Ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court) criticized behind the scenes the performance of the Attorney General, during Marco Antonio, who appeared minister.
Although not unanimous in court, the evaluation of a part of the magistrates was that Gonet could not counteract that presented by Freire Gomes on Monday (19) to the Supreme.
Two ministers reported Sheet The existence of this discomfort within the court, despite other divergent positions-praised the complaint of the Attorney General’s Office and two claimed to have no considerations about the PGR’s performance.
On the other hand, three defenders of defendants in the coup plot process praised Sheetunder reserve, the performance of Gonet. The PGR was sought, but did not speak.
The way the attorney general conducts the inquiry was clear at the beginning of the hearing. Without raising contradictions in the statement, Gonet digested to confirm whether the general’s response could be understood as narrated in the complaint.
An example was when the former army chief said he did not see with astonishment when the former president (PL) presented to the military commanders the first draft of the coup decree.
Freire Gomes said Bolsonaro presented the document as a study, based on the Constitution, and that the former president said he would return to the subject after consulting other assistants.
“I can say, then, that he was preparing the lords, with legal reasons, to present more to follow intervention measures he was already anticipating he was going to take?” Gonet asked.
The lawyer, Bolsonaro’s defender, said Gonet’s question sought to direct the general’s answer. The minister denied the order of order, and Vilardi’s microphone was cut.
“Doctor Paulo Gonet, not necessarily. Perhaps he presented us for consideration, since some aspects of the documents referred to Glo [Garantia da Lei e da Ordem]state of defense and state of siege, “replied the former commander.
Another moment when Gonet’s position was criticized was when Freire Gomes stated that he could not make a value judgment about the posture of then -Navy commander Almir Garnier Santos, to declare support to Bolsonaro’s scammers.
“He said he was with the president, and the intention of what he meant about it doesn’t fit me [interpretar]”Said the general.
Alexandre de Moraes drove the audience. He interrupted the interrogation at this time, after the versions of the General were interpreted as milder, and said that Freire Gomes should speak the truth in court.
“I wanted to warn the witness. She can’t omit what she knows. I’m going to give the witness a chance to tell the truth. He lied to the Federal Police, has to say that he lied to the police.”
Moraes also took advantage of the final phase of the testimony, after all the defenses ask his questions, to ask Freire Gomes’s objective questions. He wanted to confirm with the general if everything he spoke to the Federal Police during the investigation – that Bolsonaro consulted them about measures for an institutional break – it would be true or if he would change his version.
Freire Gomes maintained all his testimony to the PF and denied change of version in the Supreme. The audience was closed.
Three defendants’ lawyers in the coup plot process told the Sheetunder reserve, that Gonet has no traquejo to conduct testimonials in criminal proceedings, which they saw as a favorable point to their customers. The attorney’s formation was directed to constitutional law, and he is the author of reference books for the area.
The assessment in the Supreme is that Freire Gomes tried to shield the former chief of Navy Almir Garnier with the testimony to the court. The general’s testimony also reinforces Bolsonaro’s defense thesis that the former president studied implementing measures after the electoral result, but the cogitation was neither illegal nor became a coup planning.
The figure of legalistic general built in the PGR denunciation inhabited the Supreme’s imagination-it has, however, being questioned internally with Monday’s testimony.
The disparity between what was expected of the General’s testimony with what the former military chief was missing to the Supreme Court increased the expectation for the testimony of the former Air Force commander Carlos de Almeida Baptista Júnior, scheduled for this Wednesday (21).
Behind the scenes, Moraes has pointed out that the general’s testimony reinforces the main facts narrated in the complaint: that Bolsonaro presented scammers to the armed forces chiefs and that the army and aeronautics were against the conspiracies.
Lawyer Demosthenes Torres is responsible for the defense of Garnier. He says Freire Gomes’s testimony should invalidate the accusation against the former Navy commander.
PGR’s complaint says Garnier “made himself available to Jair Bolsonaro to follow the orders necessary to comply with the decree.” The demonstration would have been expressed at a meeting on December 7, 2022 and confirmed at a meeting between the military chiefs and the Defense Minister on December 14 of the same year.
Freire Gomes, however, says the former navy chief was silent in both meetings. He would have spoken in support of Bolsonaro in another meeting, of an unknown date.
“There were apparently other, more informal meetings. And Garnier would have made himself available, not to blow, perhaps in deference to the president, according to Freire Gomes. But it happens that these other meetings are not the object of the accusation. They were not mentioned in the complaint,” says Torres.
“It means that at least Gonet ate fly. And now there is only one alternative: add the complaint including this new fact. Otherwise, Garnier’s situation is legally resolved. The accusations contained in the complaint were demoralized in the general’s statement [Freire Gomes]”, adds the lawyer.
