A "corrupt" party that could, but didn't, interfere with the largest corruption probe in Brazilian history was removed in a coup, replaced by a vice president from the party most involved in corruption scandals, allowing a farcical, inquisitorial investigation to jail a former president on thin "evidence" so that a neonazi (with a long history of low-level corruption and close ties with organized crime) could win an election...
It also has to be mentioned that the defendant has been convicted by three independent instances of the Brazilian justice system (local, regional and superior courts), each time unanimously.
> Those were not separate trials, but rubber stamping the first one.
This is what you’d probably like to be true, due to political alignment or something; however, there isn’t any evidence whatsoever that that was the case. Do you really think multiple judges in the country’s higher courts would all, unanimously, simply rubber stamp the decision of a local judge?
> Don't you think the judge privately advising the accusation without communicating the defense undermines the right to a fair trial?
No, because the messages do not reveal anything remotely illegal. The Brazilian justice model admits communication between the judge and the accusation and defense, and none of the leaks have shown anything that can be described as harmful to the defense.
And that is all assuming the messages have been faithfully reproduced; there’s strong indication they’ve been modified, for example when The Intercept published edited timelines and cited people who were not even part of the taskforce at the time.
Did I say that ended corruption? No, I said he won because people were tired of the previous party corrupt ways. That’s hardly controversial.