SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) reports via Common Dreams
The current attempt to remove President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil bears many resemblances to the [Bill] Clinton impeachment episode. It is led by a group of politicians who seek to overturn the results of national elections and steer the nation in a different, right-wing direction; and the elected president has not committed an impeachable offense.
[...] Most importantly, a crime is missing; even Bill Clinton's enemies could at least come up with the alleged crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. But Dilma Rousseff's impeachers have no such criminal violation to even allege. This was the conclusion[PDF] [the week of July 11 by] the federal prosecutor, Ivan Claudio Marx, who was assigned to investigate the offenses for which Dilma is about to stand trial in Brazil's Senate.
He determined that Dilma did not break the law in her handling of the public budget. The impeachment centers around her decision to delay payments to the state banks, which allowed the government to maintain the appearance of staying within a targeted fiscal balance in its accounts. Marx determined that this was not a crime, because it was not a "credit transaction" that would require congressional approval.
In a society where the rule of law is in effect, that would spell the end of the effort to remove the elected president. But press reports--inasmuch as they even bothered to report on the prosecutor's conclusion--seem to indicate that pro-impeachment forces are acting as though the law, and the prosecutor's statement, are irrelevant. They are pressing full steam ahead for the Senate to reverse the results of the October 2014 presidential elections. And as we now know from leaked transcripts of phone conversations, some of the leaders are doing it to prevent further investigation of their own alleged corruption.
Previous: Brazil's Dilma Rousseff to Face Impeachment Trial
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:31AM
Seems to me that attempting the deceive the public should be cause enough to throw out any official. I don't know about the politics in this case, that's just my objective view and yeah, I do think almost every politician should have their lying ass kicked to the curb.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday July 23 2016, @12:43PM
Just like what happened to George W. Bush over the Weapons of Mass Destruction that weren't! Not only was he not impeached, or even accused and put on trial, he was re-elected.
Really though, I think your standard is too high. We wouldn't have any politicians left if we kicked out every one who was merely accused of lying. Yes, I know, how can you tell if a politician is lying? A: His lips are moving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @01:31PM
We wouldn't have any politicians left if we kicked out every one who was merely accused of lying.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Non-lying politicians are a statistical anomaly.
Though, the GP did not say "merely accused of lying"; they said "attempting [to] deceive". In other words, "caught in a lie". Your attempt to deceive, sir, has been unsuccessful - put that strawman back where you found it :)
Yes, I know, how can you tell if a politician is lying? A: His lips are moving.
How can you tell if a politician is telling the truth?
When he calls his opponent a liar.