It cannot be denied that the (Federal Supreme Court) which is not only historical, but full of complex legal issues. Part of (PL) is within this game and tries to use the letter of the law to remove the acts and conduct of the former president of a framing that can take him to prison.
They argue, for example, that, although the law, in Bolsonaro’s case, even if the accusations are accepted as true, there would be “attempt to attempt at an attempt at most. It also reflect that there was violence or serious threat in their conduct, as required by the law by which he is accused.
What seems out of place, however, is the attempt of his lawyers to paint a painting in which the end of the Bolsonaro government would have occurred in total normality. Its defense ignores, for example, the way of the then president, in the final stretch of his term, encouraged his supporters who manifested themselves across the country and asked for military intervention.
This Wednesday (3), Paulo Amador da Cunha Bueno, who divided oral support with his colleague Celso Vilardi, said: “The president’s later acts were totally focused on discouraging his supporters and voters to any form of non-recognition of President Lula’s electoral victory.”
He highlighted, as arguments, the passage of command of the Armed Forces, held before the end of 2022, and that the transition would have occurred peacefully.
Before him, Vilardi had pointed out that after the elections the former president made one. Generally speaking, he argued that if Bolsonaro wanted social chaos, as the PGR (Attorney General of the Republic) claims, such a request would not make sense.
The defense did not mention, on the other hand, how uncommon were the weeks that followed the second round of the election, since the first 45 hours after the end of the investigation, marked by the complete silence of the then president – that, did not explicitly recognize the defeat.
Nor did he cite or explained the context of the, when, in front of the Dawn Palace, he told his supporters: “Today we are living a crucial moment.”
“Who decides where the Armed Forces are you. Who decides where the House, the Senate, are you too,” he said on the date – which, according to the complaint of the PGR, the joints by an alternative to reverse the result of the elections.
If the defense is right to point out that there is, it must be said of its strategy.
In a leap, the president’s examples of speech discouraging his supporters seem to go from speech to truckers in early November to Bolsonaro before leaving the country towards the United States.
At the time, the then president said he did not have “everything or nothing”, that Brazil was not going to “end” in January 1st “and that it did not encourage the confrontation. And also defended, as Cunha Bueno said, respect” to laws and the constitution “.
Although this stretch was not remembered by his lawyers, in this same broadcast, Bolsonaro admitted that it had been “difficult to stay silent two months working to seek alternatives.” He also added that he had sought only “within the four lines, within the laws, respecting the Constitution.”
The measure used by Bolsonaro from what would fit these four lines, but it seems to be different from that adopted by the Supreme Court.
