FELCA, ADULTIZAÇÃO, TRUMP e TARIFAÇO - Flow News #001

Hello, hello family! Welcome to the first Flow News here on the Flow channel.

Here by my side is Tramontina. Hey Tramont, how are you? Thank you.

We're together. Thank you for being part of this project.

We're going far, man. Thank you. It's going to be amazing to have you by my side. It's a fucking honor, man.

Damn, for me it's even more. We lived a two-year experience at Flow News. I had two shows there, without ever doing a podcast before, without ever doing a radio show before. And then you, in a crazy way, said, don't you want to do it? I'll go, but do I know how to do it? I know how to make television. I think I know a little. And then we did it, we did it well, we made cool shows. And now we're taking a new step.

Bringing the Flow News experience to the giant Flow platform.

That's it. And here we go, if you're wondering what's going on, we're bringing the Flow News project, as we announce on social media, that now it works inside the Flow channel. It has this format, which is a program where we will talk and comment on the main news of the week

and talk about it, always with a guest, which you already know who it is today, but we will introduce him. And this will always have me and Tramonta. Tramonta? I'm already close. It'll be me and Carlos Tramontina to talk about... to talk about the hottest and most important topics of the week. And today, man, we have Reinaldo Azevedo with us.

Thank you, Reinaldo, for coming.

I thank you. I love Flo. You know that. Thank you, Reinaldo, for coming. I thank you. I love Flo. You know that. Thank you. We've already done two interviews. You've been interviewed on Reconversa. I'm very happy to be, well, at the premiere...

At the premiere.

...of this new phase, alongside Tramontina, who is a legend, a journalism legend. So, well, I couldn't be more well accompanied. Isn't it better accompanied? No. Cultural moment. More well accompanied than with these two here. Thank you very much for having called me for this first phase of Flow News.

I'm very happy. You know that we were here thinking, man, we... well, since we will always have a guest, we had to start big, right, man? Who are the guys we'd like to have? Then, your name was the first one that came up,

I said, but he already told me that he can only be on Friday night, I don't know what, but it happened.

It happened, it happened, and I'm very satisfied.

Good.

And after Flow News, you can also see the conversation with Petra Costa, which is on air and such... According to Uncle Rey, it's unmissable. It's unmissable. It was really cool. And tomorrow there's an interview with Lula for those who want to watch it too. I think it's important too, right? Yeah. And then, I think the topic that's more on the rise, which is... it's not... it's not of adulting. Everyone is talking about the repercussions of how this is taking place in general.

I'd like to discuss some points of view on this phenomenon, on what happened. I think we could start by saying... Well, there's the opportunism of the politicians, because this is a theme that is like being against corruption. Everyone is against adultery. It's a little easier to, in a way, unite all these issues. Everyone is against evil.

Everyone is against evil. And there are other things, like the role of civil society, the role of social networks, platforms, and how we are dealing with all this that is happening

because, well, I don't think Felco expected to have as much repercussion as he has. Yes, I think so.

So, we can start with the opportunism of politicians, then. I feel that Hugo Mota has already appeared, Erika Hilton, Nicolas... It seems that Felca was invited by a PLO deputy to speak there recently, I think today. That's it.

To speak at the Security Commission.

Yes.

Of the House of Representatives. One thing that Tramonta raised earlier here is that it's interesting, because Hugo Mota was saying that there are a lot of things to vote here and all that, but then a subject like this arises that unites everyone, and what does it do?

Ah, I think this one can appear first. Why not now, right? Look, there are things that, if not detained by opportunity, don't happen. So politics also has the force of opportunity. And you can have the suffix "-ismo", to indicate a vicious thing.

It's opportunism, it's not true. If they start now and then there is no consequence, then we are in "-ismo", in the vicious thing. If something happens, we are in the opportunity., in the vicious thing. If something happens, we are in the opportunity. And therefore it is a good opportunity.

Yes.

Now, what is there of... ...pharisaical in this whole story? Let's go. There is an essence in Felca's video, in fact, very well done. Very well done technically, but the script he which is very well done, very well done technically, but the script he established is very good. Because these manifestations of pedophilia,

that's the name, right? It may not have been a consumed crime, but if it's commodifying child bodies, child sensuality, it's all there, sometimes with the connivence of the parents, which is a terrifying thing, right?

Because the father sees in the son an opportunity to make money on the networks, right? Sometimes not even realizing how morally criminal this is. Well, this happens because the networks allow it. This is undeniable. And you have algorithms that feed it, and this is offered. It is valid for hate policies and hate demonstrations that also monetize and earn money. We have a debate in Brazil, which has been put on for a long time, about the regulation of networks.

The regulation of networks has never been, and never was, to regulate freedom of expression. With the amount of... Today, I even gave a beating to two Supreme Ministers, Luiz Fux and André Mendonça, very hard, see if I want them to take my foot. But they don't have to take my foot because I'm exercising freedom of criticism. Freedom of criticism is not

freedom of hate. Freedom of criticism is not freedom of exposing people to risk, to expose institutions at risk. So we have to think about these things. The project that was in Congress for the regulation of the networks, I've never seen it, and there's nothing there that's similar to censorship. Just as it didn't prosper, the Supreme Court entered the debate,

and then a completely harsh approach approach was made of this business... I'm vulgar, ok, guys? So no vulgar complaint. So an absolutely extravagant approach was made of this business... I remember Sartre, right? He had a divergent strabismus, he said, your face is a swampy terrain, right? Which is the following, what did Supremo do, actually? What did the Supreme Court do?

There were two questions that got there, as extraordinary resources, as the name implies, from two people, very damaged by the networks, one of them from Orkut. It said, many demonstrations, I asked you to take it off, and you didn't, I took it off, you didn't, my life was destroyed, and you don't, and you don't, my life was destroyed and you didn't take it off. After all, you who didn't take it off, even though you were warned,

are you responsible or not? And the Supreme Court said, yes, they are. And it went fast, look at the Supreme Court trying to censor things, because the networks say, we don't have civil liability, as in article 19 of the Civil Framework. It happens that the networks are the only companies in Brazil, don't have any, that didn't have civil liability.

We all have civil liability. An example I gave here when I came, if you hit the neighbor's car while you're maneuvering in the garage, you won't be arrested for it, but you'll have to pay the damage. That's a civil responsibility, which exists for individuals and for companies.

The networks are the only ones that don't, because they say, we are only those who transmit third-party content. We are a box here. But the parallel I'm going to make now is perfect. I have a building, I build a building, We are a box here. But the parallel I'm going to make now is perfect.

I have a building, I build a building, I deliver it to drug trafficking, which will pay me a percentage for what they do there, and I say, I have nothing to do with what they do, although I know what they do. So what the Supreme Court voted was the civil responsibility if the companies notified don't act and if they clearly know that a crime is being committed and they are not doing anything for it.

That's it. There is no censorship of any nature. The Bolsonarists made a scarcel, look at the censorship, censorship, censorship. André Mendonça, two ministers, voted against the Supreme Court's proposal. André Mendonça and Nunes Marques. André Mendonça made a vote that seemed like he was trying to determine opinions on social media. And he defended absolute freedom. The problem with absolute freedom is that it doesn't admit to weighing.

Absolute is absolute. doesn't admit to its own assessment. The absolute is the absolute. Everything is the same as nothing. Conceptually speaking. What is everything? Everything is everything. So, if you don't have a civil responsibility, and you need to have one, the supreme one,

we'll see how this will be applied, these networks, simply... We'll see how this will be applied. These networks... Well, there's the thing that Felca denounced, and that's evident. Nobody knew, but they knew.

Everybody knew.

Nobody knows, but they know. By the way, Renato, the Public Prosecutor knows, the Justice knows, the Police knows,

the Feds knows, the Society knows,

but it was a conspiracy. The Society knows and consumes. But it was... Consumes. The society knows and consumes. But until recently, you could hire these people, but not the companies. If it was like Andre Mendonça, the so-called Italo will be punished. Italo punished, banished from the network,

after an action, a process, and so on. Then comes another one, because the network is open. And then comes another one, and another one. So, it is necessary that there is a public policy to limit these people. So, the importance of Felca's video, I'm not saying that his thesis is this, I'm saying what this reveals as a phenomenon As a phenomenon, it reveals that we have open networks

to this kind of thing, which is the old story As we don't consume, man, I...

I was... I didn't even know there was

I didn't even know there was, like that

I was astonished

It's astonishing

Every time I was getting more and more shocked.

And there's a time when a 12, 13 year old boy says, I'll stay with her, get up, get up. They kiss. As adults. You can imagine your children, your grandchildren, put there in a guy who is clearly a child's progenitor.

And then parents come, taking their children. And then you say, a child's poop and then parents come and take their children and then you say, ah, but... because then the ultra-liberals come with this very boring conversation ah, these are the parents who are responsible no, without a doubt, the parents are responsible

that the public ministry takes these parents because the child's statute is for adolescents they are failing with the duty of care so they take these parents now, we have to have a public policy for the networks. If there was a lack of evidence that the control,

when I say control, democratic control, in general, people didn't read the Supreme Court's decision. Do you understand? So, it's like, oh, and then Elon Musk comes out and says, look what the Supreme Court did. It's in the letter that Trump sent to Lula, it's a network thing. As if we had committed a big crime here.

And the legislation that the Supreme Court proposed, until the Congress manifests itself, it is much more modest than what we have in Europe today. The problem is that they want absolute freedom, and absolute freedom ends there.

Dr. Dario Rouse and Varella, for over a year, have been fighting to make dozens of manipulated videos where, in theory, he appears suggesting drugs, first, drugs that have no proven efficacy . Second, he doesn't suggest any drugs. Third, he doesn't do internet consultations. And he fights in court to make videos that flagrantly commit crimes using his image and his credibility, and he can't get it out of the court.

