifies as a "coup" (and you put quotes around it so you may be using it as a metaphor or something) in that I do not think her removal from office has been illegal.

I also happen to think she is guilty of a minor crime in her budget irregularities that merits removal from office, but on that point I can see how others would disagree. It's a "ticky tacky" infraction, and that had been done previously with impunity.

Do you think she is guilty of any crime? I'm interested in hearing from people who think she is innocent of wrongdoing. My own position is that though she may be a political scapegoat and a victim of political opportunism that she is actually being removed from office with legitimate reason.

Incidentally I do think there will be prosecutions. There has already been a conviction and nearly 20-year sentence, I expect (perhaps hopefully) for more.

If anything, her impeachment would set a precedence for the easy impeachment of succeeding presidents whose administrations "cook the books."

Is that in regard to the Car Wash investigation, the Petrobras one or the budgetary accounting one?

hey pal this is great. the fact is this is a brutal assault on what really is a fledgling democracy. after more than 20 years of a repressive dictatorship, one that over through the democratically elected government,in a coup that was support by the u.s. the workers party has won four straight elections.corruption certainly exists but to move to impeach on suspicion as a pretext is not credible. particularly when those charges are are a direct attempt to derail an investigation of individuals pointing the accusatorial finger. the person who will be acting Tumor could not gain more than 2 percent of the vote. this is blatant attempt to circumvent democracy and in tall a gov that will favor the interests of the rich elite and reverse progressive policy and replace them with neo liberal policy that will focus on concentrating wealth and power in the control of tiny percentage of wealthy families.

It's not based on suspicions, she admitted to the budget irregularities and simply claims it is not illegal because previous administrations did it with impunity.

I keep seeing opponents of this claim it is anti democratic, but the majority of Brazilians support the impeachment and took to the streets in the millions, the biggest demonstrations in the history of the country.

I am confused on how this is undemocratic. This is not a military coup or a return to a dictatorship. It is regressive in many ways (in that worse, more corrupt and more regressive people are now in power) but don't see the undemocratic angle.

Want to share an article that elarrogante messaged me elsewhere:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/24/glenn_greenwald_brazils_democracy_is_under

For the most part I think Glen Greenwald's take on this is accurate.