The table, chaired by (-PB), postponed, this Friday (8), the decision to suggest or not the pocketist in the plenary of the house.
Instead, he chose to send to the Corregedoria cases already filed by the parties themselves. Only after the analysis of the agency and the sending of an opinion to the table, formed by Motta and six other deputies, the command of the house will decide whether or not to suggest to the Ethics Council the removal of the mandate.
At least Zé Trovão (PL-SC), Marcel Van Hattem (Novo-RS), Marcos Pollon (PL-MS), Julia Zanatta (PL-SC), Paulo Bilnskyj (PL-SP), Cavalcante (PL-RJ), Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG), Zucco (PL-RS), Caroline de Toni, Zucco (PL-SC), Carlos Jordy (PL-RJ), Bia Kicis (PL-DF), Domingos Sávio (PL-MG), Marco Feliciano (PL-SP) and Allan Garcês (PP-MA)-which, along with others (PL).
According to a statement from the table, all parliamentarians with representations against them would have the cases taken to the organ. Deputy Camila Jara (PT-MS), accused of assaulting Nikolas, was the target of PL representation, but her name is not in the first wave of cases sent to the Internal Affairs.
The analysis by the Internal Affairs is provided for at the time of the table that establishes the rules of temporary removal of the mandate. The corregedor, Deputy Diego Colonel (PSD-BA), has 48 hours to make his opinion to the table.
If the table chooses to suggest the removal of the mandate for a period-it was six months-it will be up to the Ethics Council to decide on a case by case basis. The removal only occurs after the advice of the Council, which has three days to decide. Finally, it is up to the plenary against any decision of the agency.
This Friday’s decision indicates a disagreement about punishing or not the amotinated pockets. In the case of (-MG) and Gilvan of the Federal (PL-ES), for example, the table sent one to the Ethics Council, without passing through the Internal Affairs.
Thunder, Van Hattem and Pollon were among the main obstacles that between his office and the resumption of the command of the house, which lasted just over six minutes.
The first block Motta’s passage with his leg, while the other two refused to leave the table when the president approached his chair. Motta’s allies evaluation was to stop punishing van hattem, for example, could demoralize it.
Julia Zanatta took her four -month -old daughter to the plenary and even sit with the baby at the board. Bilynskyj is accused of occupying the table of the Human Rights Commission and of assaulting journalist Guga Noblat.
The five deputies were the target of.
Already a representation announced on social networks by the leader of the PL, (RJ), accuses Camila Jara of assaulting Nikolas, something she says she did not happen. The scholarship came to fall during the confusion, and the petista’s staff claims that there was a push and that she pushed him away.
On Wednesday afternoon, when he decided to summon a session and recover the plenary, which said that “any conduct that aims to prevent or hinde legislative activities” would be subject to the precautionary suspension of the mandate for up to six months.
The next day, he stated that measures would be taken on Thursday (7), which did not occur.
In interviews on Thursday and this Friday, Motta stated the intention of punishing parliamentarians who “exceeded to make it difficult for the work.” Em, said he was evaluating the images of the moment.
“I think it must have punishment, because what happened really was very serious, even so that it does not happen again. We cannot agree with what happened, we have to be pedagogical in this situation,” he told CNN.
Bar the passage of Motta. The leader of the PL bench (RJ) said he was the one who asked thunder to put himself on the stairs so as not to allow Motta to climb before all deputies participating in the protest.
“If anyone has to be punished is me, not thunder,” said Sostenes, who arrived on Thursday during the session.
Thunder said he positioned himself to avoid attempting to remove parliamentarians by force. “At no time did we think of encouraging violence or anything, we were simply only defending ourselves if necessary. Our protest was for President Hugo Motta to fulfill the word to guide the amnesty and, after our leadership was heard, we release the climb,” he said.
Van Hattem said he resisted leaving the chair because it was unclear that a hit had already been reached to end the riot. Similarly, Pollon says he was firm in his chair next to the new leader until Van Hattem told him he could get up.
“It had been agreed that we were going to talk to the deputies and then we would go back to [gabinete do] Hugo to talk about what had been agreed with the leaders. We were still discussing the proposal when he arrived by surprise, say so, and it generated discomfort in several colleagues, “says Van Hattem.
Pollon was also justified when speaking of a public hearing on Thursday. “In that whole turmoil, I said I wouldn’t round up until we got our goal. […] I confess that I couldn’t understand. […] Everyone spoke at the same time. So I took someone of my trust and said: Marcel, explains to me what is happening. They had agreed that I was going down, then I was going up, I don’t know, such a mess. I said, well, that’s not what I understood and took seat in my chair. And there I firmly. And a screaming around, “he said.
