The oral support of the former president’s judgment (PL) and seven other defendants for attempted coup d’état were marked by the counterpoint between the bachelor’s degree, who cited at least 27 authors to support his vote, the incisive rhetoric of repetition of the term “criminal organization” more than a hundred times, and the most succinct votes of, and, which resorted to poetry.
A textual analysis of the votes of the five ministers of the Supreme First Class shows that, in general, the most frequent and common words to the speeches have a direct connection with the five crimes judged: attempted coup, abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, armed criminal organization, damage qualified to public assets and deterioration of overturned heritage.
Analysis of Sheet He used artificial intelligence to transcribe all the speeches of the judgment, which were later revised, and programming language to do the analysis and counting of words and characters of the voting presentations of each of the ministers, disregarding the excerpts in which they were interrupted by the peers.
The vote of rapporteur Alexandre de Moraes, who opened the trial, lasted 4h50 and recorded a volume of words superior to José de Alencar’s novel “Iracema”. It was the second longest speech, behind Fux, whose support lasted 11:30 am, more than 13h considering the intervals.
Moraes commented on his legal piece and often used (at least 15 times) the resource of repetition, a way to emphasize his arguments, especially when he paraphrased the main defendant, Jair Bolsonaro. Besides being the minister who most mentioned the name of the former president, he also reinforced the idea that the defendants’ action configured a criminal organization.
By citing one of Bolsonaro’s incriminating phrases, when he said he owed loyalty to the Brazilian people and could organize a “concentration on Paulista Avenue to give a last message [ao então presidente do , ministro Luís Roberto Barroso]”In 2021, Moraes reinforces the phrase” last message “four times, and amendment:” last message threatening, not for the first time and, unfortunately, not for the last time, the free functioning of the judiciary. “
In reaffirming the effectiveness of the defendant’s denunciation, Moraes also repeated successive times that defendants’ defenses acted with bad faith in trying to confuse eight successive testimonials with eight different allegations.
“This was repeatedly said here, as if it were a truth. This, with all due respect, verges on the litigation of bad faith. This is bordering on bad faith litigation, to say that the first eight testimonials were eight contradictory allegations. Or the total ignorance of the case, did not read the case, or border litigation in bad faith.” He returns to the subject later: “Neither eight, nor nine, nor 14 allegations, I repeat, this borders on bad faith litigation.”
Flávio Dino had the most lean speech among the members of the First Class. According to the minister to vote, he supported the rapporteur’s vote regarding the conviction of the eight defendants, but made a caveat, arguing that Alexandre Ramagem, Augusto Heleno and Paulo Sérgio Nogueira had a lower participation in the plot. Its defense, therefore, has more quotes to branch than Bolsonaro or Mauro Cid, who head like the defendants most referenced by the other members of the.
He spared quotes in his oral support. He referred to other ministers, such as Moraes, Dias Toffoli and Gilmar Mendes, based on the argument in the Constitution and in jurisprudence, and gave way to a text by German philosopher and politician Karl Loewenstein, on protective legislation of democracy.
“I will not tire them with readings, but only two excerpts from Loewenstein: disobedience to constituted authorities,” I read into free translation, “naturally becomes violence, and violence becomes a new source of emotionalism. Conflicts with the state, inevitable when this phase of active aggressiveness is achieved, increases the common feeling of persecution, martyle, and dangerous life, so closely related to legalized violence as if it were a war, “he said.
Luiz Fux, the only minister to acquit Bolsonaro, made a longer presentation in words than Machadian novels or “Os Lusíadas”, by Luís de Camões. He made some comments, but took most of his time in reading a support of more than 480 pages, in which he used more than 27 bibliographic references – from Seneca, alluding to the right of broad defense, Italian jurists Giuseppe Chiovenda, Luigi Ferrajoli and Cesare Beccaria.
It was also the minister who most resorted to Latin, with a wide range of terms: “Person”, “perpetuation of the jurisdiction”, “in doubt for the society”, “no one is bound to the long”, “lides”, “vênia” “thought”among others.
“Thought“, from Latin”think“It is an expression linked to the act of thinking, and Fux uses the term to justify that the defendants could not be condemned for” intellectual creation, maturation, deliberation and discussion of the plane “of the coup.
“In any case, as Aníbal Bruno, in his general part of criminal law, precedes criminal thoughts and desires, object, although appreciation under religious or moral criterion, escape the consideration of punitive law. no one suffers punishmentthat is, no one can be punished by the cogitation, “read Fux.
Dissonant in form and content, fux’s sustenance has been the target of ironies and indirect from colleagues. The dean of the first class, Cármen Lúcia, said that he brought to the plenary his printed vote, but would not need to read it (like Fux), just comment it. Dino took the opportunity to play: “If you have the electronic vote, you don’t need printed vote, right?” The president of the TSE and the only woman of the Supreme said, then, that she liked paper and pen.
Carmen was economical in the quotes and resorted to Afonso Romano Santana, citing the poem “What country is this?”, Victor Hugo, Machiavelli and historians Heloisa Starling and Carlos Fico. It also spared nominal citations to the defendants. His speech had comic passages, as when he said he heard a suggestion for Alexandre de Moraes to make facial harmonization, and feminists when he granted the floor to Dino pondering that it was fast “because we women were two thousand years silent, we want to have the right to speak.”
Zanin was the last to read his vote, who condemned the eight defendants. He cited ministers, when dealing with jurisprudence, and at least five jurists and indoctrinators, such as Claus Roxin, Beatriz Camargo and Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio.
