Veteran columnist Reinaldo Azevedo criticizes Glenn Greenwald’s ignorance of Brazilian law after he joins Elon Musk’s campaign to undermine the Supreme Court. Azevedo who was a former critic of Lula and PT until he realized how fraudulent the Lava Jato investigation was, now confronts Greenwald, who has also been a regular critic of Lula and the PT since first arriving in Rio as a tourist twenty years ago. The Tucker Carlson favourite has responded angrily to growing wave of disdain towards him from Brazilian progressives, who once saw him as an ally.
“When it comes to defending democracy, the U.S. has a lot to learn from contemporary Brazil, not the other way around”
By Reinaldo Azevedo
Glenn Greenwald writes an article in Folha in which he makes accusations of illegalities in Brazilian Supreme Court decisions.
There are no legal arguments. Just the manure that oozes from the Bolsonarista dunghill.
Why does he do this? I won’t speculate on that now. I’m sticking to another question. Glenn accuses the left of being subservient to Supreme Court Minister Alexandre de Moraes, ignoring past differences. Well… Everything has to be seen in its own time. If the Minister, within the rules of the game, confronts fascists and coup plotters, there is nothing strange about such support.
If Glenn sees this as an inconsistency, he himself is the character of a contradiction that seems reprehensible to him.
When Bolsonarismo tried to kick him out of Brazil — in a mix of authoritarianism, illegality, xenophobia and homophobia — Glenn received unanimous support from the left, which he now attacks.
It seems like a tie of contradictions, but it isn’t. I will explain:
1: The left was, yes, hostile to Alexandre de Moraes and today supports many of his decisions because he faces neo-fascists.
2: Glenn, previously supported by the left against neo-fascist threats, is now in the opposite camp and aligns his positions with those who wanted to expel or arrest him. As can be seen, in both cases, there is, in fact, coherence among progressives.
Glenn is the one who needs to explain his new and bad company, not the left.
By the way: Glenn reveals, let’s say, a somewhat colonialist soul in relation to Brazil: he takes the laws of his country of origin as universal.
And in his case, it’s fortunate that they are not. In the USA, an episode like the hacking incident could land him in jail for “contempt of court”. In Brazil, attempting a coup d’état can lead to prosecution and jail time — for journalists or not. But a journalist will never be threatened for not revealing his source. Sergio Moro, now an ally of Glenn, tried. But the left, today enemies of the boisterous and bellicose American journalist, denounced the illegal threat.
Glenn needs to stop with this habit thinking he’s here to “civilize” the natives. When it comes to defending democracy, the US has a lot to learn from contemporary Brazil, not the other way around.
Since leaving the Intercept, Glenn has been trying to find a niche in the marketplace of ideas here. So far he has achieved nothing other than being an auxiliary line for Bolsonarismo, which wanted to expel him from Brazil and even accused him of being part, with his then husband, of a plot to obtain a seat in the Chamber.
The left is coherent when it supports an Alexandre de Moraes today who was never a leftist. It is incomprehensible that Glenn has found himself in the bosom of those who essentially hate him.
But then, in the benevolent hypothesis, it is with Freud, not with me. And what about the “non-benevolent” hypothesis? This is material for investigative journalism.
