The Minister and the Attorney General of the Republic, opened the judgment of () in the (Federal Supreme Court) defending punishments for the coup plot. Meanwhile, outside the court, parties accelerated the joints by an amnesty and managed to make the mayor (Republicans-PB), admit the possibility of voting a project that could rid the former president of prison. The movement of the center and opposition tries to put (Republicans), governor of São Paulo, as a candidate in 2026.
The first day of sessions, on Tuesday (2), was mainly marked by an unexpected statement by Moraes, which was political. He broke the pattern of starting the judgment by reading the report, which is a descriptive summary of the process, and, besides sending messages against the US fees and the US joints.
Bolsonaro did not participate in the trial for medical reasons, according to his lawyers. The only defendant to appear was the former defense minister.
“The pacification of the country depends on the respect for the constitution, the application of laws and the strengthening of institutions, and there is no possibility of confusing the healthy and necessary pacification with the cowardice of appeasement, which means impunity and disrespect for the Constitution. And more: it means encouraging new attempts to coup,” he said.
The formal manifestation of the prosecution, presented by the (Attorney General’s Office), also highlighted the argument that the punishment of the accused is necessary, with the aim of avoiding the deterioration of democracy.
“Do not criminally repress attempts of this order [golpista]as they show actually and abroad reports, it recruits ketches of authoritarianism and endangers the model of civilized life, “said Gonet. The participation of the attorney general was marked by more emphatic statements than in previous phases of the process, but also by the use of complex legal vocabulary.
With the probable arrest of Bolsonaro, leaders of large parties accelerate the articulation to support an amnesty proposal that includes not only those convicted of involvement in January 8 attacks, but also the former president.
In this scenario, Bolsonaro would not be arrested, but would remain ineligible, since the ban on disputing by 2030 was imposed in action, which would not be reached by amnesty.
While the Supreme Court judged Bolsonaro, and announced support for an amnesty proposal. The two parties, which to the Government (PT), are interested in supporting the candidacy of Governor Paulista Tarcisio to the Presidency of the Republic in 2026, as Bolsonaro’s successor.
Rather resistant to guide the amnesty to the accused of coup, the president of stated that. “Let’s talk more. […] Increased the number of leaders asking for, “said Motta.
One of the arguments used by amnesty advocates is that this would be a step towards the country’s pacification – Dead rejected by Moraes, since the punishments would be extinguished.
With the support of Centrão, other guidelines also advanced in Congress. In the Senate, they were approved and a. Already in the House, the parties triggered an offensive to approve one.
Also during the first day of judgment, the opposition brought to Congress the former advisor of (Superior Electoral Court) Eduardo Tagliaferro, character of reports of Sheet who showed that Moraes acted outside the rite to investigate pockets. At a Senate hearing, he said Gonet also acted with Moraes to justify a lawsuit against entrepreneurs.
In the Supreme Court, Moraes used the opening speech of the trial to criticize attempts to interference that marked the last weeks of the process. He made an indirect reference to the performance of Deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) in the US and the sanctions applied by the government of.
“This is the role of the Federal Supreme Court: judging impartially and applying justice to each of the concrete cases, regardless of threats or coercions, ignoring internal or external pressures,” he said.
“Regrettably, in the course of this criminal action, the existence of straightforward and aware conduct of a true criminal organization that, in a way never seen before in our country, began to act in a cowardly and treacherous manner for the purpose of trying to coerce the judiciary and, in particular, this Supreme Federal Court and submit the functioning of the Court to another foreign state.”
On the first day of trial, the PGR presented its final accusation against the defendants, based on three main points: the idea that the crime of attempted coup d’état was consumed, even if the coup was not completed; the reference to episodes of threat of use of force, with the incitement of the involvement of the Armed Forces; and the argument that the process has evidence that goes beyond the lieutenant colonel’s denunciation.
The three points are some of the main flanks explored by lawyers seeking the defendants’ acquittal. Almost everyone claims that there is no crime in discussing a possible state of exception, rejecting the accused’s involvement in the attacks of January 8 and argue that he is commensurate with Cid’s denunciation.
Gonet pointed to the existence of crime in the joints for the attempted coup. “When the President of the Republic and then the Minister of Defense call the military summit to present a document of formalization of coup, the criminal proceedings are already underway,” he said.
The attorney general also cited episodes of “threatened and practiced violence” by referring to the PRF () blitzes during the Bolsonaro elections and meeting with the armed forces chiefs.
He also pointed out that the coup plot’s complaint “was not based on conjectures or fragile assumptions,” cited evidence collected by and said that “the members of the criminal organization themselves made a point of documenting almost all phases of the contract.”
Also on this first day, the. The defense of Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid, whistleblower in the process, requested the maintenance of the benefits offered to the military during the process and stated that.
The lawyer stated that against the former head of (Brazilian Intelligence Agency). Almir Garnier’s lawyer (former Navy Commander) made a defense of freedom of expression, and the defense of (former Minister of Justice) said he in the process.
