Six facts currently being censored through omission in the Northern media about Lula’s Supreme Court Judgement.
by Brian Mier
1) The issue at stake today is not related to a “battle against corruption” but whether the Supreme Court will uphold the 1988 Constitution, which stipulates that the accused have the right to play out their appeals processes in freedom.
2) There is no material evidence against Lula. It’s not a matter of “the opinion of his defense lawyers. It’s a fact that can be read by anyone in his judgement and has been confirmed and repeatedly commented on by Queen Elizabeth’s Barrister and UN Council Geoffrey Robertson and hundreds of legal scholars, including conservatives.
3) Whereas there is no physical evidence connecting Lula to any personal enrichment or bribes of any kind, there is a mountain of physical evidence implicating illegal collaboration between Brazilian prosecutors and the US Department of Justice. The media is ignoring, for example that defense lawyers filed a motion of dismissal two weeks ago based on this illegal collaboration.
4) Operation Car Wash/Lava Jato is a product of the US Department of Justice, FBI and SEC designed to prevent a leftist candidate from being elected president this year and to continue and deepen the hand over of Brazilian natural resources like petroleum and water to northern Multinationals.
5) The US Department of Justice has collected nearly $1 billion in fines from Brazilian companies, shutting down several of them in the process and causing 500,000 job losses in a destabilizing move leading up to the 2016 Coup.
6) Chief Lava Jato prosecutor/judge Sergio Moro is under investigation for the lawfare crime of political persecution against Lula by the UN Human Rights Commission.
Maybe 5 years from now the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post will engage in public hand wringing and apologies for their collaboration in the destruction of Brazilian democracy. These apologies, if they ever come, will be too little, too late.
Support Brasil Wire
We rely on reader support to maintain editorial independence