Ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court) even evaluated scenarios of a pre-trial detention of () after US President Donald Trump announced about Brazilian products, citing the lawsuit against the former president for leading the scammer.
For court members, Trump’s decision must be interpreted as the realization of a coercion movement on the court. In determining, Minister Alexandre de Moraes stated that the fare would have the purpose of embarking on the former president’s trial.
In the view of two ministers heard by Sheet Reserved, attempting to obstruction of the process is sufficient reason for decreeing a pre -trial detention.
The measure was the subject of conversations in the court in recent days, according to one of these court members. The evaluation, however, is that the application of an alternative would be more appropriate at this time.
This view takes into account the perception that a decree of imprisonment before a definitive conviction could provoke divergences in the Supreme Court and expose a divided court, at a time when ministers try to build a unified response to what they classify as Trump attacks.
This Friday (18), the US government has announced that it will revoke the visas of Moraes and “its allies in the court.”
In the Supreme Court, a minister says he believes there would be a majority of votes in the first class of the court to confirm a possible arrest order to Bolsonaro, but he ponders that most would be narrower than confirmation of the use of the electronic anklet. This Friday, the Board
In addition to the court unit, calibration was sought to prevent Bolsonaro’s victimization. In the assessment of a minister, pockets could insist on the argument that the former president is the subject of persecution of the judiciary.
This magistrate recalls that the institution of the anklet was born as an alternative to pre -trial detention, adopted when precautionary are not enough. An abusive measure discarded, the assessment is that the court could not be accused of leniency in the face of indications of the existence of an escape plan.
The seizure of dollars in Bolsonaro’s house is pointed out as another indication that Bolsonaro intended to leave Brazil, as well as Trump’s demonstrations.
(PL-SP) It is remembered, among magistrates, as an example of what should be avoided as the installation of the anklet and other measures.
In the evaluation of STF ministers, the attempted obstruction of the STF’s work would have been mainly proven by the public performance of the licensed deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) in the US in favor of the application of sanctions as a way to press the court to give up to condemn Bolsonaro.
In the decision that determined the use of an electronic anklet by Bolsonaro, Moraes stated that Trump’s announced tariffs are intended to create “a serious economic crisis in Brazil to generate political and social pressure in the judiciary.”
He also pointed out that the action of pockets with the US government would have as its purpose the interference in the trial of the coup plot.
“The investigated Eduardo Nantes Bolsonaro publicly stated in his social networks that his intermediation with the foreign government resulted in the announcement of the president of America in which he imposed a 50% (fifty percent) rate on all Brazilian products imported by the United States,” Moraes said.
The decision of Moraes has as main subsidies publications on the social networks of the former president, and.
The publications are cited in the requests of and (Attorney General’s Office) that underlined Friday’s operation. For the magistrate, the interviews and publications of the two “characterize clear and expressed executory acts and blatant confessions of the practice of criminal acts.”
In the posts, Eduardo states that he has dealt with the US government about sanctions on Brazil and Moraes due to Bolsonaro’s trial in the coup plot action after the 2022 election defeat.
In the decision, Moraes also cites an excerpt from the PGR demonstration that calls for the installation of the anklet for “indications of the concrete possibility of the defendant”, but does not advance in other indications other than public statements in social networks and interviews.
