Imagine discovering that a president had direct phone contact with one of modern history’s biggest sex criminals. Naturally, you’d expect this to dominate headlines and generate immediate investigations, right?

However, when that president is Lula, Brazilian media does something different: tries to deflect attention by mixing Bolsonaro’s name into the story through gross translation manipulation. Consequently, what should be an explosive scandal becomes just “another controversy” where they try to equate completely different situations.

What the Emails Really Say

First, let’s look at the unfiltered facts. Over 20,000 pages of Jeffrey Epstein documents were released by the U.S. House Oversight Committee.

Moreover, in these documents, there’s a devastating message sent by Epstein on September 21, 2018: “Chomsky called me with Lula. From prison. What a world.”

Direct Contact vs Mere Mention

On the other hand, here’s the crucial difference the media tries to obscure: Lula had DIRECT PHONE CONTACT with Epstein. However, Bolsonaro was only MENTIONED by Epstein in a completely different context.

Consequently, we’re not talking about equivalent situations. On the contrary, one is active participation in communication with a sex criminal, the other is a simple comment about Brazilian politics.

Chomsky’s Visit and Sinister Connections

Now, let’s detail the context of this call. On September 20, 2018, American linguist Noam Chomsky visited Lula at the Federal Police headquarters in Curitiba.

Moreover, the next day, Epstein sent the email revealing that Chomsky had called him WITH LULA on the line, directly from prison. Therefore, there’s no doubt about when and where it happened.

Chomsky: The Bridge Between Lula and Epstein

On the other hand, it’s fundamental to understand who Chomsky is in this context. He’s not just any intellectual — he’s a central figure of the globalist left with deep connections in the international elite.

Similarly, Chomsky had an established relationship with Epstein, having been documented visiting the sex criminal’s mansion multiple times. Consequently, he served as a bridge between Lula and Epstein’s circle.

Lula Government’s Pathetic Denial

Meanwhile, what was the official response when confronted with these emails? The Communications Secretariat (Secom) simply said: “The information is not accurate. The cited phone call never happened.”

However, this denial raises more questions than answers. First, Chomsky really did visit Lula on that date — that’s documented fact. Moreover, Epstein’s email was sent exactly the day after the visit.

When Denial Isn’t Enough

On the other hand, if the call never happened, why would Epstein lie about it in a private email? Clearly, he had no reason to invent this story in personal communication that wasn’t public.

Consequently, either Epstein was lying for no reason in private emails (unlikely), or Lula’s government is lying to cover up contact with a sex criminal (much more likely).

The Grotesque Translation Manipulation

Now, let’s get to the scandal within the scandal: the brazen manipulation Brazilian media made when translating Bolsonaro’s mention.

Moreover, Epstein wrote: “Bolsonara [sic] the real deal.” Brazilian media translated this as “Bolsonaro é o cara” (Bolsonaro is the man/guy), trying to make it seem like personal praise or sympathy.

The Real Meaning of “The Real Deal”

However, anyone with basic English knowledge knows that “the real deal” DOESN’T mean “is the man” in the sense of praise. On the contrary, it means “is authentic,” “is legitimate,” “is genuine,” “is the real thing.”

On the other hand, in political context, “the real deal” means someone is really who they say they are, not an imitation or fraud. Therefore, Epstein was evaluating whether Bolsonaro was a genuine candidate with real chances, not praising him.

The Correct Translation Changes Everything

Consequently, the honest translation would be: “Bolsonaro is authentic/genuine/legitimate.” Clearly, this has a completely different connotation from “is the man.”

Moreover, note the context: Epstein’s interlocutor had said “Tell him my guy is going to win in the first round.” Therefore, they were discussing elections and evaluating candidates, not making declarations of friendship.

Completely Different Contexts

Now, let’s make crystal clear why trying to equate Lula and Bolsonaro in this case is pure journalistic dishonesty.

First, Lula had DIRECT PHONE CONTACT with Epstein mediated by Chomsky. On the other hand, Bolsonaro was only COMMENTED ON by Epstein in discussion about Brazilian elections with an unidentified person.

Active Participation vs Passive Observation

Moreover, Lula was IMPRISONED when this call happened, and even so established communication with a sex criminal through Chomsky. However, Bolsonaro was in electoral campaign and didn’t even know he was being mentioned.

Consequently, one actively chose to communicate with Epstein; the other was just observed from a distance by people following Brazilian politics.

Why Epstein Was Interested in Brazilian Politics

On the other hand, let’s explore why Epstein and his circle followed the 2018 Brazilian elections.

First, Epstein wasn’t just a sex criminal — he was a financier connected with the globalist elite, including Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and other powerful figures. Moreover, this elite has enormous interest in influencing politics in strategic countries like Brazil.

The Interest Wasn’t Personal

On the other hand, when Epstein mentions Bolsonaro as “the real deal,” he’s clearly reporting political evaluation to his interlocutor, not expressing personal preference.

Similarly, the context shows they were discussing whether it was worth being present in Brazil if Bolsonaro won: “if you are confident of a win, might be good for the brand if you were seen there.”

Bolsonaro: Observed, Not Involved

Finally, let’s be absolutely clear about Bolsonaro’s position in this story.

First, he was mentioned in Epstein’s emails, but never had direct contact with the criminal. Moreover, the mentions occurred in context of electoral political analysis, not personal relationship.

The Difference Between Being Observed and Participating

On the other hand, being mentioned in someone’s emails doesn’t mean participation or knowledge. Clearly, prominent politicians are constantly analyzed and commented on by investors and influential people.

Consequently, trying to equate “being commented on” with “making a direct phone call” is gross intellectual dishonesty.

Conclusion: Manipulation Cannot Obscure Facts

In summary, Epstein’s emails reveal an inconvenient truth that Brazilian media desperately tries to obscure.

On one hand, Lula had direct phone contact with Epstein, mediated by Chomsky, when he was imprisoned in 2018. On the other hand, Bolsonaro was only mentioned in context of political analysis by people following Brazilian elections.

Moreover, major Brazilian media deliberately manipulated the translation of “the real deal” to create false equivalence between completely different situations. Therefore, they transformed neutral political evaluation into supposed “praise” to be able to say “look, Bolsonaro was also mentioned.”

Consequently, what we have isn’t journalism, but political activism disguised as reporting. Clearly, the goal isn’t to inform the public, but to protect Lula and attack Bolsonaro.

Finally, while Lula’s government denies the call without explaining why Epstein would lie in a private email, and while the media continues trying to create false equivalences, the facts remain: a Brazilian president established communication with one of modern history’s worst sex criminals.

Therefore, the question that won’t go away is: why was Lula so interested in talking to Epstein? And why does the media work so hard to deflect attention from this fact by equating it with Bolsonaro who was merely observed from a distance?

Do you think there will be an investigation into this Lula-Epstein call? Was the media’s translation manipulation accidental or purposeful? Share your opinion in the comments!