Will Republican Senators See The Light And Do What Is Right

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE HILL NEWS)

 

This week the Democrats laid out the case for impeaching and removing President Trump from office. House impeachment managers serving as prosecutors did a masterful job of weaving a damning narrative against Trump as they described in pernicious detail how Trump abused the power of the presidency, obstructed Congress, attempted to cover it all up and in the process put our national security and the integrity of our elections at risk — all for his personal political benefit.

The presentations were eloquent, impactful and exacting. They summarized what has been weeks of investigation, testimony, press coverage, documents, emails and texts from former administration officials with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his plot to withhold military aid to Ukraine until Zelensky publicly announced an investigation into the Bidens in an effort to hurt the person Trump saw as his greatest political threat.

In the end, however, the question for all of us must be, does any of it matter? In this age of a “see no evil, hear no evil” Republicans who acquiesce to a delinquent president for their own political self-preservation and who fall back on lies, defamation of character (see Sen. Marcia Blackburn’s (R-Tenn.) shameful smear of decorated veteran Colonel Vindman) and promulgation of debunked conspiracy theories to justify their support of Trump, does truth and right still matter?

Of course it does. It must.

Videos, quotes, texts, testimonies and Trump’s own words paint a picture of a president obsessed with harming former Vice President Joe Biden and using the powers of the presidency to do it.

We also see that Republicans really aren’t arguing the merits of the case. They simply either argue with lies such as that Trump was concerned with our national security or rooting out corruption, or they argue that what he did may have been inappropriate but it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment. (Sadly, very few Republicans have even acknowledged that what Trump did was inappropriate).

I agree with lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who, in his moving closing remarks Thursday night, stated that when the Democrats are done prosecuting the case against President Trump there will be no room for doubt as to Trump’s guilt.

So, if Trump is guilty of what he is charged with, does that warrant his removal from office?

Schiff argues that it does. He makes the case that Trump not only put our nation at risk, but that he also put our whole value system in jeopardy. Frighteningly, if he gets away with it, we can be sure that he will do it again.

So, if Trump is guilty, and everyone knows he is capable of repeating these abhorrent actions, his removal becomes not only necessary but the only way out for a party that is already in peril of becoming a shell of what it once was.

Schiff’s questions for Republicans are: Does the truth still matter to them? And does doing the right thing still matter to them?

As Schiff says, it must. It must for all of us. The most frustrating thing is that we all know there are many Republicans who are repulsed by what Trump is, what he represents and the damage he has done to their party and to our country. Many have said so in private, but most dare not say anything in public.

As Chairman Schiff said so eloquently and emotionally on Thursday, “No constitution can protect us if right doesn’t matter anymore.” We have all learned that we cannot trust that Trump will do what is right for the country. We can only trust that Donald Trump will do what is right for him.

Now is the time for Republicans to step up and do right. That doesn’t necessarily mean coming out with how they really feel about Trump, as it would be political suicide. But it’s time for them to vote with the Democrats to have witnesses and more documents come to light. Most Americans believe that is critical. It is the only way to have at least a semblance of a fair trial and not a coverup.

With witnesses on the stand and additional documents out in the open, it is very possible that the truth will shine so brightly that it will be impossible for any sensible Republican senator to ignore. Maybe even impossible for 20 of them to ignore.

We shall see. Truth and right have a way of overcoming efforts to eradicate them. Sadly, that is where we are in the United States, the greatest democracy in the world. At least it will be once again, either when Republicans see the light and do right, or when voters hold them to account in November.

Maria Cardona is a principal at the Dewey Square Group, a Democratic strategist and a CNN/CNN Español political commentator. Follow her on Twitter @MariaTCardona.

‘Politics of love’: the end of Marianne Williamson’s bizarre and mesmerizing campaign

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE GUARDIAN NEWS)

 

‘Politics of love’: the end of Marianne Williamson’s bizarre and mesmerizing campaign

The author enthralled listeners with attacks on ‘the psychic force of hatred’. And sometimes she was surprisingly practical

Marianne Williamson blows a kiss before the first night of the second 2020 Democratic presidential debate, in July.
 Marianne Williamson blows a kiss before the first night of the second 2020 Democratic presidential debate, in July. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters

Marianne Williamson announced the end of her 2020 presidential campaign on the day of the wolf moon eclipse, as the year’s first full moon moved into the Earth’s outer shadow. The self-help author and spiritual adviser to Oprah, who as a presidential candidate charmed and confused Americans with her “politics of love”, told supporters that though her path had diverged from the campaign trail, “a politics of conscience is still yet possible”.

