Although with ambiguous speech, the former president () admitted in interrogation when discussing alternatives after being defeated in the 2022 election.
Although it has already made statements of its kind in interviews and public discourses, this is the first time he formally makes these statements to the court. The former president is in erasing the lights of his government.
“What existed in practice was how we were prevented from resorting to [Tribunal Superior Eleitoral] With concern for a higher penalty, “he told Minister Rapporteur on Tuesday (10).” We sought some alternative in the Constitution and thought it did not proceed and ended. “
In a play filed with the STF with his initial defense, his lawyers did not confirm that there had been debate on alternatives by the former president, nor that he had discussed such alternatives with then-armed commanders.
In a document, his lawyers had argued that even if it was possible to rely on the words of whistleblower Mauro Cid, the “alleged draft of the decree” would be in a stage that is not punishable: that of preparatory acts.
“These meetings that occurred were largely due to the TSE decision,” Bolsonaro said on Tuesday, stating that he would have discussed alternatives after being overwhelmed to question the electoral outcome after the court imposed a $ 22 million fine to his party.
“This fine shook us,” he said, stating that he understood that, in the event of new petitions, the fine could be aggravated. “We decided to end the TSE any discussion about the election outcome.”
He then said that alternatives were studied, but taking care of the legal issue “and that after these discussions, any” constitutional possibility “were abandoned.
“For our part I’ve always been with the Constitution, so I refute any possibility of talking about a scam or talking in a draft that is not framed in the Constitution,” he said. “I didn’t talk about this draft, I went to chat only.”
Bolsonaro’s lines move away from the tone of his formal defense presented so far to the STF.
“[A suposta minuta] It 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, “their lawyers wrote.
“Although one wants to criticize the speeches, pronouncements, interviews and lives of Jair Bolsonaro, or censor the content of meetings with military commanders and advisors, such events are not confused even minimally with acts of execution,” said the defense in another part of the document without mentioning the content of the meetings.
