Talk:Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff/Archive 2

is the rationale for the impeachment
specifically


 * 1. The economy tanked
 * 2. A bunch of corruption surfaces at Petrobas, a state-owned oil company, while Rousseff was chairman of the board
 * 3. Rousseff is believed to have participated (even if this is so far not demonstrated)
 * 4. 2 and/or 3 are blamed for 1
 * 5. The general disgust with the situation led to calls for general regime change

I am uncertain how much of the situation was specifically directed against Rousseff or if the population simply was essentially performing a vote of no confidence Elinruby (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * besides this (less "Pasadena case" - this fact is cited in Impeachment Request - please read it in the article lede and in the proper section), Senate judged her guilty for "criminal responsibility, administrative misconduct and disregarding the federal budget in violation of Brazilian Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Law (signed budget decrees without Senate authorization and "fiscal pedalling" with alleged purpose "to conceal the economic problems" in a electoral year). More here. Please, read the several sources in English, that gives many additional details. I insist in apologises about my English and I'll reply as possible. Cheers. PauloMSimoes (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that I think, but I am asking for example, is the Pasadena purchase the error she was talking about? If so I agree that this is kind of a big error, but I am still in translation mode. And please. I cannot discuss objects in Portugese let alone complicated ideas. What is the criminal responsibility? Haven't I seen that as a crime of responsibility? Does that mean public corruption ie being a corrupt public official? Is this for not sufficiently pursuing prosecution at Petrobras? The budget degrees without authorization are part of this thing about funding social programs before an election? The Constitution infraction is something about the budget being solely the province of the egislative branch? Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This law that Rousseff broke -- when was that passed, please? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2012 to 2014, per TCU concludes that the government has violated the Fiscal Responsibility Law, as cited in article. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, dear... but the trial lasted a total of 320 hours of work, of which 109 in Plenary and 211 in the Special Committee on Impeachment, which yielded 4,300 pages tachygraphed, 52 witnesses were heard, being 44 in the Commission and 8 in Plenary, to instruct a process that reached more than 27,000 sheets, distributed in 73 volumes. These numbers were extracted from the Official Senate Report "O Julgamento da Presidente Dilma Rousseff pelo Senado Federal - 2016" - (translated title: "The Trial of President Dilma Roussef by Senate - 2016"). Is very difficult to me, to explain all that in a simple way. There are 180 sources, that reference the entire text in article and I don't know what more can be added. Sorry, againPauloMSimoes (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep I totally admit I am blundering around asking stupid questions that betray a total lack of understanding and I am glad you are this patient, but better her than in the main article. I am kind of hoping other people will chime in Elinruby (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all, you are right. I hope so anyone more can help here. Thank you PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like that law was passed in 2000. I thought I saw a constitutional amendment; maybe that was in the Temer administration. When this law was passed Dilma was Lula's chief of staff, is that correct? I am off to check. It *would* seem like she should know about it then. But if Temer needed to do it too then what is it exactly and why is it illegal again? Elinruby (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What law? I really reiterate that this article describes (with sources) the procedures that occurred during the 8 months that lasted the process, culminating in the Senate's decision to permanent ousting the President from office, in a section chaired by the President of the Supreme Court. I don't think we're here to dispute what the Senate has decided, or are we? PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Elinruby, sorry the misunderstanding about the law you cited. As cited in lede, the charges were "administrative misconduct and disregarding the federal budget in violation of article 85 of the Brazilian Constitution, items V and VI and violation of the Fiscal Responsibility Law, article 36 (references in text, with translation). Can you give more details, please? Or another editor try to explain/reply? Akld guy, can you help? Thanks. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I trying to dispute the Senate decision? I completely lack standing with respect to the Senate decision, if you are asking in the legal sense. If you by dispute you mean "take issue with" or "denounce as wrong" nope nope don't understand it well enough. At some point I may do that however. For the moment I am just a stubborn translation wikignome trying to rewrite this article for idiom. As a separate matter the article fails formal definitions of fairness on Wikipedia if you omit Rousseff's own account of the actions she was impeached for because you don't believe her. At least that is the way I understand this. Did/does she deny that she did these things? Does she agree that she did these things but say that these actions were necessary? Not illegal? If you or another editor believe(s) she lied or said something untrue then this can be neutrally stated somehow also but her version does need to be there. The articles I posted above are reliable in my opinion, at least until someone objects to one of them, and several of them said that her removal from power was not a coup. I would like to make the article accurate is what I want, and easier to read. I see the legal citation in the lede. I have not found the translation yet. I would like to move the letter of the law further down the article, and summarize in the lede, so that is why I keep asking what specifically she did. Authorize the Treasury to fund social programs via an executive order? I am ok with some formulation that says legal procedure was followed, since there seems to be great emphasis on this point. However shouldn't we also mention that Michel Temer has also issued some of these edicts, and what is that about? I have no opinion on the legality or constitutionality of the process. Personally, from what I have seen far. I have seen much disagreement with her formulation, although I do have to take issue with the source that claims that this was not a coup because coups are very rare these days. That newspaper is usually a reliable source, too. Does Brazil have a treaty with the United States that mandates its intervention if there is a coup? Maybe the 1952 agreement, is that still in effect? I realize that this was intended to keep Communists out of government not keep them in power. I was just wondering because there was one with Honduras. If the 2000 law is the one she is accused of breaking isn't there an exception for necessity? Elinruby (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You asked, "This law that Rousseff broke -- when was that passed, please?". According to the section "Committee meetings/Witnesses hearings", the Fiscal Responsibility Law was enacted in May 2000. Akld guy (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