Even before she announced in January 2018 that she was jumping in the race to unseat Donald Trump, she floated a mysterious job listing for a social media director to join a presidential bid that was “part campaign” but also “part startup, part spiritual movement”. If the 2020 Democratic presidential field was broad, Williamson’s campaign was so out there she may as well have been on another astral plane.

On the one hand, Williamson, 67, was the only candidate to strongly advocate for reparations for African Americans. She advocated for stronger environmental protections, in discussing the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. In part due to Donald Trump’s rollback of environmental protections, “we have communities, particularly communities of color and disadvantaged communities all over this country, who are suffering from environmental injustice”, she said during the first Democratic primary debate in July.

Her contributions were unexpectedly lucid at times, though she often distracted from the otherwise strictly structured debate.

Williamson discussed Trump’s legacy as a “dark psychic force of collectivized hatred”. She referred to “toxicity” and “emotional turbulence” that required “healing”. She flouted norms by referring to the New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, as “girlfriend”.

While Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden presented policy proposals, Williamson dismissed such discourse as “wonkiness”. In this way, she was not unlike candidate Trump, who favored provocative but vague missives and catchphrases over carefully laid plans.

Williamson’s own views were scrutinized as not just wonky, but sometimes dangerous. Critics worried that her vacillating over vaccines – she fashioned herself as a supporter of “safe pharmaceuticals” rather than an anti-vaxxer – could mislead families. And when Hurricane Dorian hit the Bahamas, Williamson was criticized for implying that prayer was a substitute for policy in suggesting that people could harness “the power of the mind” to pray away the storm.

“Millions of us seeing Dorian turn away from land is not a wacky idea,” she wrote in a tweet that she later deleted. “Two minutes of prayer, visualization, meditation for those in the way of the storm.”

Still, throughout her complicated candidacy, Williamson remained eminently watchable, her throaty voice enthralling audiences of presidential debates and Goop conventions alike.

Till the end, she remained both befuddlingly practical and mesmerizingly odd. In a sign-off statement on her campaign website, Williamson listed among her proudest moments “proactively waging an agenda for peace and making humanity itself America’s greatest ally”.

She said she was dropping out because she didn’t want to “get in the way of a progressive candidate winning” the Democratic nomination. She also said that though she had put her year-long campaign to rest, “I have faith that something is awakening among us … And yes … love will prevail.”

Okay Christians; Your Idiot Has Gotten Us Into A War With Shiite Islam, Now What?

Okay Christians; Your Idiot Has Gotten Us Into A War With Shiite Islam, Now What?

 

The unexplainable, people who call themselves Christians have ordained a person to be our Leader, our President, who knows nothing of Christianity. The whole world knows that he is an ego maniac as well as idiot who is a total habitual liar. People, Christians, you know this, either that or you really are totally lost to reality. He is just like his Idol Mr. Putin in that he will do anything and I do mean anything, stoop to any level to make sure he stays President. The Father of an habitual liar is the Father of all liars so what kind of a result did you really expect to get with having this Fraud in Chief as our Leader? I never would have thought that U.S. Christians would have been capable of being so blind to the up front evil that is staring you in the face each time throughout history his ignorant mug is shown. The biggest fraud, the biggest idiot, is he going to lead us into this new expanded war, here on our homeland? Or, do we replace him with just another bought and paid for stick? What now world, what now?

Law professor writes Kentucky newspaper op-ed accusing McConnell of breaking two oaths

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE HILL NEWS PAPER)

 

 

Law professor writes Kentucky newspaper op-ed accusing McConnell of breaking two oaths

A Kentucky-born law professor went after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in an op-ed Friday, saying that the senator broke two of the three oaths in the U.S. Constitution.

The Boston College law professor, Kent Greenfield, criticized McConnell’s comments about an impeachment trial for President Trump.

