Brazil's Bolsonaro takes the stand before Supreme Court over alleged coup plan
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro shows his cell phone during his Supreme Court trial as he and others face charges for an alleged coup plot to keep him in office after his 2022 election defeat, in Brasilia, Brazil, Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)
RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro denied participation in an alleged plot to remain in power and overturn the 2022 election result as he testified Tuesday for the first time before the Supreme Court over the charges.
Bolsonaro and seven close allies were being questioned by a panel of top judges as part of a trial over allegations they devised a multistep scheme to keep Bolsonaro in office despite his defeat to current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
'There was never any talk of a coup. A coup is an abominable thing ... . Brazil couldn't go through an experience like that. And there was never even the possibility of a coup in my government,' Bolsonaro said.
The defendants are standing trial on five counts: attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, aggravated damage and deterioration of listed heritage.
A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years. When combined with the other charges, the accused could be sentenced to decades behind bars.
The far-right politician took the stand just after 2:30 p.m. local time. When asked by Justice Alexandre de Moraes at the beginning of questioning whether the accusation was true, Bolsonaro said no.
'The accusation does not hold, Your Excellency,' Bolsonaro said. The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and said he is the target of political persecution.
The eight defendants are accused of making up the plan's core group. Justices are also questioning Bolsonaro's former running mate and defense minister Walter Braga Netto, former ministers Anderson Torres and Augusto Heleno and ex aide-de-camp Mauro Cid, among others.
Judges will hear from 26 other defendants at a later date. The court has already heard from dozens of witnesses in hearings that began in mid-May.
Cid, who has signed a plea bargain with the federal police, told the court on Monday that Bolsonaro read and edited a document that aimed at canceling the election result.
Cid also said that Bolsonaro refused to interfere regarding camps by supporters that were set up in front of army facilities calling for a military intervention after the then-president lost the election.
Many of those followers were later part of the Jan. 8, 2023 riot, when the Supreme Court, Congress and presidential palace in Brasilia, the capital, were ransacked. Police say their uprising — which came after Lula was sworn in — was an attempt to force military intervention and oust the new president.
Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet alleges the riot was one part of a sprawling, antidemocratic scheme to overturn the election result. Part of that plot allegedly included a plan to kill Lula and Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The plan did not go ahead at the last minute because the accused failed to get the army's commander on board, according to Gonet.
Bolsonaro, a former military officer who was known to express nostalgia for the country's past dictatorship, openly defied Brazil's judicial system during his 2019-2022 term in office.
He has already been banned by Brazil's top electoral court from running in elections until 2030 over abuse of power while in office and casting unfounded doubts on the country's electronic voting system.
Thiago Bottino, a law professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a think tank and university, called the trial historic.
'It's the first time we see people accused of an attempted coup are being subjected to a criminal trial, with the guarantees of due criminal process — being able to defend themselves but answering for these accusations,' he said.
Eléonore Hughes, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Toronto Star
a day ago
- Toronto Star
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally.
National Post
a day ago
- National Post
Yuan Yi Zhu: Canada's tasteless, attention-seeking, unproductive chief justice
On Wednesday, Richard Wagner, the chief justice of Canada, gave his annual press conference, intending to talk at length about his manifold achievements throughout the year. But he became visibly uncomfortable when National Post reporter Christopher Nardi asked him why the Supreme Court refuses disclose the identity of the donor of a bust of Wagner that is on display in the lobby of the Supreme Court. Article content Article content The head of what is supposedly 'one of the world's most transparent and accessible apex courts' said that he had no idea who paid for the bust, and claimed that it was put on public display before his retirement at the artist's request (the sculptor has denied this). Article content Article content Article content When pressed on his non-answer, he began to ramble about the pens and ties he's received as token gifts from foreign judges, instead of his bust, which cost around $18,000. Pressed again, he denied even knowing whether the bust was a gift or not. 'I don't know who paid for that, so how can there be a conflict of interest?' he finally said with a contemptuous shrug, his customary bonhomie having all but vanished. Article content Wagner's evident discomfort at the question is understandable. Putting aside the obvious conflicts of interest and ethical problems involved, it is both unprecedented and deeply vulgar for a sitting Canadian judge to have a sculpture of himself in his court's lobby, a decision he must have personally endorsed, and which, as far as I know, has no parallel in any other court in the common law world. Article content Article content Nor is the bust the only instance of the chief justice's seemingly insatiable appetite for personal publicity. Until recently, next to the bust in the lobby was a display featuring documents and photos of his time as administrator of the Government of Canada (the chief justice stands in when there is no governor general), a non-job that Wagner appears determined to publicly memorialize. And visitors to the court's new website are welcomed with a large picture of Wagner, almost three times as big as the one on the old website. Article content
