I don't think Lula is a saint, FWIW. I don't believe anyone can get to office in Brazil without at least feeding long-existing corrupt practices.

That said, Lula and Dilma seem to have made way for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute stuff that previously was just held in the head prosecutor's desk forever. I offer as evidence the very fact that we've had a spike in investigations, prosecutions and sentencing of politicians during their years in office.

This has certainly ruffled lots of feathers, and triggered a reaction. I offer as evidence the removal of Dilma from office, and the recording of Romero Jucá explaining the agreement involving "the Supreme Court, everything" to halt CarWash investigations at the point it had got to, namely, Lula. She did not commit any crime of responsibility, which is a constitutional requirement for her destitution, and I offer as evidence the fact that earlier presidents made the same budget maneuvers she was convicted for, without issues, and the fact that, the day after she was removed from office, the same congress that removed her passed a law that stated that maneuver was not a crime of responsibility.

As for Lula, I have not come across any evidence of his having committed any crime whatsoever. I wonder what it was that convinced you that he did.

Mind you, his being sentenced by kangaroo courts does not count as evidence. The first judge to convict him has time and again shown to be partial. I offer as evidence setting the initial date of CarWash investigation as the date Lula took office, despite evidence that corruption in Petrobrás had run for a long time back then; his asserting jurisdiction over cases that naturally would fall in someone else's hands by claiming the case had to do with other cases underway; his later admitting the cases were not related; his finding Lula guilty for "unspecified acts" in return for being allegedly given an apartment that he never received, and for fraud for not having formally transferred the apartment to his assets; his meddling with order to release Lula from a higher court, when he had no right to even take part in the process any more.

The higher court that confirmed and extended his sentence also displayed blatant partiality; evidence: its president stated the lower court's sentence to be perfect before even seeing it; the court extended the sentence without stating any reason (the actual reason was that original sentence would have lapsed); two of the three judges in that court also meddled with the order to release Lula, stepping over the ruling of another judge at the same level.

The Supreme Court, and its members who take part in the electoral court, confirming Romero Jucá's recorded statements, has also shown partiality against Lula. Evidence: deciding on his habeas corpus request in accordance with recent rulings that diverged from long-standing supreme court understanding and current understanding per statements in the ruling itself, to be confirmed in two constitutional lawsuit that are underway, but that are being artificially delayed; denying Lula's running for office, while allowing other candidates in the same situation to run, in this and earlier elections; rejecting responsibility and duty to comply with the United Nation's Human Rights committee order to ensure Lula's political rights were preserved until a final ruling; censoring interviews with Lula "because it could interfere with the elections", while even murderers are often allowed to be interviewed, including one of the (in)Justice's overruling, without authority or jurisdiction, two decisions by another Justice of the same court that authorized an interview.

Again, none of this proves Lula is innocent. But to me it is proof beyond any doubt that his is being persecuted. I make no assumptions as to why: some could be just pure evil, some could be political opponents, some could be under duress from blackmail, some not resisting to media pressure, some misguided, some perhaps holding non-public knowledge and trying to "make things right" by taking legal shortcuts. It doesn't really matter, does it?

Still, I wonder, what proof convinced you, if any, that Lula is guilty of the crimes he was accused of in that trial, and deserves to be in prison, rather than being elected ever again? (oh, yeah, I forgot: he was NOT sentenced for crimes he was accused of, another evidence of partiality by the courts)

This is from a Secure Scuttlebutt discussion.

So blong...