“We Kentuckians know that our word is our bond. Oaths are the most solemn of promises, and their breach results in serious reputational — and sometimes legal — consequences,” Greenfield wrote in his op-ed published by the Courier Journal.

“President Donald Trump will soon be on trial in the Senate on grounds that he breached one oath,” Greenfield wrote. “Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is about to breach two.”

The first oath McConnell is breaking, Greenfield states, is the oath that he took when took office. It’s an oath that all state and federal officers take, an “Oath … to support this Constitution.”

The second oath pertains to the impeachment trial that will take place sometime after the new year.

“In Article I, the Constitution gives the Senate the ‘sole’ power to ‘try all impeachments,’ and the Constitution requires that ‘when sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation,’ ” Greenfield wrote.

Continuing, he wrote: “The framers wanted to make sure the Senate would never take such a trial lightly — this oath requirement is over and above the oath each senator has already taken to support the Constitution.”

McConnell has openly said that he plans to coordinate with Trump’s defense team and that he doesn’t view himself as an “impartial juror.”

Greenfield, a sixth-generation Kentuckian, targeted those comments in his op-ed.

“McConnell’s loyalty to Trump should not overwhelm his loyalty to the Constitution,” he asserts. “If he fails in this, he is not only violating his Article I oath but his Article VI oath.”

Greenfield concludes his piece by stating that history will be a “harsh judge,” and urges the longtime Kentucky senator to take his “obligation of faithful impartiality seriously.”

(Philosophy Peace) Life Is About, What We Put First

Life Is About What We Put First

 

I’m just writing this down as I am thinking of it. You see, I am a person that when I try to write, I write off of a title. I know that some folks say that they write the story then come up with a name for it. I have never seemed able to do that but then again, I have never said that I have any talent.

 

First I thought of this question, so I wrote it down. Then once I had seen it in writing, I then said what about myself, how would I ‘honestly’ answer this question? This is one of those question times where we are only talking to ourself. The question is, can we do that? Can we be totally honest to our own self?

 

I can only judge myself here, I’m not qualified to judge anyone else. You are going to have to do your own ‘examination’. I am not trying to grade you here, I am trying to better learn myself, to be cold blooded honest with my own self. Can you do that? What is ‘The’  answer, for me? Where do I ‘rate’ things, in my subconsciousness? Do I put myself first? My wife, all of my family? What about our Nation, our political facilitation, our political Party. How about our Nations Constitution? Maybe our job, or our position at work or maybe pride in our home, our car, or a toy train set? How about our religion, Jesus Christ, Yahweh or Allah? You see, there are many answers, far more than I have written here. I hope that mine are as correct as I think/hope that they are. Jesus Christ, Country, Family, Our Nations Constitution, the people of the whole World.

 

Another side thought while you are hear conversing with me. Have you ever spent any time thinking about where Satan and His Angels are going to end up? Have you ever thought about the “Hell” of the Bible? After the Rapture and Armageddon, they will all be cast there, forever. This is a horrible place to have anything or one sent to, Spirit or Flesh. Now think about it, is there anyone that you personally have ever met that you really do want to see them burning there? I am blessed and thankful that I cannot. I am thankful that I do not hate anyone that badly and I hope that I never ever do.

 

Well, I hope that this note to you was able to bring some more clarity of yourself, too you. Merry Christmas everyone. I hope you now have a safe and happy New Year ahead of you, and the ones that we put first.

Which One Would It Be?

Which One Would It Be?

 

This title is something that I just had cross across my mind a few moments ago. Turns out it is a short thought but with a very real possibility of coming true, maybe. And, is the thought here, what if is the answer to the question, what if, one of these Democratic candidates for President was going to be our Nations next President whether we like the person at all, or not, which one would you choose? I know that it is still months away, this Presidential voting season, yet eventually we are all going to have to choose someone, even if we choose to not vote at all, that is still a vote you gave away to someone else to do for you.

 

I am not saying that Donald Trump won’t be our next President, or some yet unannounced candidate Or even Mr. Putin. What I am saying is what if, what if one of those top dozen of so candidates running for the office of President, which one would you honestly say is your first choice? Maybe even who would then be your choice for VP? I guess I am just not fully satisfied with the choices, I am not fully sold on anyone of them, are you? I guess my leanings are as an independent that leans toward the conservative/moderates in the Democrats direction. I have turned my face from the Republican side of the Isle mainly because of folks like Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Fox News. Hate, hate and more hate, very sad. This is not the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan.