He doesn't get it out because there was no tool for it. You don't have a legal tool for it. Congress refuses to vote assuming that this is a left-wing trick to control the debate. And then, and part of the press unfortunately bought this speech. I made a joke today on the wall, which is the following. Freedom of expression is sacred. First of all, nothing is sacred,

except the sacred. We're dealing with human issues. If freedom of expression, if the expression in the network, I'll call it freedom of expression, if the expression in the network serves the crime, it's not freedom of expression, but it's a crime. And the joke I made was this. If the ball is used to commit a crime,

it's not that you're going to ban the ball, but you're going to have to see what use they're making of the ball. Because the boy at the O'Brien Club, Diego, said, no, don't ban the ball. I said, no, I don't want it either. But what use are they making? There are many people watching us who don't know what a balajoquinha is. Don't know what a balajoquinha is?

A balajoquinha is a pink ball that sticks to the tooth.

That exists, look.

It exists, look. It was on State Avenue, there was even a little display. Balajoquinha is a beautiful set. Exactly, that's how it was, the commercial. Exactly, no way. Let me raise a question about Article 19, which is the following. One of the fears I have, and I'm not as well informed as you, but one of the fears I have about this idea of...

Let's go, now it's easier, in a way, to blame YouTube, for example. People go there, report it, and that video needs to go out. One of the things that scares me is the following. If I'm dealing with a thorny subject, not a crime, but we're talking, and it's thorny, let's say racism,

pedophilia, something that's a heavy taboo. I don't know to what extent I could... Flow has a giant target on its back, people turn and mess, try to screw us, destroy us, things like that. Through this new device, I would run the risk of being denounced and the platform taking my video. Worse, the platform knowing that it will run the risk of having videos that deal with these extremely thorny subjects wouldn't, in a way, do some kind of previous censorship

to defend themselves, as a private company does? Let me say... Evidently, I wouldn't be responsible for saying that there's zero risk because a bad law application is always a bad law application. If you want to destroy a good law, you have to apply it in an idiotic way. Especially if there are those who want to have no law, which is what we have today,

and without any law we see where things are going. It is necessary for a comedian to make a serious video, so that the press, which should not make humor, stops making macabre jokes about it. Of course, there is more... But there is no, in what the Supreme Court decided,

there is no automatic exclusion. There is notification. Companies can very well assess,, to resort to... to the automatic exclusion... Automatic. The network is obliged, under penalty of... If there is already, for example, a judicial decision,

I make a calumnious statement about Tramontino. He already... The justice already says that this is a calumny, slander, a judicial decision regarding this. Therefore, this is a lie that the court has certified to be a lie. If someone re-incides in this, the company is notified and maintains this thing, then yes. Why? But, look, there are many levels to reach.

They are creating a false debate, which is the following. Let's go. Can we have a debate about pedophilia? We should be able to. And we can.

Yes, we can.

And we can have a debate about pedophilia. I'm not so sure about electronic media. No, no, no, forget it. This is an attempt to push the law. If a Greek teacher comes here and says that ancient Greeks used boys in berbs as their pages in the armies, this is historical information, and as historical information, such. Now, if the guy comes and says,

and I think that today we should still have the right to the girl in black, then my son, then each one is also responsible for what he does. And then, in your example, this is a good example, let's say that there is this crazy guy, and this crazy guy, I don't know, he is a... he became famous because he is a very good neuroscientist.

It never happened to me to call a guy for a reason and in the end the subject goes to the other side. For example, we called Super Xandão, who was a streamer, and in the middle we found out that he was a land planner. And then we talked about it. So It happens, it can happen. This episode, the guy talking nonsense in a debate, shouldn't be a problem.

Since...

Since you... Since this happens, since Flo doesn't say like, wow, that's cool. Of course.

I trust that because I don't think I'm a monster.

This thing of catching the guy, that's cool. I trust that because I don't think I'm a monster. This thing of picking up kids is cool. Even in Berber. We have a teenager's sex statute for 14-year-olds. Which, by the way, we should be horrified now that Felke has put it on air. And the guy himself, there's the public ministry, man. If he... Oh, no, I'm a neuroscientist and I think it would be cool if everyone had a kid, 12 years old.

Sorry, he has to know that he lives in a country where there is a child and teenager statute. A country, and here comes a question, we make choices in society. A country where there is a child and teenager statute to protect children up to 14 years old I think it is more prudent than a crazy person who thinks he has to have sex with a child that meets a neuropsychological need. We have to make choices. It's the old story.

We have a criminal code. There is no doubt that a lot of people who commit horrible crimes have a history, a childhood, many times... Sometimes not, too. But they have a bad childhood, they've been, I don't know, they've suffered trauma, they've suffered violence.

It's not because of that that we're going to excuse them from following the law.

Of course.

Of course.

So we have to make choices. I talked to Luciana Temer, Luciana Temer is the president of an institution that is extremely important, the Libertas Institute, that fights against... She is the daughter of former president Michel Temer. The Libertas Institute fights against the sexual enslavement of girls.

And she told me about the danger of something related, which are the pornographic websites that are open. And how much this undermines the formation of children in the same way as boys and boys sexualized in these websites reported this week, which are the subject of our conversation here,

how much the things shown by Felke and the pornographic sites work in the same way. And there is no difficulty for children, for young people to access the pornographic sites and then have their personal formation, which does not exist at that time,

completely distorted over time. Because looking at the pornographic website, they will see first the woman who is subjugated and who is an object permanently,

and then all kinds of things. Manifestations of violence, all kinds of things.

Disrespect.

One day a guy irritated me a little in a debate like this, I will not go into details, but like this. Ah, because sexualities have derivations and there are those who like to be tied, there are those who like to be I don't know what, there are those who like... No, wait a minute. Adults making choices?

Yeah.

It's one thing. Adults making choices? I have a maximum. Sex for me, not having a child, not having an animal, not being forced...

It's worth it.

What do I have with that? Nothing. By the way, I have a horror of people who like to expose this on social media. Oh, you know what it is? And there are today, there are 500,000 podcasts, and the person goes there and tells the biggest nonsense, and thinks it's funny, and I don't know what, and such.

Then he gets mad, because, oh, the nude leaked, man. Then the guy with the big dick, the nude leaked, is I never took a picture and I didn't record it. Now, it's funny, I was taking a picture up to my abdomen and accidentally leaked the perereca. So there's this, there's this exploration. Now, for adults, right? Children, and of course children have access to this. If you see a scene of sadomasochism, one thing is for the person to grow up and know that they like one thing or another,

or whatever, this game, this fantasy. Another thing is this shaping the character of the children. Just to conclude, I remember saying, oh no, but didn't't have the magazines?'' We did, but it was different. Yeah, first of all, the access was very...

It's the same thing.

I remember he had to see magazines with his friends in a building to see the magazines. Sold hidden in the magazine bank. Another conversation.

Sold hidden in the magazine bank.

Yeah, exactly.

There's something in Felca's documentary, in Felca's work, in fact, maybe the most

important journalistic work ever done on this subject, all the time. I don't want to take your thread, because I always say that I talk too much, which is true, but I noticed today that he, being a humorist, he did a job that, unfortunately, journalism didn't do.

It's true.

With so much precision, so much hardness, so much clarity.

Correction.

Correction. And he put the issue of monetization of networks for these things, and of waves, like a bunch of colonists, and talking about the greatest barbarities, like the evils of freedom, and correct themselves with more freedom. I know this phrase from Toqueville, and I know you're misapplying it.

Because in this case, the evils of freedom are not corrected with more freedom. The evils of freedom in this case, which is not freedom, it's crime. Sorry. By the way, he said that all the monetization of this work he did will be donated. Few people have the courage to do this, due to the millions and millions of views that Vido has had on many platforms. Until when it came to face, 28 million. But on Instagram there are many more. On Instagram it has already passed 150, I think.

Exactly.

Then, he, he, you saw the video, he interviewed a psychologist, Ana Beatriz Chamate, who remembered the following, up to 2 years, the child should not have internet in life. From 2 to 5, 1 hour a day with supervision of an adult. From 5 years, at most, 2 hours a day with supervision of an adult. From the age of 5, at most, 2 hours a day with the supervision of an adult. That is, if you let it go,

and even more, if the adults stimulate and make money with it, and then comes the paternal responsibility, then it gets difficult.

Then it gets difficult. The damage is a gigantic disaster. So, Felca is one of the creators of... I know Felca. We...

Yeah...

You know him, I don't.

No, we...

You know I'm such an idiot that I didn't know him. And then I found out that he followed me on Twitter. I stopped following him yesterday because I really didn't know him. I'm stuck in my political bubble. Felipe... Felipe Bressanin Pereira It's Felca Felca is a guy who is one of the most cult content creators

The guy reads to be worth every day I got that impression

He is different, I like Felca a lot He is weird But he is very smart You know? It's no wonder his video has that quality. Again, I don't think he expected it to go viral like that,

but it's good that it did. It's good. I also started to question why he did it, and I was like... I don't get like, why? I don't know. The fact is, is he talking about something that doesn't exist?

No, on the contrary. And now, the platforms, like Youtube, specifically Youtube, I know that Youtube already has a certain filter to prevent or decrease content with children. For example, every time we upload a video, when we start a live, we have to mark there that it's not content for children, that there are no children, etc. There are also a series of restrictions that apparently and obviously do not prevent content like this from emerging,

that we are debating, but this controversy of child content on YouTube is already a subject that kind that turns and moves and explodes. A few years ago, there was a wave of people reporting videos of children, which was, I don't know, sometimes the parents would upload... Because YouTube starts as a platform for me to upload my video and show it to my friends, and then this influencer thing comes up, right? And big things happening on YouTube. But pedophiles were in these videos that

parents uploaded of children on the beach and the comments were just time stamps, which was when the guys felt more, I don't know, stimulated at some point. And then this triggered, for example, one of the things that YouTube does is with these, there are no more comments. But it doesn't prevent these videos from appearing. But I think the internet as a whole, it ends up being, as Tramonto was saying here, a big...

To get into the X-Videos, you just need to click on the button, yes, I'm 18 years old.

And it's over.

And it's over. So, all the risks that exist in all of this. Not to mention, the means that people find to mock the platforms' tools to put videos that are not their own. For example, on TikTok, there was already a way. For example, when you upload a photo on TikTok and there's a little carousel. Between the carousels, the guy would put a pornographic picture.

Or in some other ways. And I would say that the platforms have moved to diminish all of this. Yes. But, again, when it's more, I'll call it, soft core, things end up going well, after all. So, what is being proposed today by politicians? They are moving towards this opportunity, which we'll see if it's not just opportunism, to do something. But we still have no idea. Do we?

I don't know. Constantine said, there are a lot of projects, I don't know exactly what those projects are. We need to see, because it's the old story of good intentions. That place is full. But it's not.

So we need to see exactly what it is. And here's a message, not a message, an observation to our brave representatives of big tech in Brazil. And they know I'm telling the truth, right? Because Uncle Sol does that. Truth. In the Supreme Court decision, you know that, right? In the Supreme Court decision, it is as follows. Focus on me!

In the Supreme Court decision, it is as follows. The fortuitous occurrence, the occasional thing, happened, a barbarity leaked, has no punishment. The question is when it is characterized, therefore, I'm against the Supreme Court's decision, even feeding the crazy American who wants to interfere in our sovereignty.

You know, throughout all this time I've been doing the news, I've always felt very moved, and sometimes I almost lost control in the news presentation, when I saw children talking about their father's unemployment, children writing to Santa Claus asking him to solve a family problem, kids saying they didn't have food at home.

That always touched me a lot. Today, when I watch the video and think about a series of things that are described there, with so much cruelty, but everything is real, nothing is fantasy. I was shocked, because a child has to play. A child has to have the right to go to school, the right to a family, to be taken care of and to play.

And then you see a situation like this, which is a complete inversion of values. Absurd, complete.

Complete. It's terrifying to see how much this grows, because there are interested parties, because there is a situation that facilitates all this, and because there is a gigantic group that consumes this.

Because if there was no consumption, there would be no first action. Of course. And that this is not useful, and of course you're not saying this because I already got what you think, but that this is not good because sometimes the ultra-liberals, which I call the Vale Tudo group, say like this, father who controls,

so the fault is society's. No, wait a minute. You're being omissive in these things. Of course there are people who consume, of course there are collective guilt, of course it's the father's fault,

but we need to see who is providing, providing the instruments for this thing to happen. Because just like there are many people who consume, there are millions who don consume, there are millions who don't consume and are outraged too. Ah, but it's that the human being, because there's something else, the human being doesn't pay, I really like this, the human being is like

that, the human being doesn't pay. There's a wonderful phrase in the trilogy of Sartre, of the Paths of Freedom,

in the second book, which is With Death in the Soul, there's a character called Schneider, he says,

it's amazing how some people,

who are pusillanimous, who are cowards, like to think, to comfort themselves,

that everyone is. Because, like that, I don't need to comfort themselves, that they are all like that.

Because then I don't need to do anything, I don't need to position myself. I just need to say, humanity doesn't pay. That's the truth, humanity doesn't pay. And everyone, and there's another very cute thought, and everyone who tries to put control on this is an even worse dictator than these criminal people. If that's the case, we'll go back to the man as the wolf of the man.

And whoever is stronger wins and that's it.

And we're talking about Congress, right? Now Congress is moving. The President of the House of Representatives said that there are many proposals to be discussed. They could have advanced. They have all been presented to the House of Representatives. The right-wing groups are using the following discourse

in relation to the documentary. Well, this is the defense of the moral and the fight against child sexualization that we always defend. And then Felca is also justifying himself to regulate and censor social media. The left says that we will continue to fight for the protection of rights,

but we will regulate, we will make digital regulation and we will influence, we will make digital regulation. And we will influence, we will make the infractors responsible. So the political groups end up, each one in their own way, shaping their understanding of everything that was said in the video, the heavy reports, each one shapes their speech

to make the defense that is in their interest.

Yes, what is democracy, it's good that it is like that, it's good that there is this dispute. But there is no draw. There is no draw. Because there are those who tried to control the networks, in the sense that I'm talking about, to impose limits, and the limits were very clear. Orlando Silva's proposal was never a censorship proposal.

Tabata's proposal was never a censorship proposal. That's a lie. It was never a censorship proposal. That's a lie. It was never a censorship process. It happens that they depend on the multiplication and expansion of the hate policy. As they know that the hate policy, if there is any regulation of the networks, will be contained, so they come up with this conversation, we can't use this to censor. Nobody wants to use it to censor. It happens that when you set limits, of course the limit can't be only in relation to pedophilia. Because now we have what they defend, what the vote of André Mendonça,

Minister, I invited him today, I will invite him again here at Flow, this power that Flow has. Focus on me. I invited her today to say, I gave a bad vote. My vote is crap. I ignored what was being voted

just to do Bolsonaro's will. And I'm not preaching your impeachment for that. Not even if it's justified. We even met, you were very kind too. But your vote is crap. Because your vote prevents anything from being done. Your vote would hunt pedophiles. Pedophiles. We would have to create a judiciary and a specialized court just to hunt down pedophiles.

I challenge you to say that's not the case. You know that's the case. I read your vote in full. One of the worst votes ever passed by the Supreme Court. Because you gave an ideological speech. You ignored, by the way,

the two extraordinary resources that were being voted. That's why there's no tie. You, Bolsonarists, are being conniving with what's there. Although Damares keeps inventing things about the Banguela child

that does whatever, we saw that horrible speech she made once in the church. But even so, what you're saying is that, even though everyone is against it, because it's obvious, everyone is against this kind of thing, it's not for the same reasons. Because you say that the Bolsonarists are like,

ok, this is happening, we have to punish, but we can't change how social networks work.

That is, you punish the surface, you don't find a structural solution. You punish the surface, I'm going to punish this pedophile, Italo, and more, I don't know who. Another agent appears, we punish. That's what I'm saying, we're going to keep chasing pedophiles. What we need is the network to know that it has the duty to take care of this issue and other issues as well. Not only this one. So, if the right tries to take this as an isolated fact, so there is no regulation,

ok, it's their game. If the left tries to see this as a symptom, I'm not exactly left-wing, but of course I see it as a symptom, then you have to have a structural answer. Let's see what comes out of this. One thing is certain, if there is no structural response, it happens again.

If I keep the causes... It's like drug trafficking, right?

That's it. If I keep the causes, I keep the consequences, right? The old joke, right? You always repeat the same experience, hoping to get the opposite result, the different one,

it won't happen. If you keep the causes, the consequences repeat themselves. So it has to be the cause.

And how do you see... Let's go. We have a girl, I think her name is Camilinha.

Yes.

She starts, if I'm not mistaken, to participate in this content at 12 years old. She's 17 today.

Yes.

She made a video talking about what Felca said. content foreign I I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get it. I She's young, she's experiencing financial success, and now she doesn't want to leave that.

It's that she doesn't want to, or that she doesn't want to. The problem is not her, it's the problem of society. Look, it's impossible at this point to convince this creature that bad things happened to her. She has no idea. She has no idea. None.

She formed herself, she had her process, I'm not a psychoanalyst or a psychologist, but she had her process of stamping, which is an important concept, she had a phase in which she learned that life is like that. She's thinking, well, that's how I make money, she shows herself to be successful, and if their business is to speak ill of me, then I'll do my business, it's okay. They gain followers by talking bad about me,

and I'm going to gain followers by saying that everything is fine. Soon she will be 18 years old, she is already free from the protection of the adolescent child statute at 17, she does her business, my problem is not her. The problem of Brazilian society is not her. The problem of Brazilian society is not her. The problem of Brazilian society is the criminals who mobilize children.

These have to be punished. There is a criminal code for this. There is a statute for the child and adolescent for this. There is a public ministry for this. This in the sphere of crime itself. In what disrespects the political sphere, in public policy, it is with social media. What infrastructure is being used for this to happen?

And what is being used to mobilize children, we know where it is. And what the Supreme Court voted is already, if not effective, but has the power to prohibit it. Let's see what the Congress can produce. And certainly this debate will be very interesting, because many hypocrisies multiply in this business. There is no doubt about it. And pedophilia is a crime, right?

Period. Period. Period. The end of this whole story is pedophilia, a gigantic network that uses, that consumes, and that has a series of things that only... much later, when the person is an adult, will have all the problems that happened over time. This debate is very interesting because pedophilia is also a psychic problem, a psychic mark, a psychic fracture.

It is, it is proven. The pedophile who goes to the psychoanalyst, you have've interviewed psychoanalysts here, psychiatrists, the pedophile that goes there, he has a fracture at some point. Many times he himself was harassed, and therefore carries this and will reproduce this behavior. Anyway, I'm not an expert on this, I'm not going to digress about it. I just say that there is certainly a dimension of suffering, of suffering for those who have this problem.

And this in the space of the psychoanalyst, in the space of the doctor, that it is treated and that the person is treated. Now, as a political problem, as a problem of public policy, it is very important that pedophilia is seen as a crime. Because if it is not seen as a crime, even when pedophilia is not a psychic mark, it is established in certain places in Brazil where elderly people

decide that the unprotected girl, because then comes the class trait, poverty, these girls are practically kidnapped by rich people who still buy. This is still true today in certain places in the country. Rich people still buy virginity from girls it's because the pedophile guy it may not be pedophilia in this sense as a mark, a psychic disease

but it's a cultural disease what do girls exist for? they exist for this which ones? the poor ones no, the ones in my family obviously. So everything starts to mix.

So it is very important that pedophilia is a crime, and therefore, as such, it has to be severely punished.

Treated as a crime.

Treated as a crime. And the pedophile, if he is treated as his psychic suffering in a medical environment, in a psychiatric environment, in the psychoanalytic environment then it's another dimension that at no time relates to the fact that it's a crime and that we have a teenager's crisis statute that needs to be fulfilled

Good. Let's change the subject a little bit here and talk a little bit about the United States, Trump and international relations. One thing that happened was that Trump offered a reward of 50 million dollars

for information about the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Where is he?

He replied with a video saying, come pick me up, I'm here in Miraflores. I would do that too. How is it? 50 million dollars for those who find... I think it's information that has something to do with... That leads to Nicolas Maduro's prison. If anyone knows anything about Nicolas Maduro Maduro is involved with, like drug trafficking, help me out, I'll give you 50 million so we can find a way to arrest him. This is another one, Trump has shown, I don't know,

it seems like his negotiation technique always starts from the absurd to then get to a certain point. I don't know if it's the case, in this one of the 50 million, for information about Nicolás Maduro, but it's something he has done. In the case of Brazil, with Tarifás,

it ended up being realized to a good extent. A lot of things came out of this package, but to a good extent it will still get in the way of some people.

It gets in the way.

It's been like that when he negotiates with the world.

By the way, today he postponed the China tariffs by 90 days.

Once again.

Once again. Yes. He almost always postpones. There's even the chicken thing.

Yes, the taco.

Trump always chickens out. Yes, exactly. The chicken's leg. Trump always chickens out. Exactly. But in Brazil's case, he got into it. Well, talking about this 50 million reward, so we can talk about easy rates in relation to Brazil, the Adad trip, I mean, the Adad meeting that ended up not happening,

It would be the distance, with Scott Bessett, but there's no... but it would be a conversation. Do you think this is just another one of Trump's peripécias to offer 50 million? What will be the final goal of offering this mess for those who have some information about Nicolás Maduro. Everyone knows that he has, to say the least, issues with Venezuela and how it works. I personally also think that some things there are not exactly democratic in Venezuela. Venezuela is a dictatorship. Exactly. Disgusting. There are few people, I think, as disgusting in the world as this man.

I talked about this in the show, some people on the left are seeing how Reinaldo has not yet converted to the left. First, he never said he had converted. And second, he is a disgusting dictator, a detestable person. He did not win the election. In fact, the Brazilian government did not recognize his victory. PT recognized the Brazilian government, no. What Lula did very well.

He didn't win the election. I think he lost. Anyway, it's nothing. The problem is when you have... If you have Trump doing something, when another person is detestable, you have to say that it's absurd what Trump is doing.

And the other one is also detestable. And all of this is true. I mean, it's not possible that you say, 50 million dollars for those who give me information about Nicolás Maduro. But originally it was like this, where is he? Where is he? He's at the Miraflores Palace.

Is anyone going to go in there to get him? I hope Trump doesn't do that. Yeah. Because his team that won the election, the isolationists, was not intervention in other countries. I hope he doesn't do that. Is there anything good...

Do I have anything positive to say here about Maduro? Nothing. Zero. Zero. Of being a crazy psychopath who said he talked to a little bird and the bird reproduced Chaves' voice. Remember? He said he was a little bird and said, this is Chaves. From that business to stealing the election.

Nothing in favor. Now, the United States didn't stop taking Venezuelan oil. I mean, you talk about Maduro, but you don't stop buying Venezuelan oil. I mean, you say that about Maduro, but you don't stop buying Venezuelan oil. Because Venezuelan oil is important, even because it's very high quality oil,

it's important for the United States. You set up a hunt for the president of another country, and, man, that doesn't fit, it shouldn't fit in the contemporary world. No matter how detestable he is. He's going to hunt down Bin Salman, the dictator of Saudi Arabia,

the prince who melts people. Remember the journalist Khashoggi? He was a guy from the Saudi regime. He fights with the Saudi regime. He goes to Turkey. He's going to solve his problem in the Saudi regime. He goes to Turkey. He solves his problem in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey.

He entered and didn't leave. There are videos of him being tortured and the guys laughing. And the most suave hypothesis is that he was was chopped and melted in acid. Trump won't hunt Bin Salman, the one who gave... Who is this? The one who gave the watch of Bolsonaro's diamond necklace to Michelle. He won't hunt him.

He has no problem with dictators anywhere in the world. He has a problem with dictators when dictators are not to his liking. This makes Nicolás Maduro to be to my liking, but not really. If the thing I don't follow is this, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's not. I can be an enemy of both, with tranquility, with a pure soul.

Now, this decision, let's call it the decision of the American president, was communicated on social media. It's all through social media. Because it's part of a way, let's call it that, of administering. I mean, it's not administering, but it's using communication in your favor in a very efficient way.

Yes, and to make waves with the far right, from Miami, who are with the cubans, with the venezuelans. You create this wave, Marco Rubio, secretary of state, has a... Look, what is... Although they are very different situations,

what needs to be seen structurally is the following, what Trump is saying, all the time, and Brazil is the main example of this, is that the Americas are his backyard. Yeah, that's become clear. Even Brazil, that nine-fingered Pernambucano who thinks he can, I don't know, challenge, get into the bricks, I don't know.

The article that the New York Times did, the wonderful interview with the introduction, saying that Lula is the only guy who somehow has legitimacy to breastfeed Trump. So, Latin America is my backyard. He breastfed Colombia, he went after Colombia, he is now going after Venezuela, he has a clown, a clown that he serves here,

who is Javier Milley, and he decided to break the legs of Brazil. Using for this, which is my thesis since the first day, since the day of the letter, July 9th, the thing with Bolsonaro... Do you really think, Igor?

Tramontino. Do you think that Bolsonaro... Trump looked at Bolsonaro and said, what an interesting man, what an intelligent person, what a thinker. Even because the other one flirts with him. Nobody respects people who do that, not in the sense I'm talking about.

Oh, submission.

No.

It's just that Trump found here a right that he didn't find anywhere else in the world. That's my thesis since the first day. I even saw a text on Folha about it being correct. Now, where is there a right that supported Trump? In Tarifasso. France supported him? No. Marine Le Pen? It was a blow. In the tariff. France supported? No. Marine Le Pen? She was beaten.

Neither the Alternative to Germany, that psychopathic gang, supported. Nor Victor Orban, who is from his gang, he speaks badly about Trump, but the tariff is bad. Nobody supported. Spain supported, Portugal didn't support. No right in the world. Where is there a right that is supporting?

Here. Here. Because there is supporting? Here. Here. Because there is the Bolsonaro case. With which, without a doubt, he identifies himself. And I'm not diminishing the influence of Eduardo, of the nephew of the dictatorship, Paulo Figueiredo. Old nephew, but anyway, the nephew of the dictatorship.

Grandfather, dictator, anyway. It is clear that they interfere. It's clear that they... You see things there that the State Department, Christopher Landau, who is Marco Rubio's second, wrote something on this weekend,

and you see that he doesn't even know what he's talking about. It was Eduardo and the other one who wrote for him. But, in fact, the issue with Brazil is economic, essentially.

This PIX story is not a conspiracy. It's a fact. The PIX of its creation until February of this year raised 63 trillion reais.

If you want to divide by today's dollar, you see how much it gives.

If you create a 0.1 rate for 65 trillion, from 0.1 you have 65 billion. There's a good thing Bolsonaro did, look at Piques.

It wasn't him, it was before. He takes... I didn't even know what Piques was, there's a video about it. I would ask Piques, he'd say, will you continue? He'd say, I have to see this aviation thing. He didn't know what it was. So, PIX is the issue of rare lands.

We have 22% of rare lands. China has 40%. And China dominates all the rare lands in Africa. The United States of the rare earths. China has 40%. And China dominates all the rare earths in Africa. The United States wants the Brazilian rare earths. It's the agro issue. In the investigation they opened in the commercial representation office,

all of this is included. Now, he has Bolsonaro, who serves as a justification for him. And nothing better for you to create an economic pressure than to make a demand, and it's Trump negotiating, you make a demand that you know is impossible. Or do you think it's possible for the Brazilian Supreme Court to say, with Magnitsky's law, I said, ok, so... No, this would be... It seems to me that in the end it creates martyrdom.

Because I think that no one in Brazil would like any of our powers to bend to an external force. It doesn't make any sense to defend that. Therefore, it will not happen. I make a requirement that I know will not happen. With that, I'm stretching the rope, I'm stretching the rope, betting that Brazil will reach a situation such that I will not withdraw the Supreme's concession, I will withdraw the concession that is not Pablo, but behaves like... Tom Scobar, who is the representative... He won't cut my vista now because of this...

of the American Embassy in Brazil. He already put the rare earths... on the table. He said like this, let's do the following, let's leave this debate there. And he did this with...

an association of miners, that I know well because it is presided by my dear friend Raul Jungmann, who sends a kiss. He said, well, let's start talking about the rare earths. And Jungmann said, you can't do that, right, sir? You do all this, lose the Supreme's head, set a 50% rate, and I'm going to open a negotiation with you, me, here in the Miners' Association.

So, of course he wants... He knows that the concession won't happen. He knows it won't happen. Eduardo also knows, but while Eduardo knows, he promotes his internal war here on the Brazilian right. That he wants to make inviolable the candidacy of Tarcísio.

Eduardo?

Eduardo, of course. Because he doesn't want Tarcísio. Eduardo. Eduardo? Yes. Because he doesn't want Tarcísio.

The feeling is that they don't want the power or this mass of voters out of the family.

Of course not, but this is it. I wrote a text about it. This is the discussion within the right. This is the discussion of... Look, there is in this game of Eduardo game what would be winning by winning. What is winning by winning? Break the Supreme's legs, free my father's face, my father relays himself in his head. He knows it won't happen.

But there is a winning by losing. Even if we lose to Lula, and they are afraid that Tarcísio may win, because he has all the support of the Brazilian and the press' economic elite, he says, but then, who will have control of the right? It won't be us. It will be Tarcísio. He changes hands.

That's why Tarcísio does everything to appear faithful, to show himself faithful, even going against the Supreme Court. But going back to our axis, Trump is making a demand that he knows is impossible, that will not happen, at any given moment. He says, let's see what I can get out of the economic concession. But there is a lot of misinformation, oddly enough, in the United States about the Brazilian economy. The Brazilian economy, in many respects, is more diversified than the European economy.

The Brazilian economy is diversified. First, we have a great partner, which is China. We have almost 40% of our commercial balance, which comes from there. Brazil has a diversified export agenda. kept other important ones in the agro. When you look at this negotiation in detail, in the agro it was what? Meat, coffee and fruits.

Fish.

Fish. Now when you get meat, our meat is important to them. When you get coffee, they don't compete with us in coffee production. But for us it's important. Fruits are important.

And they won't even be able to buy from Colombia. Colombia won't be able to meet American needs.

So what they want is this. Agro, in fact, is not agro, it's ethanol. They want ethanol. They want ethanol. They want their ethanol to come in here. What, Agro's gentlemen? Focus on me. I would break some of your plants that love Bolsonaro. I don't know why you live on Bolsonaro's knees.

Live on the knees of those who screw you. I'll be back. They screw agro precisely because they want to negotiate ethanol. Did you see that Embraer, which I thought they could create difficulties, took the planes? Because it's important, because the lobbyist sector is important. So, look, the lobby in the aviation area, commercial aviation,

aviation of these medium planes of Embraer, it's a powerful lobby there. And they managed to get Ebraer out. The businessmen did. But the agro lobby, that's very powerful. That's very powerful. And then, in agro, it continued.

Because he wants to negotiate ethanol. So, the real negotiation is not this one of Bolsonaro and I don't know what. It's to stretch the rope as long as you can. And then Eduardo started making threats. Now comes Gilmar in Magnitsky.

Now comes Columbre in Magnitsky. Now comes everyone. Your mother in Magnitsky. Everyone in Magnitsky. And he's punishing everyone, which is insane. Hugo Mota said, well, this is not good,

Kassab is saying, this is not good. He created a disorder in the right. Renaldo, going back a little bit in relation to PIX. PIX is used today by 46% of the population. The debit card is used today by 46% of the population. Debit card is used by 17% and credit card by 11%. Now that PIX is being used, the tendency is to swallow more credit cards.

This is something that bothers me. This is something that bothers me a lot. And in the letter he sent on the 9th, he already said, that he was going to ask the US Commercial Representation Office, I'm going to ask to open an investigation against Brazil for commercial disloyalty. That was on the 9th.

On the 16th, a week later, his investigation was opened. Right? Jameson Greer, the guy who opened it. Your investigation was opened. And in this investigation, the language is all encrypted, but it's like this.

Jameson what? Greer. G-R-E-E-R. Greer. Ok. Sorry, professor, but I think it's for the princess. No, it's correct. We are. We drink, I don't know, other things, but we already ordered wine. Ok, so stay calm. When he opens the investigation,

the language is all encrypted, but item number 1, problem with payment methods. Fixed. Problems with, how is it, rates, the rates, the unequal tariffs, that is.

Every country... Of course Brazil doesn't charge for some products. The same tariff that the United States, the European Union, Mexico charge. But every country does that. You create a balance in the balance sheet with the countries. The fact is, our balance sheet with the United States is deficitary, man.

It doesn't make any sense, the rate. It doesn't make any sense at all, because the rate, as he applied it, is like this. In the quintuple, you pay the quintuple, he doesn't pay you anything, but he gives you the fruit, right? Isn't that it? But you say, oh no, he's charging a rate because I have a deficit with him. But if you have a deficit because you buy. Otherwise, you don't.

Now I'm going to tell my cashier, let's split? I'll only pay you half. Or you pay me... Now, with a deficit country, that's absurd. From 2009 until now,

it's 415 billion dollars between product balance and service balance. Only products are 80 billion dollars. Why do we have a tariff? So it's absolutely insane that this choice is made. So, let's say, unequal tariffs, intellectual property.

The guy had the courage to quote March 25th. March 25th. I have a Rolex that I bought in New York in one of those cloths that have on the floor of the Nigerians. By the way, when I play with my wife,

it's the only one that never stopped until today.

That cost a lot. It cost a lot.

It cost 3 dollars.

10 dollars.

10 dollars, 5 dollars. There's no such thing there, right? Only here. Then, this, then they say deforestation. Trump is talking about deforestation. But deforestation is the name of the meat. Because they are accusing the Brazilian meat of being meat produced in deforestation is the name of the meat. They are accusing the Brazilian meat of being meat produced in deforestation.

And attention, here I have some agro-reactionary epinema, but attention. Our meat, almost all of it, is certified meat of legal areas. It's a lie. Brazil has one of the most rigorous meat control mechanisms. Especially because of JBS, Marfriga, these big ones. They are international companies. We have Jewish slaughter, we have Islamic slaughter, we have slaughter with priests inside the refrigerators. There's no such thing. But he wants to get our meat. And finally, he talks about ethanol.

Which is... Pay attention, a week after the letter, badly created, talking about Bolsonaro. And of course, in this letter from the commercial representative, in this letter, this document, there's no mention, obviously, about Bolsonaro.

Because that's not it. Now, he has his book about negotiation, right? What does he teach about negotiating? Negotiating is the following, you strangle the other, and from time to time you give him a breath, which is the torturer's technique.

What does the torturer do? He has a head, he's the torturer's technique. What does the torturer do? He has a torturer's head. The torturer goes, hits, hits, hits, hits, hits, gives a relief and says, are you going to say what I want? Are you going to do what I want? And then the guy confesses what he knows and what he doesn't know, to be tortured again later.

That's why when this idiotic conversation starts, doesn't Lula have to call Trump? It depends. What does he have to call for? What does he have to say?

Minister Fernando Haddad announced today that the online meeting he would have with the Secretary of State of the United States on Wednesday was cancelled. Yes. The meeting was cancelled, according to him, because there was the action of the diplomatic militancy of the forces of the far right that acted with Casablanca, and he remembered that after he announced that he would hold this meeting,

Eduardo Bolsonaro said that he would do his best to inhibit any contact between the governments of Brazil and the United States. Do you think that Eduardo Bolsonaro had a weight in this decision to cancel or is it part of a much bigger game that the American government is...

I think it had and it didn't. The more the United States tensions... Reinaldo, it's unidirectional, speak up. The more they tension the internal situation, within this perspective I'm talking about, the more you stretch and suffocate, the better.

And, therefore, Eduardo plays an important role in this. The dictatorship's baby plays an important role in this. Others, like Samphoneiro, play an important role in this, is These people play an important role. So the more they stick, the better. Adad also gets a lesson. Don't announce meetings. Today it's not to announce meetings, it's to have meetings.

Have a meeting. Talk. Only talk about meetings that have already happened. Don't talk about meetings for having. Because of course they will try to prevent. Of course they will create. So it. Of course they will create...

So much so that later they both came out and sent a message, after Haddad said that, and they both said, affecting modesty, no, we weren't us, we want to say that we are here, but we weren't us, it's just that Brazil doesn't have diplomacy, Brazil doesn't talk, Brazil doesn't know what...

It's not true, The talks were happening. They've always been happening. It's curious, I did two or three talks about it. I said, listen, Trump doesn't care about Brazil. Trump assumed, if you think about it, Brazil was kind of like this. Then I said, no, Brazil is so irrelevant that he doesn't even want to know about Brazil.

It wasn't, right?

It wasn't.

It wasn't. It wasn't because, in fact, there is this thing today... If you think about it, what does Trump... Look at the vision he has of the world, right? Russia, he threatens Russia, sends a nuclear ship, knows it won't use it,

and then he marks a deal with Putin. And he did what he did with the Russians, which on February 28th, which is sad to remember. That horrible, horrible day. Unbelievable, right? Because Trump, deep down, he says,

you know, Russia's Ukraine, I don't want it. He doesn't like NATO. He doesn't care about that. He's worried about China. He wouldn't like an alliance between China and Russia. If it's possible to break this alliance, OK.

And he sees Latin America as ours. Ukraine is yours, Latin America is ours. Your skull. Latin America is ours and everything is fine. And destroying what is remarkable, destroying the international system of production chains. My joke today, the petitions get angry when I talk, but I'll talk about it with Lula tomorrow,

making a joke, just to say that it's not true. I'll say, Lula today is one of the greatest leaders of world capitalism. Because what is Lula defending? The commercial relations between the countries? The trade regulations according to the integration of the production chains?

What integrates with what and I don't know what? That the countries negotiate with others, pay the fair price? Is this capitalism today? It's global capitalism, that's it. But Trump doesn't. What does he want? No, it has to produce in the United States.

This is not capitalism, man.

Not to mention that this is against everything the United States preached to him.

They created globalization. Globalization is not an invention of Latin America, because we didn't have... We didn't have the money for it. They created it. The products were cheapened, and here is where my thing with leftists, I'm not an adversary of globalization.

Many times the price fell precisely because you created these integrated chains. China, in this process... But there's another thing about them that's spectacular. Who took the most people out of poverty with globalization?

China.

Exactly. 600 million people. Basically because the United States... The United States sent all of its... All of its factory production... sent all of his production to China

and it happens in China, so the jobs are there

and not to mention that because of the technology, the chips, etc. but, look, Elon Musk, this great genius of humanity, no doubt, he has a little money But he went to teach the Chinese how to make electric cars And the Chinese learned And flooded the world with electric cars China, in the middle of all this mess

China grew 5.2%, it was predicted to grow 4% When you talk about 1.2% of China's growth, you're not talking about 1.2% of Uruguay's growth. With due respect, I'm talking about Uruguay. I'm just saying that it's a small country. China is who it is.

So, in fact, in many aspects, I'm not talking about the decline of the American empire. The Roman Empire started to die 400 years before. It may take a while to end. But the truth is that China won this war. It already won.

And this is a danger, no doubt, because we are talking about a crazy, cyclotomic guy who thinks he never loses. And with Xi, he's breaking his face, because he also shows resilience. I always make fun of him, he always shouts like this.

And it's very clear that the trade organizations, the geopolitical organizations, at this time of negotiating with Trump, ended up showing an absolute fragility.

A gigantic one.

Because in Europe, each country went to negotiate for itself. The Meco-Sul group, each one went out shooting to one side. The BRICs, India, was negotiated the way it was, it took a hit and so on.

The BRICs are not exactly an economic bloc, but a commercial bloc that tries to... You quoted it well. Take the case of India. Narendra Modi, who is a very... At this point, I can't... A very scruffy guy. He's a right-wing guy, a trickster, even.

But he's in a very vigorous government, he's almost lost his last one, but he won it. He was one of the first guys Trump welcomed into the Oval Office. And China is now at a 50% rate. It was already at 25%, which was already very high. And then he said, we have to stop buying oil from Russia. But China still can't stop buying oil from Russia.

Where is it going to buy oil from? Because it buys cheap oil from Russia. If it goes to buy oil at market price, it breaks. It will have huge difficulties. So it takes a 50% tariff. The European Union...

Look, the European Union talked, talked, talked, talked, talked, talked... and ended up getting a 15% linear rate, which is a lot for the EU, but it wasn't just that. The EU committed to invest 900 billion dollars in the American industry. This is a commitment. Who went out shooting against Ursula von der Leyen? European leaders, including those on the right.

No, no, this agreement is shit for us. And you remember, this meeting was held in Scotland. It was a humiliating thing. Ursula von der Leyen, who is tiny, she was sitting on the chair like this, with her little foot like this. tiny, was sitting on a chair, with her feet like this.

And Trump, there, in a chair, with his legs crouched, with his eggs in his hands, like this. It was an absurd, grotesque, rude thing. And he did that to everyone. Did you see his meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister? I didn't see it. Didn't you see he forgot his name and started calling him Mr. Japoman?

Oh my God, man. I didn't see it. He forgot his name and started calling him Japanese. The Japanese guy who is here. And the guy... And the president of Liberia went there.

But that's disrespectful, abysmal.

But it's unbelievable. It was the president of Liberia. Liberia is a country that was created by an American scum to take born slaves in the United States, speaking English, because they didn't speak any other language. And say, you're going to leave here in the 19th century.

We've arranged a place in Africa for you." And they left. And they created Liberia, which is not a very good place. And others who fled. He received, I won't remember the name of the president of Liberia, he received the president of Liberia,

pay attention, your English is very good. I didn't know you I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Do you understand? So, it's with Zelensky, what we saw, it's with the first Canadian minister,

and on purpose, Lula, call Trump, call Trump, some little shit with this thing, he gets the first Canadian minister, there's a map there, look at this map, this straight line, that straight line, you say two, two and only there in the east, you have to cut that. This artificial line, why don't we join together? You know I'm a man of the real estate market. And I see this as a man of the real estate market?

I don't conform. The Prime Minister of Canada, who by the way won the election because he supported the other, said, look, there are things that can't be sold. No one wants to buy Buckingham Palace, it can't be sold. And neither is Canada for sale. Sometimes it's a shame, but you're going to change your mind.

Do you want me to go there now? Why? So he can bully me? No, I have to talk. Meeting, man, first... Tancredo has a great sentence, you remember? Meeting is not to decide, it's just to celebrate the already decided.

But if you're going to have a meeting, Oh, I'm going to have a meeting here, open.

It's all wrong.

If you do that in the flowerbed, you'll break your face, for sure.

The governor, Tarsísio de Freitas, said today, said that, in fact, it's been 30 days since he's talked to the press. Since the political scenario has become, let's call it tense, turbulent, agitated, and complicated. He, on all occasions, whether it was a public event or a closing event, he leaves.

He doesn't talk to journalists. In fact, recently we've seen a plague that has settled in the relationship between the authorities and the press. No one likes him giving interviews anymore, because he doesn't want to be in front of the reporter, because the reporter charges him. So he sends a note, or even a recording of himself. I think this, this, and this, and that. Anyway, going back to the government.

He makes statements at events and then sends the videos, look at what he thinks about such a thing. And the press, by the way, has been saying for 30 days that the governor is not giving an interview.

That's what you said at the beginning. It's Tarsízio, right?

But going back, the governor said that Lula should call Trump, and then Fernando Haddad, who also gave an interview today, said that that was at least a naive affirmation, because a person who didn't have any tricks with international relations,

because that's exactly what you said now, two heads of state only talk when everything is already in place, and will, in a way, take the picture. Which will represent the outcome of an agreement, a business, a contract, things like that. Everyone who went there without knowing what Trump wanted, what did he do to the president of South Africa? You are massacring white farmers.

Look here, and show the video, it was from Congo.

Wrong.

It wasn't from South Africa. Now, when Tarsise, Tarsise is a statement, he gathered the right-wing and far-right governors, I think it's funny that they want to be called right-wing, but if they defend Bolsonaro, who is a coupist, then they are far-right. I'm sorry, you have to know what is democratic right. You don't know, then the problem is not mine.

Let's study. They don't know, so it's not my problem. I'll study it. I gathered the far-right governors to see what we're going to do with Tarifás. What are you going to do with Tarifás? Then there was a moment of Rolando Lero, the character of Chico Anísio, as I joked. Because we need to negotiate, We need to talk. Really, don't tell me. That's a good proposal. Let's talk. About what?

Then Tarsis says, because we attacked, we as Brazil, we attacked our main investor. We attacked? Brazil attacked? The United States? Was it Brazil that attacked the United States? At what point is this palely true?

In what moment did Brazil attack the United States? What aggression? And also, another expression I love, it's necessary to un-scale the crisis. When you don't have any fucking thing to say, with the proper vein,

you won't demonetize, right?

No, I'll do it.

If you don't have any...

I don't know, right?

Is it this or that?

How is it?

You want to control the networks?

You want to control the networks?

When you don't have any crap to say, you say, you need to downscale the crisis. Because downscaling the crisis means... He got mad at me, and I'm not paying attention. But, like, sometimes you get to... I keep imagining these temperaments that want to de-escalate the crisis. Rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Just to get an extreme situation. An extreme situation serves to illustrate what is at stake. Of course they are different contents. Rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto. Those violent Jews, look at you. In the Warsaw Ghetto, those violent Jews, look at you, in the Warsaw Ghetto against the Nazis. Would anyone come and say, let's unravel the crisis? The Jews are more moderate, and the Nazis too.

And we find the middle class. Armenian massacre, the Armenian Holocaust promoted by Turkey. Let's decouple the crisis. The Armenians stop fighting, the Turks kill only half of the expected, and we decouple the crisis. The time when you have to know...

Palestinian massacre in Gaza now. Let's decouple the crisis. Netanyahu kills only half of the Palestinians and the Palestinians stop claiming a territory. How about that? And decouple the crisis. The moment you need to know what is being talked about.

When Tarsísio comes to escalate the crisis, what does he mean? That Alexandre de Moraes should get rid of Bolsonaro? I suppose so. But that doesn't mean, however, that there is no, at least from my point of view, excess of the Supreme Court, does it? You know that I don't agree with that, because there isn't any.

What is the right thing to do? Ok. I would have to say... I'm saying this because I'm in this debate today.

I know.

Today...

How come I didn't call you for nothing, right, animal? I called you because I know. Even because I have the privilege of having Igor reading me from time to time. Yes, I listen to you almost every day. Because there are some arguments about... If we think about the fake news inquiry and how it happens,

I think the amount of monocratic decisions of Alessandro de Moraes is also a certain indication. There are arguments like, for example, Bolsonaro's own judgment is that I'm not getting into the merits of whether he should be arrested or not. The idea is this, it should be, maybe not for a group, but for all the ministers. That is, there are some things there, the way I see it, maybe I'm reading the wrong place, there are things there that give room, give room for this kind of argument,

excess of the Supreme Court and everything else.

When you go to the decision about... The decisions... The votes in the criminal sphere of the Supreme Court were from the 11 ministers. From the 10, right? With the president. Who only votes in the last case. FUX created the groups.

No, sorry, it was by group, then FUX put together. And you know why he came back to the group? Before Bolsonaro. It had nothing to do with Bolsonaro. It was before Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro wasn't even a real person. He came back to the group because it was taking too long. Dear, it takes too long.

You simply... If you were to make a simple arithmetic calculation, you double the time of the decisions. Because if one group goes, another group goes, the criminal processes advance. That's how it was. Then Fux said, put it all together. Put it all together, the decisions didn't come out.

Then the Supreme Court itself, I think it was 10 to 1, the opposite vote of Fuchs, I'm not sure about this score, but for a large majority, I'm absolutely sure, I think it was 10 to 1, said, no, we go back to the class. Before Bolsonaro. Before Bolsonaro. And the case of Bolsonaro was in the first class. Then it was Alexandre. Bolsonaro wasn't even a re-election yet.

And even if he went to the plenary, he would have what, today, three votes, he would lose by 8 to 3. I don't even think that's the idea. How can we... If we take into consideration what happened with Angula... And about the monocratic decisions, you touched on it briefly.

There is no merit monocratic decision by Alexandre de Moraes. All merit decisions are by the class. You have monocratic decisions of the process. For example, the cautelary measure, which will now be examined by the class again. Bolsonaro's domiciliary prison will be analyzed by the group. There was a defense resource.

And the group will analyze it. Alexandre can lose. Isn't it confusing, for example, this decision he makes about whether Bolsonaro can speak or not on social media, for example? We're back to the ball, Juquinha. We're back to the ball, Juquinha, in fact. Why are we back to the ball, Juquinha. We're back to the ball, Juquinha, in fact. Why are we back to the ball, Juquinha?

Because it's obvious that it's not about talking or not talking. Let's go.

The question is... The question is about the dissemination by third parties.

By third parties and using the network for... the coercion in the course of the process. Defense lawyers who listen to me, you know very well that you told a little lie to the press, and the press bought it, saying that when Alexander decided the cautious measures against Bolsonaro, on July 18, he did it took the risk of escaping. And a lot of people bought this nonsense you said, right? Right.

Do you know why it's written that... the cautious measures against Bolsonaro were decided... why? Eduardo is not in the United States and he confesses digging for punishment for ministers here? He is not happy with this? He did not do it today, he did not do it yesterday, he did not threaten Jumar now?

And the Supreme Ministers? Article 344 of the Criminal Code, coercion in the course of the process. I do the most serious thing I can do in a criminal process. I threaten a judge so that he decides in my favor. That's what Eduardo is doing. He's threatening judges, digging for punishment for judges.

So you have this, Article 344, Law 12.850, prohibiting the investigation of a criminal organization, because the whole process is based on Law 12.850, after all, there is a criminal organization, and he is trying to prohibit the investigation of a criminal organization. And finally, he associates himself with the crimes for which Bolsonaro is accused. Attempted coup attempt, etc.

Alexandre has decreed the precautionary measures because Bolsonaro gives an interview to José Isidoro Sousza and Carla Araújo on UOL, and certainly Villard must have jumped in the chair, who is Bolsonaro's lawyer, and said, I sent him two million. I finance the guy who practices coercion in the course of the process. Therefore, I am doing coercion in the course of the process. Therefore, I am doing coercion in the course of the trial.

Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I say this, I keep quoting, it's not just to show that I'm a little smart. It's because it seems like it's all arbitrary. If the subject is being investigated for a certain crime, he commits a new crime, contemporary to the judge's decision, associated with the crime

for which he is investigated or reason why he is a prisoner, he can go to preventive prison. I swear to God, for my daughters, on July 18, before, on the day that Alexandre decreed the cautious measures, I had written a text saying, Jair Bolsonaro has to have preventive prison. Alexandre didn't decree the preventive prison, based on the article 312. He decreed the precautionary measures. Between the precautionary measures, and now I'm getting to your point,

he talked about the restriction of the use of the network, because the network is used as a tool for coercion. This doesn't exist in the article19 of the Penal Code. You can't use the network. Article 319 is prior to that. The network is the instrument by which he practices that.

If it was a bullet, it would be, don't suck it, but it's a bullet. He's sucking a bullet. Let's say that sucking a bullet... It was a ballad, it would be, don't suck it, but it's a ballad. You're sucking a ballad. Let's say you suck a ballad. It would be a dog's whistle. Yes, look how you... I like to talk in a smart way, because it's like...

Guess... That's it. I thought I should explain, not because I underestimate your intelligence, but because lately I've been underestimating everyone.

Okay.

It's... I'm not here to talk about your personal life, but about the situation in Brazil. If the ball is a dog's dick, what is a dog's dick? It's something I do, and only those who are ready for illegal action can understand. If I come to the conclusion that sucking a ball in public is a dog's dick, I will say, don't suck any more juquin bullets in public. And then one of those articulists who are being engraved in the ear by the defense will say,

there is no prohibition of juquin bullets in Article 319. Of course there isn't. Alexandre's decision is... There's absolutely nothing wrong with admitting that the defense does its job. I'm not here... Most of my friends in law are criminalists and defend themselves, therefore. Now, I don't need to agree with their theses, right? Villardi, the guy, isn't my friend. I know him well, I've spoken to him well, but he's not my friend. I've spoken to him before, but he's not my friend.

So he did that, but...

But he can give interviews or not. Alexandre clarified it the next day, the 19th. He can, in fact, it's the 18th, he can give interviews, but he can't produce videos for social media to do the proselycalled proselytism that characterizes the action in the course of the process. That's what he can't do.

There are two lawyers. Nicholson is a lawyer, right? I don't know, he is a lawyer. He's a law graduate. Okay, he says he's a hairdresser, maybe he hasn't studied much, but... Okay.

Lawyer, law graduate, he is, by PUC. Lula also says a lot of wrong things. I say a lot of wrong things, my friend, but I don't say I'm a lawyer. And I don't say more than that, and I don't say more to do. I say everything right now. I think Lula makes mistakes on purpose.

But that's another matter.

Sergio Moro doesn speaks Conje? Oh, this one, my son, this one is from an exemplary illiteracy. Illustrated illiteracy. You know that the worst thing I've ever read in my life was Sérgio Moro's sentence about Lula. I'll get back to the point, but I don't want to miss this one. Sérgio Moro's sentence about Lula. Because first, there's no evidence there, right? he never says where he is, he only swears at me. In fact, he came to Flow, they told him where the proof was,

and he kept swearing at me and didn't say where it was. Because he didn't say it. There's no proof. And then, it's so poorly written that it even reminds me of Portuguese. It must be more or less the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Because they say it's very close, I don't know any of them, but he says he's very close to it. So, look, Alexandre de Moraes, the decisions he made are decisions within the law,

and Nicolas, the lawyer, knew that Bolsonaro couldn't participate in the live. He's a lawyer. Flávio Bolsonaro, although he's been selling chocolate, which is not easy, it's not easy. He had a franchise, an important brand,

the one that sold the most in real money in the world. Why is chocolate like this? When you have a compulsion, you buy everything you have and buy chocolate in real money. Look at see? And you don't leave a trace. You don't have to keep telling the co-op you're a chocolate dealer. I'll make it clear to the co-op that I'm a chocolate dealer.

You don't have to. And you have that wonderful mansion worth 8 million. Lawyers also put their fathers. I had a wonderful teacher, Alfredo Bose, who, when he started, asked, what was the intention, why did the person do this?

Bose said the following, wonderfully and magnificently, he said, and he was an exemplary Catholic, he said, the bottom of the conscience belongs to God. If I go to investigate this, I will never advance in anything. What do I know? I know the things that are objective.

And I need to get the objective things. Objectively, Flavio knew that his father could be arrested. Objectively, Nicolas knew that Bolsonaro could be arrested. Objectively, Nicolas knew that Bolsonaro could be arrested. And yet, they did it. Because it is clear to the right that Bolsonaro will not be a candidate. It precipitates and forces the definition of a name from the right.

Are you saying that Flávio put his father in jail, even though he's a homemaker, just to define the candidate on the right, because he's the Tarsízio? No, I don't know. This is the bottom of his conscience. What I know is that he's a lawyer. And that he doesn't ignore the law.

What I know is that the other Mineirinho is a lawyer, and doesn't ignore the law. A deputy, but voted by Brazil. He's not stupid, he's far from that. Far from that. He's very smart. So he knew. Whether to provoke or not,

but, does anyone deny that the home prison regrouped the class? They were a little bit confused.

Do you think the home prison can fall from the resources presented by the defense lawyers?

I doubt it, because there is no reason to close it. The domiciliary prison is in the Articles 617 and 618 of the Criminal Code. The domiciliary prison is valid for a kind of preventive in another modality, much lighter. So much so that he sees family, he sees everything there. I doubt it, unless today Alexander participated in an event in the State Court of Appeals.

Then he said, at a given moment, of course, justice can be wrong, it is human. Then some saw the manifestation of half-guilt. I think it is to know very little Alexander to think that he would use an event like this to of half-guilt. I think it's to know very little about Alexandre to think he would use an event like this to do half-guilt. It's just that he's a justice. He can make mistakes. If Alexandre withdraws from the home arrest, which I doubt, the others can follow him. If he doesn't, I don't think so.

Because the court is under attack. The court is under attack. There's no chance... I read a little note, as always, these things in off. The ministers are desperate with the Magnitsky Law and such. I don't know what's desperate.

Good is not. Tasty is not. It's not if there's still a clear extension of what will going to be. Dollar transactions can't, with American cards can't, but real transactions can. It's not clear, we'll see.

Nobody wants to get into this. Of course it's going to be good. There are people there who are crazy to take pictures in Times Square, that disgusting thing with those horrible restaurants around, serving that shitty food. There are.

There are.

Right? To show later to the family from the countryside who went up in life, look where the person is. See? I didn't say it, but I know that Maria's son was really good. Look where he is. He must be. But I doubt they'll let the minister...

Because it's the old story of the impossible requirement. What Supreme would exist after? I don't know if you've thought about it. It's a rhetorical question, right? What Supreme would exist after that?

It would be over.

It would be over. People, the United States is really annoying us, it's really ugly. Bolsonaro, you're free. It's over. The country is over.

If we consider the escalation of the American government by pressing economic issues, using the political issue that involves Bolsonaro's trial, but putting pressure on the economic issues. The meeting is being cancelled, the mediation is very difficult. Next month, maybe Bolsonaro's trial will happen. If Bolsonaro is convicted, do you think the American government is pushing even harder?

40% for the reciprocal rates of 10%, plus 40% for everything.

Then they took out 700 products.

Eduardo has already written that they can also review this issue.

It's not a collapse of the Brazilian economy. Let's see.

Because the government will have a contingency plan for the companies. Depending on what they do, they give Lula also a power, because he will have to have resources. This resource will have to be managed by the federal government. They also give the government a power of interference greater than the government had. Because, depending on what they do, these resources, for now, it is expected that these resources will be inside the Arcabouzos.

But if necessary, they will have to stay outside from the stuff. The TCU has already said that. Because we have an emergency comparable to, depending on the size, the one that happened with the COVID.

