Lawyers speak of “award -winning collaboration” and “marked by lies, omissions and contradictions”
The defense of the former president (PL) asked (Supreme Federal Court) on Thursday (6.mar.2025) Annulment of the award-winning denunciation of Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid. The request was made in one AO (Attorney General’s Office) against the former chief executive.
In the document, the defense of the former president characterized the collaboration of Cid, former assistant of Bolsonaro orders, as “addicted to the absolute lack of voluntarity ” and stated that its content is marked by “Lies, omissions and contradictions”. Read the delivered to the STF (129 pages, PDF – 8 MB).
The defense, led by lawyer Celso Vilardi, said it was “quite significant, to say the least ” That, although the (Federal Police) pointed out contradictions between the results of their investigations and the ICD denunciation, the collaboration agreement had not been terminated.
Mauro Cid’s audios
To support the argument of Cid’s lack of voluntarity, Bolsonaro’s defense described the two hearings in which the former ordinant of orders was called to provide clarification.
1st, in, was performed because of the leak of audios in which the lieutenant colonel states that . Read the full transcription of audios.
According to Bolsonaro’s defense, “The audios were promptly recognized by the collaborator who, apologizing, classified his lines as an outburst and clarified that he did not intend to come to public. ”
For the former president’s lawyers, Cid’s recognition that he had sent the audios would configure non-compliance with the accordion duty provided for in the agreement. However, despite this, the award -winning collaboration was maintained.
“Now, the employee stated [nos áudios] That there was no voluntarity, but then apologized. What version should we believe in? In the absence of voluntarity or in the alleged outburst? How to trust a whistleblower who discredits his own denunciation? ”questioned the defense.
Bolsonaro’s lawyers say that when asked who the messages was, Cid replied that “I didn’t know for sure ”but who believed he was a family member or friend.
“The story that the interlocutor was a family or close friend borders ridicule, as well as pathetic the statement that he does not remember who would have kept dialogue with”Read in the document. Lawyers add reasons to ask themselves why Cid would lie to a family member or close friend.
“Lies, contradictions and omissions”
Bolsonaro’s defense stated that a PF report, referred to STF Minister Alexandre de Moraes, rapporteur of the case, pointed out “lies, contradictions and omissions in Mauro Cid’s statements ”.
According to the lawyers, both the MP (Public Prosecution Service) and the PGR, in the face of such contradictions, requested the custody of CID and stated the non -compliance with the agreement.
The defense argued that instead of the arrest was executed and the agreement terminated, there was a new hearing for Lieutenant Colonel to have a chance to clarify the facts.
“The central point is exactly this: can the judiciary offer an opportunity for the employee to correct himself? ”declared the defense.
“Neither the law nor the collaboration agreement argues for the hypothesis of not terminating the agreement; There is no forecast to give the employee an opportunity to save his agreement. It was just to decide to decree the pre -trial detention or not ”the lawyers said.
For the defense, instead of focusing on the validity or not of the agreement, the November hearing, chaired by Alexandre de Moraes, served to “scrutinizeFrom Cid, which would configure an irregularity, as it impairs, according to the defense, the impartiality of the minister.
Lawyers reinforce that the judge cannot participate in the production and collection of evidence during the investigation. “The Federal Constitution provides that the functions of investigator and inquisitor are attributions conferred to the Public Prosecution Service and the Federal and Civil Police (…) noting that the magistrate’s involvement in investigations impairs his impartiality ”wrote the defense.
Preliminary defense
In addition to the request for annulment of Cid’s award -winning denunciation, the lawyers in the document denied Bolsonaro’s participation in a coup articulation and asked the process to be tried in the Supreme Plenary, instead of the 1st class.
The lawyers cited as an attempt to ward off Moraes from the case. The judge of guarantees serves to separate the judge from the investigation from the judge who judges. However, the figure is not valid for actions originating in the Supreme.
They also argued that the right to broad defense was harmed by and the excess of material attached by the accusation, as well as its disorganization.
Bolsonaro is accused of commanding a criminal organization and participating in the attempted violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law and a coup d’état. It was also denounced for the crimes of qualified damage with violence and deterioration against the overturned heritage.
In February, 34 people were reported by the same crimes, including former minister and former vice on Bolsonaro’s plate, General Braga Netto, in the inquiry that investigates an attempted coup to prevent the inauguration of (PT).
Other accused also presented their defenses. Here’s what each one answered:
- Mauro Cid – He denied that he was coerced by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, asked to maintain all the terms signed in his award -winning collaboration agreement and also his acquittal;
- Augusto Heleno (Army General and former GSI Minister-International Security Office) – He said that the PGR did not show its participation in the coup plan and asked the trial to be transferred to the lower court;
- Paulo Sérgio Nogueira (former Minister of Defense) – denied that he acted to effect a coup; and
- Alexandre Ramagem (former director of Abin and federal deputy by PL-RJ) – He asked for the rejection of the complaint, arguing that there is no concrete evidence of his participation.
General Braga Netto and former Navy Commander Admiral Almir Garnier have until this Friday (7.mar.2025) at 11:59 pm to present their defenses. The 2 deadline is different because they were summoned 1 day after the other reported.