 

Mr. Biden they say is probably the most ‘conservative’ yet for me I just don’t trust him and as far as I believe, to old, and I am a 63 year old saying that. I don’t know who is going to win, I certainly have not been shown such a thing. What if, just what if now, what if (already to old) Bernie Sanders was our next President and lets say, Senator Warren as the VP? What if? I am being serious, what if one of the folks was going to be our next President, who would you choose? This short article was designed to be a little snack for your inner thoughts, I hope you enjoyed this food for your thoughts on this matter. May God have mercy on us all, no matter what flesh and bones sits in That Chair.

Trump top adviser: ‘Traditionally, it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes’

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF NBC NEWS)

 

Trump top adviser: ‘Traditionally, it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes’

The campaign aide, who was recorded at a private event, said later he was referring to false allegations against the GOP.
Image: President Donald Trump listens to questions in the Oval Office on Dec. 17, 2019.

President Donald Trump listens to questions in the Oval Office on Dec. 17, 2019.Evan Vucci / AP

By Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. — One of President Donald Trump’s top re-election advisers told influential Republicans in swing state Wisconsin that the party has “traditionally” relied on voter suppression to compete in battleground states but will be able to “start playing offense” in 2020 due to relaxed Election Day rules, according to an audio recording of a private event obtained by The Associated Press.

“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. … Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”

Asked about the remarks by AP, Clark said he was referring to false accusations that the GOP engages in voter suppression.

“As should be clear from the context of my remarks, my point was that Republicans historically have been falsely accused of voter suppression and that it is time we stood up to defend our own voters,” Clark said. “Neither I nor anyone I know or work with would condone anyone’s vote being threatened or diluted and our efforts will be focused on preventing just that.”

Clark made the comments Nov. 21 in a meeting of the Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter. Attendees included the state Senate’s top Republican, Scott Fitzgerald, along with the executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

Audio of the event at a country club in Madison obtained by the liberal group American Bridge was provided to AP by One Wisconsin Now, a Madison-based liberal advocacy group.

The roughly 20-minute audio offers an insider’s glimpse of Trump’s re-election strategy, showing the campaign is focusing on voting locations in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which form the the so-called “blue wall” of traditional Democratic strength that Trump broke through to win in 2016. Both parties are pouring millions of dollars into the states, anticipating they’ll be just as critical in the 2020 presidential contest.

Image: Justin Clark
Justin Clark discusses the tentative ruling by a federal judge to halt a California law that’s aimed at forcing the president to release his tax returns, in Sacramento, Calif., on Sept. 19, 2019.Rich Pedroncelli / AP file

Republican officials publicly signaled plans to step up their Election Day monitoring after a judge in 2018 lifted a consent degree in place since 1982 that barred the Republican National Committee from voter verification and other “ballot security” efforts. Critics have argued the tactics amount to voter intimidation.

The consent decree was put in place after the Democratic National Committee sued its Republican counterpart, alleging the RNC helped intimidate black voters in New Jersey’s election for governor. The federal lawsuit claimed the RNC and the state GOP had off-duty police stand at polling places in urban areas wearing armbands that read “National Ballot Security Task Force,” with guns visible on some.

Without acknowledging any wrongdoing, the RNC agreed to the consent decree, which restricted its ability to engage in activities related to ballot security. Lifting of the consent decree allows the RNC to “play by the same rules” as Democrats, said RNC communications director Michael Ahrens.

“Now the RNC can work more closely with state parties and campaigns to do what we do best, ensure that more people vote through our unmatched field program,” Ahrens said.

Although the consent decree forced the Trump campaign to conduct its own poll monitoring in 2016, the new rules will allow the RNC to use its multi-million dollar budget to handle those tasks and coordinate with other Republican groups on Election Day, Clark said. State directors of election day operations will be in place in Wisconsin and every battleground state by early 2020, he said.

In 2016, Wisconsin had 62 paid Trump staff working to get out the vote; in 2020, it will increase to around 100, Clark said.

Trump supports the effort, he said in the audio recording.

