Brazil's Bolsonaro takes stand, rejects coup charges
The 70-year-old is answering questions from lawyers and judges on his alleged role in a "criminal organization" that plotted to wrest power from leftist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who narrowly beat Bolsonaro at the ballot box in 2022.
The plot only failed, the charge sheet says, for a lack of military backing.
Bolsonaro, a former army captain who governed Brazil from 2019 to 2022, was the sixth of eight accused to take the stand for in-person questioning that started on Monday.
"That's not the case, Your Honor," he replied when asked by Judge Alexandre de Moraes -- an arch political foe -- about "the truthfulness" of the accusations against him.
Bolsonaro and his co-accused risk prison sentences of up to 40 years.
On Monday, his former right-hand man Mauro Cid -- a co-defendant who has turned state's witness -- told the court Bolsonaro had "received and read" a draft decree for the declaration of a state of emergency.
He then "edited" the document, which would have paved the way for measures to "redo the election" and also envisaged the imprisonment of top personalities including Moraes, said Cid.
Cid also testified he had received cash in a wine crate from Bolsonaro's former running mate and defense minister Walter Braga Netto.
The money, say investigators, was to be used to finance an operation by special troops to kill Lula, his vice president Geraldo Alckmin and Moraes.
Apart from Cid, the other co-defendants are four ex-ministers and the former heads of Brazil's navy and intelligence agency.
Most who have taken the stand so far have rejected the bulk of the accusations in the charge sheet.
Two former army commanders have claimed Bolsonaro hosted a meeting where the declaration of a state of emergency was discussed as a means of overturning Lula's election victory.
- 'My conscience is clear' -
Bolsonaro, who is still hoping to make a comeback in 2026 presidential elections despite being barred from running in a separate court ruling, denies all charges.
"They have nothing to convict me, my conscience is clear," the former leader told reporters Monday.
Almir Garnier, who was Navy commander under Bolsonaro, denied the former president had discussed the declaration of a state of emergency with military officials.
"I did not see any document; no document was presented," Garnier testified.
He also denied offering Bolsonaro Navy troops.
Although he has the right to remain silent, the former president previously told reporters he plans to respond "without any problem" to questions from the court.
"It's an excellent idea to speak openly about the coup. I will be very happy to have the opportunity to clarify what happened," he said last week. "It's the moment of truth."
The Supreme Court headquarters in Brasilia was one of the targets of rioting supporters known as "Bolsonaristas" -- who raided government buildings in January 2023 as they urged the military to oust Lula.
Bolsonaro was abroad at the time of this last-gasp effort to keep him in power after the alleged coup planning fizzled.
The trial is the first for an attempted coup under a democratic regime in Brazil.
jss/app/mlr/bgs
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Law scholars say Gov. Abbott's bid to oust Rep. Wu is unprecedented, lacks legal basis
Quorum breaking has a long history in Texas; however, Gov. Greg Abbott's Tuesday petition to the state's Supreme Court is unprecedented and lacks evidence, legal experts tell KXAN. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
"This Isn't About Free Speech": A Right-Wing Movement Is Taking Over Schools, And It's Setting A Terrifying Precedent
Across the United States, more parents are growing concerned as they witness a narrow religious ideology gaining influence over their children's public schools. While some argue that inclusive school curricula are threatening their religious freedom, many others are worried that one belief system is being imposed — dictating not only which books are available in classrooms but who gets to be represented in the school experience. The battle over books, especially those centering LGBTQ+ lives and diverse identities, has become a larger conflict about who controls the definition of American childhood and which values shape that narrative. 'The question emerging in the law right now is: Which parents have rights?' Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor of Rewire News Group, told HuffPost. 'We're seeing the conservative legal movement rally around a narrow vision of parental identity, control, and rights, one that doesn't reflect or include all families.' Education, once a shared public good, is increasingly becoming a battleground. And at the center of it is a Supreme Court case that could have far-reaching consequences: Mahmoud v. Taylor, which challenged the inclusion of LGBTQ+ books in a Maryland school district. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court blocked a Maryland school district's LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum, ruling it posed a 'very real threat' to the religious beliefs of some parents and supporting their right to opt their children out of such instruction. While the ruling doesn't impose a nationwide ban, it opens the door for local challenges that can limit educators' ability to provide diverse and inclusive education. For parents, this means the fight is about whose voices are heard in their communities. Beyond Book Bans, A "Silent Erasure" Is Occurring 'This isn't a book ban case,' explains Kelly Jensen, award-winning author and editor at Book Riot. 'It's a case about education and religious rights. None of the books are being banned or pulled from curricula. The real issue is the chilling effect.' Teachers, already working under immense pressure, may now think twice before including LGBTQ+ books in classrooms, even if those books are age-appropriate and affirming. 'The silent erasure of books, disappearing from shelves without formal challenges, is as insidious as outright bans,' Jensen warns. The ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor didn't change the law outright, but it signaled a cultural shift. One where certain religious beliefs are being elevated above others. The uproar over inclusive books in schools isn't a spontaneous, grassroots movement; it's a carefully coordinated effort. 'These book bans are astroturfed,' Pieklo said. 'They don't bubble up organically in a community because there's overwhelming concern that some inappropriate material has been placed there. These are part of a larger advocacy campaign.' Despite the noise, most families support inclusive curricula and occupy a middle ground, favoring opt-out options for personal or religious objections without imposing blanket bans that restrict access for everyone else. According to Pieklo, these efforts to flood schools with opt-outs are part of a broader conservative legal strategy aimed at undermining public education and controlling what students learn, particularly around race, gender, and history. 