The pandemic.

The pandemic. So you have to... Look, I always think people... There's a wonderful quote from Marx in the 18th Brumar, and people are also victims of their own world conception, many times, right? He says that about Luiz Napoleon,

Napoleon's nephew. Do you think that any other president in the history of mankind would lose the reelection, with all the money Bolsonaro had to win the election?

Bolsonaro loses the election basically because of the pandemic

That's it

For him

Yeah, he lost it for him

He lost it for him Because for a while Lula, yes, won in the first round, and so on which was the hate that was felt about the pandemic He raises the Brazilian aid that he called at the time which was the emergency aid, became the Brazilian aid, which he called the emergency aid, which was the Brazilian aid, which was the family fund. He raises it to 600 reais.

He opens a rumble in the states with the fuel business and dramatically lowers the price of fuel. He says that Lula had to pay later because the the states opened the way for the states. With everything he had, if he had done a management... When I say human of the crisis, I don't mean the human we use, like, the person is very human, I mean the human of the animal. If he had done a management, a manoid of the crisis,

he would never have lost this election. But he lost to his own world conception. Narrow, tricky, linked to what is worse in Brazilian society, prejudiced. Even so, he mobilized a lot of people. He lost by 1.8. It's scary that he lost by so little, actually. But he could have won this largely with the strength that the incumbent has.

Always. With the machine in hand, etc. And now, somehow's the same thing. They have a worldview that is their own, and that forces people to make these choices. Look, there's no... If I were on their right, one day I might have been,

but I don't recognize them as bipIPs, or as BIPs. Not even if they had feathers. Why not Tarcizio? Let's go. For a moment I'll go to their side. Why not Tar Tarsius? There's the support of the big broadcasters, the big newspapers, the capital, the financial capital,

there's the support of the industry, there's the support of... I don't know what. There's even support from those who I think understand what he's saying. Especially from them. What are they talking about? And so... And it seems like Dada is wonderful, right?

He always has a solution for the problem. Talk, talk, talk. He's a realist. Military school, I don't know what. There's Derrit here. He breathed, take a shot, and...

But there's the world view, that people are often victims. Which is? We can't lose control of the right, because voting for Tarcísio means losing control of the right. So we're going to force them not to be.

Because in Eduardo's head, it's better to lose to Lula and continue in a position of power, which is the head of opposition, than to win the government. And from there, Tarcísio starts doing his thing, having his talks. What do you think? That Tarcísio is going to fight Globo? Do you think Tarcísio is going to fight I don't know who? is If Bolsonaro is inducted, the Supreme Court will say it's unconstitutional, because it is.

Who is it that takes away from Tarsízio that he would impose force, as Flávio has commented, impose force on an inductee? No, he won't say that. Who among the governors will say that? So, it's the conception of the world.

To a certain extent, Eduardo's world conception has an effect that he doesn't suspect, which can be civilizing. Because it takes them away from power. I'm speaking dialectically. Do you know? Because that's the vision they have.

It's a bit like the famous saying, it's better to be the first in a village than the second in Rome. Is Tarcísio going to do all their wills? No. Is he going to do some? Yes. But Eduardo already gave an interview, he said

that for him it doesn't work to do some. It has to be 100%. It has to be 100%. What is the view of the far right? World outside today. It is the eschatological view, a religious view. Eschatological in the sense of the end of times. We are moving towards the final judgment that will separate the world between the good and the bad. The bad will go to hell and the good will be saved. This is their crusade.

Which is, of course, very dangerous. Of course it is very dangerous. Which Trump also has, and still is very dangerous. Well, uh... Dude, since you have to leave tomorrow, we had Miguel Uribe here to talk about it. We can talk about him quickly, but, Jean, prepare the questions.

Do you have any questions?

No, I'm out of Live Peaks.

Okay, so Jean turned on Live Peaks, okay. So, to finish here, Miguel Uribe is a Colombian senator, he was a Colombian senator, who died... He died yesterday? Today?

He died today. He died today.

Today, still today. He was shot in the head, two months ago. And there's a... I've seen some people making a comparison with this attack, actually with this murder of Miguel Uribe, with the knife of Bolsonaro, for example. That it would have been some movement

putting this on the account of political opponents

in both cases, as if they were similar, to a certain extent.

First, that it was far from being a favorite for anyone, but it doesn't matter. It was killed by a kid, certainly linked to an extremist movement.

People are thinking it's linked to the second... I wrote it down... Marquetalia, which is a dissident...

A dissident from FARC. When there was a FARC agreement with the Colombian government, this group of dissidents of the FARC, when the FARC agreement was signed with the Colombian government, this group of dissidents would have emerged, which continued its struggle.

It may even be, which is not Petro, because Petro today, Gustavo Petro today, is a guy who is completely integrated in the political struggle. There are crazy people in the world, there are crazy people in the world. Do you think that whoever murdered this guy has a power project? Look, the right will do the same. They tried to kill Bolsonaro, they tried to kill whoever, they always try to eliminate people.

I could use examples. Here in Brazil, Getúlio had to kill himself, in a way, and there was a coup. These are conspiracy theories. João Goulart died, nobody knows how. JK died, nobody knows how. None of these theories are supported,

just as Bolsonaro's guy who shot him, the one with the knife, Adélio Bispo. Adélio was connected to the people, he was not, but he was clearly a guy with problems. If it was an attack on Bolsonaro, he would have to guess that on day, Bolsonaro would be walking on people's heads in the middle of the street. Imagine that. It's elementary reasoning. How could Adélio, in the middle,

guess that Bolsonaro would be walking there? Was there a tram to kill him, just like there was to kill Trotsky? All meticulously designed and thought out, probably with the help of Frida Kahlo. Frida Kahlo, yes.

I love painting, but it seems she was involved. It was all planned. No, it wasn't. Just like in this case. It wasn't. It's a project to kill the leaders of right-wing Latin America. What a bullshit. Which right-wing leaders of Latin America are dying?

Now, I'm sorry. What has happened, I hope that...

By the way, in his life there is a previous tragedy, right? Because his mother... His mother was kidnapped by Pablo Escobar's group, the drug dealer. And after an attempt to rescue her, an operation to rescue her, she ended up being killed.

His mother was a journalist. A journalist, yes. What I see, in a Colombia that went through what happened, Colombia was already a narco-state.

Right? Yes.

These occurrences are not... They can be more frequent than desirable. Reason is that we need to fight organized crime in Brazil as well. Because things are taking on really complicated proportions. This idea that crime has an ideology, crime doesn't have an ideology. Crime thinks about profit, and it associates itself with those who are interested at a certain moment.

Drug trafficking has already associated itself with the extremist groups of the extreme right of Colombia. It depends a lot on what is interesting at the moment. Now, would it be a Latin American plan for what? Of course they will do it, they will say it. I hope they will punish them severely.

Good.

Well, Reinaldo, thank you for coming to our first Flow News.

What's up, Tramonto? What did you think?

I thought it was good, huh? And we didn't even say that Ciro Gomes was going back to PSDB.

Yeah, after all that. After all that, 20 years later. I'm going to get those LiberaLoyds, I'm going to put the Libera-Loyds, I'm going to put those Libera-Loyds, I'm going to put those Libera-Loyds. Guarimito Bolsonaro. I mean, this is it. This Tramonta, is it Tramonta? What a strange name, Tramonta. Tramonta? Yes, Tramonta. This is it.

And this Igor, sometimes he's on one side, then on the other. A little weird. And Reinaldo Zevedo. One day I told him, I met him and said, Can I give you a hug? Do you know what he said? A straight hug!

I said, haha, you're funny. And I hugged him. Reinaldo was surprised, he hugged me and said, Wow, what a strong vest you have there.'' Mr. President, Jair Bolsonaro, you will be arrested because there are some high-ups,

and the democratic system you tried to end will guarantee you a prison with all the human rights guaranteed. Remember the time when your class said human rights for human rights? I think you're a crooked human being, but you will have human rights guaranteed.

For democracy. Which is not over. It won. That's it. Well, thank you both for the moral. Thank you everyone who watched. Don't forget to subscribe here on the channel and like this video.

We... the Flow News will be back every week, ok? By the way, this week there's another Flow News that I'll talk to Romeu Zema, ok? Who is the governor of Minas Gerais. It's going to be a... Look at Reinaldo's face. It's going to be happening in this same scenario. And next week we have Tramonto here again with another guest.

So we can reflect on the things that happened during the week. Reinaldo, to find you on social media, you basically have to look for Reinaldo Azevedo. There's Reconversa, Band News FM, Band News TV. Can I say something about Zerma? Go ahead. Zerma...

Oh, and Wall, of course. Zerma... I brought him to eat a banana with peel.

That's true.

To try to be funny. It wasn't much. To show that inflation is high. Tell him that I recommended him to read Pero Magalhães de Gândavo. Ok.

Which is travel literature from the 16th century. There is the book Treatise of the Land of Brazil. Ok. And Pero Magalhães de Gândavo already taught in the 16th century that the indigenous people here,

he stayed here from 1558 to 1572, he was the assiliate of the Bahia government, he already taught that the natives, those who were already Brazilians here, already laid out the peel of the banana threw out the expression, please

and ate the core that Zema four centuries later still hasn't learned that if you eat the core you don't eat the peel

because the peel is something for the nutritionists who make a special flour and stuff So, Governor Zema, don't throw away the banana peel to eat the peel Don't do that with Brazil either

Good. So, once again, thank you everyone I'll leave all the social media of everyone here in the comment section It'll be easy for you to reach with just one click Again, subscribe, like the video And we'll see each other later, ok? A kiss for you all. Bye! I'll leave the link in the description so you can reach it easily Again, subscribe, like the video and I'll see you later, ok?

and I'll see you later, ok?

Bye!