“We’ve all seen the tweets about voter fraud, blah, blah, blah,” Clark said. “Every time we’re in with him, he asks what are we doing about voter fraud? What are we doing about voter fraud?’ The point is he’s committed to this, he believes in it and he will do whatever it takes to make sure it’s successful.”

Clark said Trump’s campaign plans to focus on rural areas around mid-size cities like Eau Claire and Green Bay, areas he says where Democrats “cheat.” He did not explain what he meant by cheating and did not provide any examples.

“Cheating doesn’t just happen when you lose a county,” Clark said. “Cheating happens at the margin overall. What we’re going to be able to do, if we can recruit the bodies to do it, is focus on these places. That’s where our voters are.”

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin.

“If there’s bad behavior on the part of one side or the other to prevent people from voting, this is bad for our democracy,” Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said in reaction to Clark’s comments. “And frankly, I think will whoever does that, it will work to their disadvantage. It will make them look, frankly, stupid.”

Wisconsin’s attorney general, Democrat Josh Kaul, represented the Democratic National Committee in a 2016 New Jersey lawsuit that argued the GOP was coordinating with Trump to intimidate voters. Kaul argued then that Trump’s campaign “repeatedly encouraged his supporters to engage in vigilante efforts” in the guise of ferreting out potential voter fraud. The Republican Party disputed any coordination.

“It is vital that Wisconsinites have free and fair access to the polls, and that we protect the security and integrity of our elections,” Kaul said in a statement in reaction to Clark’s comments. “The Wisconsin Department of Justice has been and will continue working with other agencies to protect our democratic process.”

Mike Browne, deputy director of One Wisconsin Now, said Clark’s comments suggest the Trump campaign plans to engage in “underhanded tactics” to win the election.

“The strategy to rig the rules in elections and give themselves an unfair partisan advantage goes to Donald Trump, the highest levels of his campaign and the top Republican leadership,” Browne said. “It’s clear there’s no law Donald Trump and his right-wing machine won’t bend, break or ignore to try to win the presidency.”

Trump administration opposes bill meant to deter Russia

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

 

Trump administration opposes bill meant to deter Russia

(CNN)The Trump administration is pushing back on a wide-ranging piece of legislation meant to deter and punish Russian aggression and its interference in the 2016 election.

In a 22-page letter to Congress dated Tuesday, a senior State Department official outlined a series of concerns about the bill, calling it “unnecessary” and in need of “significant changes.”
“The Administration shares the goal of deterring and countering Russian subversion and aggression,” Bureau of Legislative Affairs Assistant Secretary Mary Elizabeth Taylor wrote in the letter, which was obtained by CNN. However, she said the administration “strongly opposes” the bill in its current form.
The Daily Beast was the first to report on the contents of the letter, sent exactly a week after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
Russia sanctions have been an ongoing source of contention between the Trump White House and Congress, where there has been strong bipartisan support for measures to punish Moscow since its 2014 annexation of Crimea. The US intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to bolster Trump, and former and current administration officials’ warnings that it will meddle again in 2020, have lent urgency to congressional efforts.
The President, however, has consistently urged better relations with Russia and displayed an affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The State Department did not immediately reply to a request for comment about the letter, which said the administration opposes the bill because it “risks crippling the global energy, commodities, financial and other markets.”
A bipartisan group of senators, including Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, introduced the “DASKA” bill in February. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday advanced the bill to the full Senate for a vote that’s not expected until next year.
On Wednesday, Graham said he was “incredibly pleased with the overwhelming bipartisan support for my legislation.”
“This strong vote indicates an overwhelming desire by the Senate as a whole to push back against Russian interference in our election and Putin’s misadventures throughout the world,” Graham said, before going on to signal a willingness to make adjustments to the bill. “I am committed to working with my colleagues to improve this legislation, but it must be strong to be meaningful,” he said.

