O sol torando, nordeste sem água.
Bahia 10 conto o litro de gasolina.
Ceará sem internet, sem gás. pessoas tendo que pagar taxa ao CV. Eh painho nunca reclamei!!!
How did Lula go from prison to becoming eligible to run for president again?
The answer involves three distinct judicial decisions. The chronology matters.
In 2018, Lula’s corruption and money laundering conviction had been upheld on appeal. He began serving his sentence, and the electoral court barred his presidential candidacy under Brazil’s Clean Record Law, which disqualifies candidates with certain convictions upheld by a judicial panel.
First came his release. On November 7, 2019, the Supreme Court (STF) voted 6–5 to prohibit imprisonment solely to begin serving a sentence before appeals were exhausted. The ruling applied generally, beyond Lula’s case, with the exception of @jairbolsonaro who was immediately jailed with total disregard to the rule that was created for Lula. Lula walked out of prison the following day. His conviction remained in place, and he was still ineligible to run.
Then came the restoration of eligibility. On March 8, 2021, Justice Edson Fachin annulled the decisions in four Lula proceedings, including his convictions, because the district level federal court “lacked jurisdiction” over those cases. Fachin ordered them transferred to another court. With the convictions annulled, the basis for Lula’s electoral disqualification fell away. The full Supreme Court upheld Fachin’s decision, 8–3, on April 15, 2021.
Separately, on March 23, 2021, the STF ruled, 3–2, that the trial judge had been biased in convicting Lula, invalidating the judge’s acts in that case. Can you imagine if Alexandre de Moraes could have his decisions annulled on the basis of being “biased”?
These distinctions are essential. Release pending appeal did not restore eligibility. Annulment for lack of jurisdiction did. The finding of judicial bias provided a separate ground for invalidating the proceedings.
The decisions that reopened Lula’s path to the presidency were not acquittals on the underlying corruption allegations.
That’s how they did it in Brazil. What do you think they’re planning in Argentina next year?
@RepRobertGarcia Você é leviano e mentiroso. Se ele é criminoso então prove o crime que ele cometeu? @emd_worldwide os Americanos precisam ter cuidado para as eleições aí, não terem uma janela Zanin ou melhor não ter uma janela Democrata e acrescentarem 8 milhões de votos.
É bobagem esse negócio de que @FlavioBolsonaro será candidato em 2030. Se Deus quiser, teremos novas eleições muito antes disso! E o povo vai votar BOLSONARO de novo. Só precisamos nos assegurar que sejam eleições limpas.
What could an independent audit actually uncover about the Zanin Window?
Consider a hypothetical candidate named Lolo with privileged technical access. Lolo might attempt to substitute section results, alter aggregation records or interfere with which results were accepted. Those attempts would have to overcome safeguards and survive comparison with authentic local tallies. The Zanin Window itself would not grant that access. Nor would it erase the printed Boletins de Urna already held outside central custody.
That gives investigators a concrete test. You could compare independently preserved originals with signed electronic files, every accepted or replaced version, and the published totals. Examine administrative access and changes before, during and after the interruption.
A separate hypothesis—compromised machine software before local tallies were generated—requires different testing and would not depend on the Zanin Window.
An independent audit with international experts and observers should establish whether any records changed without justification, whether safeguards held, and whether any discrepancy could affect the outcome.
The audit must be capable of exposing manipulation—and of clearing the system if the records support it.