The Great Debate: Is the STF wrong or right in condemning Eduardo Bolsonaro?
CNN commentator José Eduardo Cardozo and former senator and journalist Ana Amélia Lemos debated, on Tuesday (16), in O Grande Debate (from Monday to Friday, at 11pm), whether "the STF (Supreme Federal Court) is wrong or right in condemning former deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) for coercion during the course of the process?".
The First Panel of the Court unanimously condemned the former federal deputy on Tuesday (16) and understood that he tried to interfere in the trial of his father, Jair Bolsonaro (PL), in the coup plot process, articulating pressure on the STF ministers with the North American government.
Eduardo was sentenced to four years and two months in prison, with the sentence to be served initially in a semi-open regime, in addition to paying a 50-day fine. The decision also makes him ineligible for 12 years, that is, until 2038.
What the case rapporteur said
During the trial, Alexandre de Moraes, case rapporteur, was emphatic in stating that Eduardo Bolsonaro's (PL-SP) conduct went beyond any parliamentary function. "It is not the role of a Brazilian federal deputy to lobby abroad against his own country," he declared.
"This is not included from the Constitution of the Empire to the current one, it is not included as a federal deputy's role", he added.
Debate over the decision
CNN commentator José Eduardo Cardozo defended the decision as strictly correct and, in his assessment, practically indisputable. According to him, Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) recorded videos openly declaring that he was in the United States to pressure the North American government to apply sanctions to Brazil, if the STF did not back down on the conviction of Jair Bolsonaro (PL).
"As a federal deputy, he admittedly articulated sanctions against his own country," said Cardozo. "With what objective? From the perspective of coercing the Judiciary to be more lenient, to have a stance of reviewing those situations that your father was effectively subjected to due to the attempted coup d'état on January 8th", he added.
Cardozo also highlighted that Eduardo Bolsonaro even declared that nothing under Donald Trump's government would be done without going through him and journalist Paulo Figueiredo. For the commentator, this is a clear attempt to coerce Brazilian institutions and violate the country's sovereignty.
"He is a confessed defendant. He declared what he was doing. And by declaring what he was doing, he showed that he was subject to a set of illicit practices that would certainly lead to criminal sanctions", he concluded.
Political consequences of the conviction
Former senator and journalist Ana Amélia Lemos brought a different perspective to the debate, drawing attention to the tone used by Alexandre de Moraes during the trial. According to her, the minister adopted language that he considered more political than strictly legal, when he spoke of "lobbying" instead of sticking to article 344 of the Penal Code.
"The minister used a tone, I would say, political, with less technically legal rhetoric", assessed the journalist.
The former senator also highlighted the possible electoral impacts of the conviction, pointing out that the ineligibility of Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) and other recent episodes - such as issues involving Daniel Vorcaro and the financing of a film about Jair Bolsonaro (PL) - increase what she called "contamination" to the candidacy of Flávio Bolsonaro (PL).
"The right needs to find itself again to avoid greater damage from an electoral point of view", he stated, adding that figures such as Ronaldo Caiado (PSD-GO) and Romeu Zema (Novo) have already made public criticisms of Flávio Bolsonaro's (PL) candidacy.
The texts generated by artificial intelligence on CNN Brasil are made based on video cuts from the newspapers in its programming. All information is investigated and checked by journalists. The final text is also reviewed by the CNN journalism team. Click here to find out more.
Source: CNN