At the same time as it questions the reliability of the denunciation of, the defense of (PL) uses reports of the former joint order to defend the former president against.
In an excerpt from the (Federal Supreme Court) in which it argues that the denunciation should have been terminated, the defense even says that “it is not possible to believe in any word of the employee.”
Ahead, however, by addressing the merits of the accusations, he mentions-to put them in doubt-to strengthen their argument in the sense that Bolsonaro would have nothing to do with part of the events pointed out in the complaint.
The complaint against the former president, who will decide whether to make him a defendant.
Sought by Sheetlawyer Celso Vilardi, who represents Bolsonaro in the case, said that there is no contradiction on the part of the defense.
“He has changed his accusations numerous times, which makes his version unconfable. This does not mean that he does not draw attention, even for those who are receiving a prize [pela colaboração] To make accusations, the fact that he did not involve the president at the time of January 8, “he said.
Some of the most striking statements against the ICD agreement are on the part of the document in which the defense makes a chronology and lists several points that sees as problematic linked to the denunciation ,.
Initially the defense states that, with, it can finally analyze the terms of the agreement and that “it was then made sure that this is awarded collaboration addicted to the absolute lack of voluntarity and collaboration marked by lies, omissions and contradictions.”
Shortly thereafter, in arguing that Cid failed the agreement for having, he classifies the report given by the whistleblower as “story” that “borders on ridicule.”
“Is it possible to trust a whistleblower who invents, in his words, to a close relative or an intimate friend who lied in his denunciation?” The defense questions. “If it was not enough to have lying, Mauro Cid was also missing the duty of confidentiality provided for in paragraph ‘e’, of the same clause of the collaboration agreement,” he adds, maintaining that the agreement should be terminated.
“Although the termination does not occur, which is admitted to argue, it is not possible to believe in any word of the employee,” he says, in the conclusion of this passage.
Although this specification was not explained in the document sent to, Vilardi told the Sheet That this analysis of the lack of reliability is specific to the version given by CID for the leakage linked to its denunciation.
Ahead, however, where to deal with procedural matters and addresses the merits of the accusations, that is, the elements by which Bolsonaro is effectively accused, the defense quotes ICD lines as an element for his argument.
The lawyers question the not taking into account Cid statements. He says “the denunciation curiously ignores when the whistleblower says no one knew the acts of January 8”.
He adds then that this record remained, however, and that he “demonstrates that the acts of 8 January, contrary to what the complaint intends, were not orchestrated by the petitioner [Bolsonaro] Nor did they have their participation, command or consent. “
In another section states that “as remains evident from Mauro Cid’s denunciation, in January 2023 the petitioner [Bolsonaro] He was already in the United States and had no contact with his former advisers, ministers or commanders. “
The defense also says that, in relation to the plan “green and yellow dagger”, “the version chosen by the complaint is contrary to that provided in the testimony” of CID.
He says that the whistleblower “had already explained and clarified the texts and also the negative already given by the then president to the alleged cogitations of the general” Mario Fernandes, accused of preparing the murder plan of authorities. It also adds that Mauro Cid responded to Minister Alexandre de Moraes at an audience “that he never showed the archive” of this plan to the former president.
“Mauro Cid’s narrative is much more linear and logical than the one created by the complaint: the president had already rejected the proposals, whatever they were,” he argues next.
How it showed the Sheeta made by the Attorney General. On the other hand, report from Sheet It also showed that the defenses.
In Bolsonaro’s case, the defense adopted a dubious tone also regarding the point.
Versions of the document were found at the former Minister of Justice’s house, in the room where Bolsonaro uses in and on Cid’s electronic device.
In addition to the documents, seized messages, and the testimonies of the then Army Commanders, Marco Antonio Freire Gomes, and the Air Force, Carlos Baptista Junior, maintain that this draft was presented to the heads of the adhesion.
“What remains of the complaint, withdrawn its most glaring contradictions, would be the draft decree that, taken by others, was not signed by the petitioner [Bolsonaro]. It was possible to trust the whistleblower’s words [Mauro Cid]the supposed draft of the decree, never signed, is not an act capable of overcoming the limit of preparation, never invading the sphere of the execution of so -called crimes against democratic institutions, “says the play.
Lawyers also say that “it cannot even be considered, as the accusation intends, that changes in a draft, always based on the doubtful whistleblower, in order to eliminate any remnants of illegality or violence, would be able to characterize the crimes in question.”
The defense of the former president also stated that he would not enter other points related to the merits of the prosecution at this time of the process on the grounds that the integral of the evidence has not yet been accessed.