shady deals by former President Lula


this needs to be rephrased to not make the accusation in the voice of wikipedia, since the evidence is extremely weak. It seems to be based on an anonymous leak that purports to be of a statement given by one witness who did not provide evidence and whose lawyer refused to substantiate the leak for the record and condemned the article. Or if I misunderstood something then realize that if I misunderstand, as someone that's trying and has been reading about this for months, then pretty much any english speaker will. Also we need a reference or authority for this which is not the petition for impeachment. Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it starts with The report also alleged. If we repeat "alleged" after "which Rousseff" would it be sufficiently clear? Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was pretty sure this was inadvertent. Losing the comma would help, as it makes it look like a separate allegation. Maybe something like "alleges that Rousseff knew that (shady business, but that's another neutrality problem, needs reworking) Lulu was up to with Odebrecht in Angola was moneylaundering". Assuming that is true and what someone was trying to say. We also need a reference for this which is not the petition, because we haven't even started on the RS issues but this is an example of that too. The suggestion I made is rough and needs polish (tired rt now) but see how that word order keeps everything part of the report? I try to avoid allegedly twice in one sentence, although sometimes you have to. Elinruby (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * regarding this removal, besides the Request for Impeachment to quote the fact on page 8:  About this, there is relevant information here - archived page (Financial Times, 28 December 2016 - four months after impeachment), including quotes about Temer, to mitigate NPOV. :) PauloMSimoes (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * this is a translation from page 8 of the request for impeachment, yes? It is very prosecutorial in its tone, which is a problem, see below. I removed the text because it seemed to say in the voice of Wikipedia that Rousseff knew about this alleged corruption, which would make her an accessory in well, the judiciary systems I know anything about and I suspect the Brazilian one as well. The sentence construction can be changed to mitigate this as I mentioned and we need a better wording than "shady", which is a bit slangy. Also a better source. There is this whole concept of secondary sources I haven't addressed yet. If its problems can be fixed I don't insist this particular text be deleted and this may be the heart of the prosecution case. Let's see, though, evangelist is a better word than propagandist, imho, for your purposes. The latter has some connotations of falsehood, at least to my ear. Evangelist is biblical in its primary meaning but is also used in marketing, particularly software marketing, to mean one who preaches the virtues of the product, Brazil in this case. I don't subscribe to the FT but I haven't looked at it in a while so I should be able to see that article, will look now. I have questions about this but I will see if I can find the answers in the news coverage in my languages before I ask more questions. Also "safes" probably means treasury or assets, right? Accounts? Elinruby (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't much information in media yet because investigations on "Car wash operation" are in Plea bargain phase. Some sources in Portuguese (with respective automatic translations to English):


 * Portuguese – English
 * Portuguese – English
 * Portuguese – English
 * Portuguese – English
 * Portuguese – English
 * Portuguese – English

"bleed the public safes" means "bleed the Aerarium" PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * i am not back to this yet but will read these when I am, possibly tonight or tomorrow, thank you. I do remember asking somewhere whether "safes" meant assets (it's mostly used for a big heavy box with a combination lock in english and some of the slang meanings, well, are not what is meant here I am sure.) I don't know the word aerarium either but from the page I am taking it to mean "public treasury"? In other words the money was supposed to go into an account to be used for the country of Brazil and some people arranged to have some of that money fall into their own pockets, right? If you confirm that I'll see after read the links whether we need a more technical word than treasury. Thanks for your patient answers. FYI there is a small discussion about the lede on Saturnalia0's talk page about the lede -- you may want to look, but there is nothing big and imminent there, just a discussion of whether the thing with her vice-president's campaign finances means that Rousseff is "involved". I was unaware that Odebrecht is saying she knew about that this may be a rather technical legal question, whether the campaign benefiting means she was responsible. The link he showed does say that Odebrecht said that tho, I can see that. I'll do another big push on this soon. Later for now and thanks. Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the patient and thoughtful corrections in the text of the article. PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I got it now. "Bleed the public safes" isn't the proper translation of "sangrar os cofres públicos" (I failed on this translation). Yep, is right "the money was supposed to go into an account to be used for the country of Brazil and some people arranged to have some of that money fall into their own pockets". In this case, credit lines granted by BNDES (state bank), to Odebrecht works in Angola e Cuba. For Port of Mariel, in Cuba, "there were five installments, with 25 years to pay, the longest term ever granted by the state bank, and artificially low interest rates due to Proex (Export Support Program) subsidies" (see sources). Per Car Wash investigation, part of this money returned in form of kickbacks and to finance electoral campaigns (several parties). Rousseff's involvement in these facts needs to be discussed. Tks! PauloMSimoes (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * please do not apologize for your english. It is better than my Portuguese (which is improving with all this hehe, but is still essentially zero). It is what it is and with continued good faith effort we will get the article to good article status!Elinruby (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 👍 PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)