‘It must be strong’

The legislation would force the administration to assess whether Russia is a state sponsor of terror and would hammer Russia with a host of additional sanctions. It would require a two-thirds Senate vote if Trump decides to leave NATO and includes measures to crack down on Russian disinformation and cyber crimes. Additionally, it would also require a series of reports on illicit Russian activities worldwide.
In its letter, the Trump administration argued that the bill is too inflexible and “would divert resources from the ongoing aggressive targeting of Russian malign actors under existing authorities…as well as from efforts with respect to Iran, North Korea, ISIS, Venezuela, Hezbollah, counter terrorism, human rights and corruption and other (US government) priorities.”
T
he administration also claimed that it “has aggressively imposed sanctions that are targeted, tailored, and impactful to address Russian malign activities while mitigating negative effects on allies and close partners utilizing these authorities.”
Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, said that no administration likes legislative sanctions out of Congress, adding that “there’s good reason for that.”
“If sanctions are about changing another state’s behavior, then the promise of sanctions relief has to be credible,” Charap said. “If it requires the approval of Congress, that limits the ability of the executive branch of government to make credible promises that it will relieve sanctions” to reward a change of behavior.
The tension between lawmakers and the White House over sanctioning Russia reflects a broader dynamic, Charap said.
“The Congress doesn’t trust the President on Russia policy… I think that’s what’s going on here,” he said.
The Trump administration has long faced criticism for its soft-handed approach to Russia. It was more than six months late in imposing legally mandated sanctions on the Kremlin for the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in the United Kingdom.
In his public rhetoric, Trump has largely failed to condemn Russia for its interference in the 2016 US election or for its illegal annexation of Crimea.

Brazil: Bolsonaro pardon of police may include murder

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BRAZILIAN NEWS AGENCY 247)

 

Bolsonaro pardon of police may include murder

Jair Bolsonaro has announced that he will release the Christmas pardon for police officers who have committed murder, while intending to include in the decree other crimes that would preclude receiving the benefit.

Jair Bolsonaro
Jair Bolsonaro (Photo: REUTERS / Adriano Machado)
 

247 – Jair Bolsonaro will release Christmas worship to police officers who have committed murder. Technicians also consider the ban on granting benefits to security agents convicted of offenses against sexual dignity, pedophilia, corruption and criminal organization. 

The decree of pardon, which will be published by Friday (20) is being prepared by the Ministry of Justice and the General Secretariat of the Presidency. 

According to a report by O Globo , the text will bring an unusual format – to establish specific rules for a professional category: that of police officers, who are part of Bolsonaro’s electoral base.

The decree will also state that they are unable to receive pardon sentenced – including police – for heinous crimes, torture, drug trafficking and terrorism, as prohibited by the Constitution. Some types of homicide are considered heinous under Brazilian law, such as those practiced in a typical death squad activity and the offense in a qualified manner, such as when committed for futile reasons or for reward.

Brazil: 68% Believe Lula Would Beat Bolsonaro in Elections

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS)

 

Vox Populi: 68% Believe Lula Would Beat Bolsonaro in Elections

Lula remained a 508-day political prisoner at the Curitiba Federal Police after conviction in the triple case – in a sentence by former judge Sérgio Moro, who was awarded the post of Bolsonaro minister, journalist Esmael Morais points out

(Photo: Ricardo Stuckert | Reuters)
 

By Esmael Morais, in his blog – Vox Populi states that 68% of the population believes that former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (PT) would have beaten Jair Bolsonaro in 2018 if he was not prevented from competing for Planalto Palace due to unjust imprisonment.

According to the institute, had there been a confrontation between Lula and Bolsonaro, the petista would have been victorious with 51% of the voting intentions.

Vox Populi still reports that the same 51% consider the current government worse or much worse than the petista.

Former President Lula says the poll numbers have renewed his hopes to counter Jair Bolsonaro’s already failed misrule.

Lula remained a 508-day political prisoner at the Curitiba Federal Police after conviction in the triple case – in a sentence by former judge Sérgio Moro, who was awarded the post of Bolsonaro minister.

Mindculture's Blog

Rising like a blooming lotus through the mud

Diary of a Gay Dad. I am a full time dad to five young children.

People family relationships children cooking jam making and being a gay dad

المعلومات في جميع المجلات

هذا الموقع يمكنه الكلام في ما يدور في العالم

The Common Sense Theologian

Theology, Politics, Life, Education, Family, Home, Kids, Marriage, Outdoors

India Travel BLog

A Blog about Indian Tourism

Danny's wor(l)d

have a great read here!!

%d bloggers like this: