During the support, Celso Vilardi stated that ‘there is not a single proof that Like Bolsonaro to the plane green and yellow dagger, the spyglade operation and on January 8’
The lawyer which represents the In the criminal action of the attempted coup d’état, he argues that the former chief of the executive was “dredged by the facts” now on trial and “did not attack the Democratic Rule of Law.” “There is not a single proof that Like Bolsonaro to the plan green and yellow dagger, the spyglass and 8 January,” he said in reference to the plans of authorities murders and planning what could happen after the alleged coup. Also according to Vilardi, nor the whistleblower, the former orders of orders Mauro Cid even talked about Bolsonaro’s participation in such events. The lawyer also argued that Cid lied in his report and claimed that the prosecutor did not evidence the contradictory about such plans found on the whistleblower’s cell phone.
The lawyer began his oral support on Wednesday (3) classifying the judgment as historical, both for the subject and for dealing with a former president. In the case of his client, he argued that the process base is a denunciation and a draft found on the whistleblower’s cell phone. “What happened to the investigation from there is an unbelievable succession of facts, because it was found the draft green and yellow dagger, the spreadsheet of the scope and then the tragic episode of January 8 occurred. Bolsonaro was dredged for these facts,” he said.
Regarding ICD denunciation, specifically, the lawyer maintained that collaboration is not a “jabuticaba” -as alleged by other lawyers of the coup criminal action -but “something much more serious.” “Jabuticaba exists in Brazil. Cid’s denunciation is something that does not exist neither here nor anywhere in the world,” he said. According to the lawyer, omissions or contradictions should nullify the denunciation, without “use”. Vilardi also maintained that the history of the process was “complicated” and argued that the case should not be under the Federal Supreme Court, despite being “already decided.” He also claimed that he will demonstrate a supposed defense curtailment and that the bank reaches the trial “with a load of a part of the population and jurists dealing with a conviction without knowing the case.”
*With information from Estadão Content
