In a trial with foreseeable script and outcome, at the Session of the First Class of the Supreme Court on Tuesday (25), confirming the expectation of the defenses of
The signs had emerged the day before when he, “the woman who peered the statue of justice,” who became a symbol for the pockets of the heavy hand.
The minister’s positions were received with something close to euphoria by lawyers to be able to scratch the conviction already formed by the Court for the conviction of.
The first divergence was on the forum to the trial, which Fux argued that it be transferred to the plenary. Nothing compared, however, to criticize the weaknesses of Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid’s denunciation, by far the main probative element against Bolsonaro and allies.
“I see with a lot of reserve nine allegations of the same collaborator, every hour adding a novelty,” said Fux.
He explained that if he did not think it was the case of nullity of the denunciation now, he did not exclude defending this possibility in other phases of the process.
He finished with an unusual request: he wants to closely follow Mauro Cid’s testimonials during the trial, to form his own conviction about sincerity in the words of former Bolsonaro advisor.
It is possible that Fux influenced the two ministers who then spoke, and Cristiano Zanin. Both were in the same line, recognizing that the denunciation had problems, but saying it was not the time to reject it.
Zanin, a former lawyer for Lula and fierce opponent of Lava Jato’s allegations who incriminated his then client, noted that “the whistleblower may have lied, is a possibility.”
However, the rapporteur’s vote, which predictably made an emphatic defense of Mauro Cid’s reliability as a whistleblower, despite his comings and goings.
Generally speaking, he said that the following testimonials, instead of demonstrating fragility, were mechanisms for improving collaboration. And, as he usually, he covered his rhetorical arguments against fake news producers and a half -out nationalism. “They will not intimidate the judiciary. Brazil is a sovereign and independent country,” he said.
As an auxiliary line, Moraes told, as was expected, with Flávio Dino, that he fulfilled the task of reverberating the rapporteur’s arguments. Another veteran of the Lava Jato battles, Dino traveled a distinction between the allegations of that operation and those of now.
“The best way to kill a good idea is to perform it evil,” said the minister, in reference veiled to the collaborations played by Sergio Moro and-then nullified.
According to him, there was a “stigmatization of the Institute of the”, which would be only “a means of obtaining evidence like any other.” “There is no moral rejection of the award -winning denunciation,” he concluded.
Fux’s hint of drama will hardly lead to a favorable result for Bolsonaro or the nearest core of it, either in acceptance of the complaint or the trial and probable condemnation of the former president.
There may be room for some penalties and reevaluation of accusations related to secondary characters in the plot.
What the minister made a point of making it clear is that, as he said at any given time in the session, “the matter is not that peaceful,” as the Double Din-Din wants to make it believe.
The obvious question is what would have happened if, instead of the five ministers of the class, the case was being tried by the 11 of the Plenary, which include 2 nominees by Bolsonaro (Kassio Nunes Marques and André Mendonça).
Certainly the script mounted by the rapporteur, which seems safe to its final outcome, would be more exposed to weather.
