Parliamentarians from the PL bench say that Flávio “made a big mistake” and that he should have informed his allies about his involvement with Vorcaro
After the meeting of the Liberal Party bench with senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) on Tuesday, 19th, a wing of the party sees the promise of accountability for the film “Dark Horse” as a decisive factor in supporting the parliamentarian for the presidency of the Republic, according to evaluations by Estadão/Broadcast (Grupo Estado’s real-time news system).
Flávio told the press that he asked his legal team to account for the amount invested in the film within 30 days. The statements come after the website The Intercept Brasil revealed the negotiation between Flávio and the owner of Banco Master, Daniel Vorcaro, of R$134 million for the biopic of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL). According to reports, R$61 million was transferred.
The disclosure that a contract linked to former deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro and that the fund that received the resources is controlled by his allies was used by government officials to raise the suspicion that at least part of the money involves public resources and was used for his stay in the United States.
Government officials called for investigations into possible irregularities such as money laundering, influence peddling and currency evasion. However, Flávio denies irregularities and says that the fund’s resources did not allow his brother to stay in the American country.
Parliamentarians from the PL bench say that Flávio “made a big mistake” and that he should have informed his allies about his involvement with Vorcaro, so that there would be time to create a defense. They also assess that the senator should have admitted the relationship with the banker when asked about the film hours before the Intercept was revealed.
There is also an assessment that Flávio underestimated the seriousness of his contacts with the owner of Banco Master, as he did not yet have in mind that he would be a pre-candidate for the Presidency of the Republic and because he considered that the businessman had a series of large connections. According to this view, the senator would also have underestimated the possibility that his relationship with Vorcaro would come to light and was wrong to insist on hiding details.
On the other hand, the belief that he convinced part of his supporters that he had no bad intentions in this relationship and that the logic of seeking sponsorship for the film “made sense” counts in favor of Flávio. Continuing to defend the establishment of a commission of inquiry in the National Congress helps.
There is also an assessment that a worse drop in searches was expected, which would not have been proven at least in the AtlasIntel survey. The bet on strong “anti-Lula” sentiment, his father’s blessing and the surname Bolsonaro are elements for an understanding that Flávio remains the most viable candidate to reach the second round.
According to this analysis, the impacts of the revelation on Flávio are divided into the “criminal” and “moral” fields. The criminal field, that is, the possibility that the senator had actually committed offenses in partnership with the banker, would be the most difficult scenario to support him. The moral contradiction, about Flávio having asked Vorcaro for money, is seen as a more manageable difficulty.
The revelations about Bolsonaro’s son also affect parliamentarians from other parties, but who have conservative votes. A relevant member of the Bolsonarist electorate compared the feeling about Flávio to that of fans of a football team: despite harsh criticism, his passion does not allow him to support another club.
For now, actors on the right assess that the pressure on Flávio is greater within politics than among the population, because it is the other parliamentarians, mayors and councilors who are still examining the feasibility of asking Bolsonaro’s son for votes in their strongholds, given the unpredictability of new discoveries.
