Do outro lado do Atlântico

  

Salvaguardadas as devidas distâncias e proporções, o escândalo resultante da falência do BPN assemelha-se, em génese, ao caso Lehman Brothers. A controvérsia resultante da nebulosidade que continua a assombrar ambos os casos foi idêntica e os esclarecimentos sobre as causas originárias foram de tal forma dúbios que não conseguiram afastar minimamente as suspeitas de atitudes fraudulentas e lesivas do interesse público. Com as conhecidas repercussões e consequências.

 

Levantado que está o véu sobre a inequívoca participação do actual ocupante do Palácio de Belém nas negociatas levadas a cabo pela instituição de Dias Loureiro e companhia, indaguei uns quantos amigos do outro lado do Atlântico sobre o que sucederia na terra de Washington e Jefferson se viesse a público que Obama – ou qualquer outro presidente – tinha adquirido e vendido acções do Lehman Brothers com injustificável benefício próprio. Publico abaixo as respostas, sem recurso a tradução, deixando ao leitor a liberdade de retirar as suas próprias conclusões.

 

 

Caroline Sandberg (consultora, democrata, residente no estado da Califórnia):

Didn't Lehman Brothers go under a few years ago? Well regardless, what would happen if it became public that the vice president was a major shareholder of defense contractor, and then he pushed us into war? Apparently nothing. There were all kinds of those conflicts with the last administration, there are probably some of those conflicts in the current administration (albeit a little less devious, I reckon) and nobody ever does anything. We're far too bourgeois to actually DO anything, don't you think? We talk, we yell, we make claims, and then we move on to the next affront.

 

Jeanne Jones (estudante universitária, republicana, residente no Arizona):

 

Nothing would happen. Okay, everyone would be pissed off, but I bet he would not be impeached. I am still mad they let Clinton stay in after he proved he was a liar. How can we have someone represent us who has no integrity?

  

Jacob Day (produtor de cinema independente, reside no estado de Utah):

 

Depends. Did he know the stocks were fraudulent? If so, than I would be very disappointed. But if he got scammed, then I would be a little bit indifferent on the matter. Any bad press right now for Obama is a big deal, though. So, it could worsen the situation no matter what.

 

Nicole Syed (professora do ensino básico, democrata, residente na Geórgia):

 

I wouldn't care unless he knew the situation was shady.
And yes, it would totally be bad for Obama because the conservative right jumps on ANYTHING they can twist around to work as a knock on him.

 

Jennifer Day Walker (doutoranda, reside no estado de Utah):

Absolutely. I think trust is a huge factor in determining if a public servant is able to carry out their responsibilities. If I knew the president was dishonest about something as important as this--it would cause me to question is ethical ...and moral abilities in all areas of the presidency. I love Obama--but I think something like this would certainly "worsen things up"--there are many out there just looking for any reason to oust Obama. It would be far worse than Clinton having sex with an intern because our political climate right now is so volatile. I'm not one of them--I love Obama. But I would be disappointed and would wonder what else he's done that is unethical.

 

Andrew Walker (professor de Ciência Política na Universidade de Utah):

So Lehman Brothers went bankrupt right? Are you asking about a company that was bailed out maybe? I think it would be pretty serious. Cheney sold all his Haliburton stock during the election when people were concerned about corporate ties in government. I'm not convinced that should have calmed the concern but there was enough backlash to spur that kind of change when he wasn't even a member of the executive branch yet. We've had criminal investigations of presidents in the past (Clinton) for business dealings and successful prosecutions of people like Tom Delay for putting corporate dollars into political candidate hands. Ironically, our supreme court just granted corporations the status of individuals and said they can be involved in political support of candidates anonymously. So maybe they can't give them money directly, but certainly can pay for any amount of political advertising they want either opposing a rival or supporting the candidate they want to win. I don't know many of the specifics but this sounds really similar to what Delay is facing 3 years in jail for. Now made perfectly legal.

 

O desconforto com a apatia generalizada e a ausência de consequências visíveis para os autores de semelhantes façanhas é comum e constitui o dado mais relevante a retirar desta pequena sondagem de opinião. O desencanto ganha espaço e a mudança está à porta. Aqui, ali e em todo o lado.

  

Daniel Martins às 14:35 | link do post | comentar