Brazilian Supreme Court just invalidated the criminal convictions of ex-President Lula da Silva, restoring his political rights and rendering him eligible to run against Bolsonaro in 2022. He was leading all polls when convicted in 2018.
The court ruled the corrupt judge and prosecutors who convicted Lula, @SF_Moro, had no right even to take the case. That was the subject of one of the first articles we published in our exposés:
Deltan e Moro sabiam desde o início que o caso de Lula não cabia em Lava Jato/Curitiba. Mas eles queriam nas mãos de Moro - eles sabiam que ele estava trapaceando e iriam condenar Lula - então eles se envolveram em truques para mantê-lo lá. Nosso primeiro dia de #VazaJato:
"E, assim, o caso parou no colo do aliado Sergio Moro."
Here's an amazing excerpt from the interview I did with Lula in May, 2019 -- when he was still unjustly imprisoned. It was weeks before we began our exposés (he didn't know we had the archive). He speaks about the collusion between his corrupt prosecutors/judge & the press:
Lula, whatever you think of his politics, is always very interesting and insightful. Here's the full interview I did with him: we talked not just the corrupt prosecution that put him in that prison but also much about international politics (and Trump):
Os principais parceiros e propagandistas de Moro, Deltan e LJ eram a Globo - um abandono completo do jornalismo. Assim como seu apoio à ditadura, isso deve manchar seu legado para sempre:
After a Brazilian Supreme Court judge yesterday invalidated the convictions of ex-President Lula on the ground @SF_Moro lacked authority to judge him, a separate judge today is deciding if Moro was biased & acted unethically: the core revelation of our reporting.
Story up soon.
The Brazilian judge overseeing the "anti-corruption" Car Wash probe, @SF_Moro, became such a national and international icon that few would oppose him. He was named to the TIME 100 list. He became Bolsonaro's Justice Minister.
Now he's in disgrace: the real criminal all along.
Look at Lula's persecutor, Sergio Moro: the pomposity, the flamboyant peacock-like displays of moralism and integrity, the endless proclamations that he is the Father of Probity -- Brazil's little @Comey, though even more discredited and awash in corruption.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Taylor Lorenz is a star reporter with the most influential newspaper in the US, arguably the west. Her work regularly appears on its front page.
Her attempt to claim this level of victimhood is revolting: she should try to find out what real persecution of journalists entails.
If you're going to insinuate yourself into polarizing political debates and report (or pretend to "report") on the powerful, you'll be "attacked" online. It can be extra toxic due to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc but it's still just online insults. That's not persecution.
With all the suffering and deprivation and real persecution in the world, it is utterly astonishing how often coddled, well-paid, highly privileged, coiffed, insulated, protected US elites posture as the world's most oppressed class. It's quite sickening and offensive.
Imprisoned without charges for fourteen years in Guantánamo, @MohamedouOuld is a symbol of humans' impulse to abuse power and their capacity for redemption.
The interview I conducted with him on Saturday is one I sincerely hope you will watch. A preview:
Particularly now, with Dems and their neocon allies who spawned the first War on Terror plotting how to launch a second, this time with a domestic focus, it is vital understand how arbitrary power of this kind ends up at least as dangerous as the enemy invoked to justify it.
If the threat of "armed insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists" is as great as some claim, why do they have to keep lying and peddling crude media fictions about it?
From fire extinguishes to massive Inauguration Day violence to a new March 4 uprising: fake hysteria reigns.
"Threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself."
In all cases, dangers are inflated for nefarious ends.
The Biden WH told NYT that they withdrew Neera's nomination because Murkowski "made clear to the White House she would not vote for her."
Murkowski denies any such thing happened, saying the WH never even asker her what she intended to do.
Someone isn't telling the truth.
Before the nomination was pulled, @ryangrim made a very good case that people were wrong for saying the WH was fighting harder for Neera than $15/hr minimum wage (I was one of those).
That the U.S. opposes tyranny is a glaring myth. Yet it is not only believed but often used to justify wars, bombing campaigns, sanctions, and protracted conflict.
The U.S. does not dislike autocratic and repressive governments. It loves them, and it has for decades.
It is in situations like this -- where U.S. actions so glaringly diverge from the propaganda they typically peddle -- that they are forced to tell the truth about their actions. That's why Psaki admitted they do embrace murderous tyrants when "U.S. interests" are served:
Someone should ask @PressSec her own question verbatim about Biden’s Syria bombing at tomorrow’s briefing (and while the context of her tweet was Trump’s bombing of Syrian forces, the question still applies):