I was under the impression that people voted for Bolsonaro because they are fed up with a corrupt system. Lula de Silva (who actually was massively popular) was jailed for "corruption" in Operation Car Wash. However, as we now know thanks to Greenwald, this anti-corruption fight was corrupt in itself, and the person overseeing the investigation was cooperating with the prosecutors to strengthen their case. And this same person now holds major office under Bolsonaro.. So what does that say about the whole premise for having a Bolsonaro to 'change the corrupt system'?

> However, as we now know thanks to Greenwald, this anti-corruption fight was corrupt in itself, and the person overseeing the investigation was cooperating with the prosecutors to strengthen their case.

That is according to Greenwald. Judges and prosecutors talk all the time in private. This is your opinion. Many in Brazil and abroad don't think such practice configures collusion. Especially if you read the transcripts, it is far from being damming to Mr Moro and the prosecutors.

Some would argue that when you have changing governments (as opposed to a single "party"/"faction" for a long time), the level of corruption tends to be more in check... (this is because new governments don't have "the reigns" on every different area of the government, and also because this bolsters the opposition to "dig for dirt"...

The level of corruption in Brazil now adays (as a product of the nearly 4 mandates under Lula) is extreme. It was enough of an extreme that the people decided to elect an almost unknown, highly polarizing figure such as Bolsonaro...

Politicians and underwear should be changed often imo!

Ok that's fine but should you change these politicians through what ends up being an essentially corrupt and biased process?

This is exactly the story Greenwald is selling, which I disagree with in many points.

What points? You make it sound as if he stood to profit from this when the outcome has been clearly the opposite, and he himself had predicted it to be as much. His family has been getting death threats as a result of his work, and these carry a lot more weight in Brasil then they would in some country like the US or somewhere in Europe.

He is a very credible journalist and his story was widely well-received, his methods of procuring the information aside. If you have disagreements you should state them instead of just stating that you 'have them'

Just because Mr Greenwald is facing death threats as a result of his work doesn't mean he is 100% on his interpretation of the story. Also you forgot to mention that Greenwald's husband is a congressman which means they enjoy some enhanced security. Also you need to mention that the Brazilian's Worker's Party (the largest party in Congress) has Mr Greenwald's back. He is far from being alone in Brazi, there is a broad support from the establishment. It doesn't mean that his worries about his security are overblown, my point is that he enjoys a great deal of support especially from journalists, politicians and the Brazilian last instance's judges.

I did not know that and that is reassuring.

But you are arguing. Arguing without providing facts.

Justifying the election of someone who talked about eliminate opposition, paid tribute to a torturer and appointed a nazi as minister of culture, you really show how politically polarized are the things.