I don´t think that it is particularly biased. Part of its implications about what constitutes good policies are clearly biased towards the PT (he was/is a Marxist after all) and I disagree with those, but that doesn´t really change his arguments.
Just to address some of those points
a) The media in Brazil is not “neutral” or balanced. Media doesn´t have to be, but it is worth remembering that the majority of media outlets are clearly biased against the PT. Having one big paper being friendly to it doesn’t change that; especially when TV is so important. If another military coup d'etat would happen in Brazil (hypothetically), Globo would be their first cheerleader again.
b) The bias of the judiciary is a bit more complex and nuanced. Their case against the PT is totally legit. Yet it is questionable if they fight with similar enthusiasm against corruption from the other side. Also due-process does matter and is extremely important. The ends don´t justify illegitimate means. When the same judge, who needs to deliver sound judgement about the PT, is seen on pro-opposition rallies, while violating due process, his neutrality has to be questioned.
What is your comment on the following passage?
c) My main concern is the following: If you impeach Dilma on the grounds of “cooking the books”, you could probably do the same with almost all future governments. Heck, even the German government uses “creative accounting” to hide parts of the budget, that doesn´t fit their narrative. While it is legal what they do, the concept is quite similar.
The opposition parties in Brazil failed to beat the PT in fair elections. It is not hard to see why they failed, despite the PT struggling quite a bit: Because they suck. They are a bunch of corrupt cronies, often with former ties to the military government, who have little program despite enriching themselves. All they care about is controlling the big government ministries, so they can redistribute wealth to their clients. They know that they struggle in normal elections, especially if Lula would come back. Now they see an opportunity to win the presidency and they take it. That is worrying. Under normal circumstances I´d applaud this impeachment process and cheer for it. Yet in the current context the issue is not just that black/white.
d) The record of the PT about inflation isn´t that bad. For most parts they produced similar numbers like their predecessors. Yes, during the last years things got messy and they are to blame for it. Yet I doubt that any other government would have handled the situation significantly different under similar circumstances.
e) I am not really here to defend the PT (great sentence after defending them all the time). I am not their fan and I´d prefer to criticize them for all their shortcomings. Yet that is not the important point in the current debate.
a) Fair enough, the majority of the media is against them. But I still think the accusations of bias are often exaggerated. Globo isn't one monolithic creature with one editorial line across a TV channel, a news channel, a newspaper and radio. Even their nightly news are slightly different because the later show's anchor is harsher on PT.
b) The judge who had pictures of himself at some of the recent protests on his FB profile was the one that initially ruled that Lula's appointment to ministry wasn't valid. He was overturned the same day, then the Supreme Court ruled on the issue by putting the appointment on hold pending deliberation by the whole court. Obviously I find none of this acceptable from a judge, but these aren't accusations that can be made towards Sergio Moro.
There's not been any significant violations of due process, otherwise Moro's decisions could've easily been overturned by courts above him, but that's also been very rare. The most significant violation of due process in this whole mess imo was perpetrated by the Attorney General and Supreme Court when they had Andre Esteves (banker) arrested on the basis of hearsay.
Sergio Moro's one moment where he clearly "played to the crowd" was the release of the recordings of Lula's bugged phone calls on the same day Dilma made him minister. So its unusual that a judge release the tapes from an investigation the same day they were made, although not illegal in itself. And they shouldn't at all when the President or other ministers are on the recording. But what is one to do when he catches the President committing obstruction of justice?
As for the list, that was unusual because it wasn't part of the official release of evidence that occurs some days after the raids. It leaked without the approval of the head prosecutors, or so its said. There was an event in 1993 when the Federal Police found about a cartel of construction companies bribing politicians to get contracts (much like today). The out that the politicians found was that one of them called João Paulo Bisol handed Veja magazine a list of 200 politicians who had received "gifts" from Odebrecht, but some of those had just received calendars, pens, etc. Mixing the actually involved with those that weren't made it a wash. Ever since its been known as the "Bisol trap", and Marcelo Odebrecht when he was arrested last year had msgs on his cellphone that included the note "Bisol trap?". So basically there was suspicion that the leak of the list was an attempt at the trap. Many of the values listed match up with official campaign contributions to the respective politicians.
Probably seems BS that I come up with an answer for it, and it might be. Maybe Sergio Moro and the prosecutors would stop when investigating the other side. But one thing is that they can only investigate people who aren't ministers or sitting congressmen. All those the AG and Supreme Court must deal with. And boy are they slow.
c) We had managed to go from 1996 to 2014 without improving the government's apparent fiscal position by not paying amounts due to public banks. Its part of the 2014 election narrative, analysts had noticed something was off and had called it to attention. The government spent the entire year of 2014 dismissing the claims that they were doing anything at all, and claiming that the fiscal position was solid and inline with budget targets. Then in 2015 it was admitted to, but at a lower amount. The true size of what the government owed Caixa (public bank) had to be found out by auditors. Of course its the auditor's job to check anything anyways, but its not proper government to do it in the first place, then spend an entire year lying about it. This should be no small matter in a country that's constantly under scrutiny by investors due to its history.
As for the elections, obviously PT won and I don't claim there was any rigging of votes. But their campaign financing was not within the law, and they had a warchest of illegal money. So its hard to call the elections entirely "fair", and at lower levels (mayor especially) election winners have been disqualified because of lesser violations of the election law. There is such a trial running in the Supreme Electoral Court (because you can never have enough different courts), but its also moving along at turtle pace, waiting for a political solution to the mess rather than a legal one.
d) I do think that PSDB threw out a chunk of their credibility when they let inflation run high in 1998 to try and keep the economy strong and win the election. I don't take that lightly either, and I'm always ready not to vote for PSDB if a better candidate comes forward. About these days, I was talking less about the recent history, but rather about what would happen if the fiscal situation continues to deteriorate and government decides to just print money to meet the nominal obligations.
e) I make no assumptions about your preferences. Honest debate is always worth our time. Its obviously not black and white, and nothing ever is.