Will This Blatant Rigging of the Elections Be Used to Announce That Lula Won

If a conservative government in Brazil did this, everyone in the mainstream press in America would lose their minds, but I guess they’re just choosing to be silent because it’s all for the cause.

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 25, 2026

… by two more hours in the entire country, citing “transportation problems.” Who controls the transport system? Lula’s government surely more so than a senator running for president.

Instead of waiting for a TSE ruling, Lula immediately asked Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) justice Cristiano Zanin Martins to order the polls remain open WITHOUT any TSE ruling. Within minutes (did Zanin even read the filing?), the polls were ordered to remain open by Zanin.

The STF has 11 justices. What did Zanin do before becoming an STF justice? Oh yes, he was Lula’s criminal defense lawyer in his corruption cases.

If this blatant rigging of the elections will be used to announce that Lula won, is Lula seriously expecting anyone in the international community to recognize that as a free and fair election? He knows nobody will.

Has the desperation reached a point that today is the day the mask fully comes off and Lula becomes the next Nicolas Maduro? For the sake of Brazil, I pray that is not the case.

Lula’s campaign lawyer, now on the @STF_oficial - literally his lawyer - orders polls stay open an extra two hours. You can’t make this shit up.

— Jason Miller (@JasonMiller) October 25, 2026

A president’s former campaign lawyer has just intervened, this time as judge, in the rules governing that president’s reelection. The international community should understand the full history. @Cristianozaninm defended Lula in his many criminal cases. But Justice Zanin also represented Lula’s 2022 presidential campaign, receiving R$1.2 million for legal services. Reporting from that election describes Zanin coordinating the litigation against @jairbolsonaro before Brazil’s electoral court, the TSE. Lula subsequently appointed him to the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) as a reward for his service. Today, acting on a complaint from Lula about voter transport in three Bahia municipalities, Zanin initially ordered a two-hour extension of voting nationwide. The TSE later clarified that the extension applied only where voting had not already ended at 5 p.m. That creates two separate questions. First, impartiality. A former campaign lawyer exercising extraordinary authority over his former client’s reelection creates an obvious appearance of impartiality concern. Assignment by “lottery” does not answer whether he should participate. Second, equal treatment is a major problem. Once some stations have closed, a nationwide extension cannot give every voter the same additional opportunity. Zanin must explain why this remedy was necessary, why its scope was nationwide and how its uneven implementation was justified. The public deserves the full reasoning, the notification timeline and station level records showing where additional voting occurred.

— Martin De Luca (@emd_worldwide) October 25, 2026

… represented Lula’s 2022 presidential campaign, receiving R$1.2 million for legal services. Reporting from that election describes Zanin coordinating the litigation against @jairbolsonaro before Brazil’s electoral court, the TSE.

Lula subsequently appointed him to the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) as a reward for his service.

Today, acting on a complaint from Lula about voter transport in three Bahia municipalities, Zanin initially ordered a two-hour extension of voting nationwide.

The TSE later clarified that the extension applied only where voting had not already ended at 5 p.m.

That creates two separate questions.

First, impartiality. A former campaign lawyer exercising extraordinary authority over his former client’s reelection creates an obvious appearance of impartiality concern. Assignment by “lottery” does not answer whether he should participate.

Second, equal treatment is a major problem. Once some stations have closed, a nationwide extension cannot give every voter the same additional opportunity. Zanin must explain why this remedy was necessary, why its scope was nationwide and how its uneven implementation was justified.

The public deserves the full reasoning, the notification timeline and station level records showing where additional voting occurred.