'This isn't about free speech or parental choice,' she said. 'It's about using the power of the law to try and direct outcomes.' Religious Freedom For Who? And those outcomes are already changing. The 11th Circuit Court recently upheld a Florida law that prevents teachers from using students' preferred pronouns, mandating that they refer to students only by their sex assigned at birth. The court even ruled that misgendering students is protected speech. The religious justification being used in these cases isn't general, it's specific. 'The ruling essentially says religion is more important than your identity, and not just any religion, but specific types of religious interpretations,' Pieklo explains. In oral arguments for Mahmoud, conservative justices grossly distorted the nature of inclusive books. Justice Neil Gorsuch even described Pride Puppy, a board book about a child attending a Pride parade, as 'a bondage manual for kindergartners.' For many families, the cultural and legal battles over school curricula aren't abstract; they're deeply personal. 'My kids are older now,' Pieklo said, 'but it is very important for me and my family that our children have access to, not just exposure, but access to, books, information, resources, materials that explain not just the world around them but a world they may or may not feel 100% a part of. That helps them understand and navigate shifting understandings of identity.' That sense of wanting children to see and understand the world in its full complexity is shared by other parents across the country. Stephanie, a mother from North Carolina, echoes the importance of broad exposure: 'I'm a Christian and I want my kids to learn about the world as it is, not just through the lens of our faith.' Katie, a public school teacher and parent, said she's horrified by efforts to limit what kids can learn. 'I want my kids to learn as much about the world as they can, and I know I can't teach them everything. I trust that they can handle hearing viewpoints that differ from their own.' That trust in students' ability to think critically is matched by a strong belief in the power of representation. Mindi, a former teacher, reflects on how she would approach things if she were still in the classroom. 'I would have integrated books with secondary characters who identify as LGBTQ — not for 'indoctrination,' but to support my students with other identities. No book bans, ever.' For some, like Denise, a mother in Pennsylvania, the issue goes even deeper — into questions of visibility and belonging. 'I think it's disgusting that LGBTQ+ is being erased from our children's education,' she said. 'These are real people with real and valid ways to love. Taking it out of schools means my kids will always think it's taboo to love who they love.' "We All Lose Something" Underlying all of these perspectives is a shared concern about whose values are shaping what's taught, and whose voices are being silenced. 'When one religious ideology dictates what can be taught, read, or affirmed in public schools, we all lose something,' Pieklo notes. As public schools face funding cuts and increasing pressure, decisions like Mahmoud v. Taylor hand a louder platform to a narrow, often extreme religious agenda that can then shape what every child is allowed to learn, regardless of their own parents' wishes. Though these rulings claim to protect parental rights, some parents feel they frequently silence and disenfranchise those who want their children to see themselves reflected in their education and to understand the rich diversity of the world around them. Megan, a mother of children in public schools, puts it even more bluntly: 'Religion does not belong in schools. I do not enforce or force my beliefs on other people's children. And I'm incredibly not okay with one religion being forced on mine in a 'free' country.' The deeper issue, some parents argue, is the widening gap between well-funded private religious schools and under-resourced public ones. Jensen warns that unless communities push back, this divide will only deepen: 'This ruling might fuel the expansion of voucher programs, pushing public funds toward private religious education,' she said. 'It divides the 'haves' from the 'have-nots.' And it hurts public schools that already struggle for funding.' Megan echoes that concern, pointing to the strain on her children's school, where the teachers' union has had to fight for basics like smaller class sizes and fair pay. 'They deserve help — not funding cuts and more pressure on an already struggling system.' This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Buzz Feed
2 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
The Right-Wing Movement Taking Over Public Schools
Across the United States, more parents are growing concerned as they witness a narrow religious ideology gaining influence over their children's public schools. While some argue that inclusive school curricula are threatening their religious freedom, many others are worried that one belief system is being imposed — dictating not only which books are available in classrooms but who gets to be represented in the school experience. The battle over books, especially those centering LGBTQ+ lives and diverse identities, has become a larger conflict about who controls the definition of American childhood and which values shape that narrative. 'The question emerging in the law right now is: Which parents have rights?' Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor of Rewire News Group, told HuffPost. 'We're seeing the conservative legal movement rally around a narrow vision of parental identity, control, and rights, one that doesn't reflect or include all families.' Education, once a shared public good, is increasingly becoming a battleground. And at the center of it is a Supreme Court case that could have far-reaching consequences: Mahmoud v. Taylor, which challenged the inclusion of LGBTQ+ books in a Maryland school district. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court blocked a Maryland school district's LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum, ruling it posed a 'very real threat' to the religious beliefs of some parents and supporting their right to opt their children out of such instruction. While the ruling doesn't impose a nationwide ban, it opens the door for local challenges that can limit educators' ability to provide diverse and inclusive education. For parents, this means the fight is about whose voices are heard in their communities. 'This isn't a book ban case,' explains Kelly Jensen, award-winning author and editor at Book Riot. 'It's a case about education and religious rights. None of the books are being banned or pulled from curricula. The real issue is the chilling effect.' Teachers, already working under immense pressure, may now think twice before including LGBTQ+ books in classrooms, even if those books are age-appropriate and affirming. 'The silent erasure of books, disappearing from shelves without formal challenges, is as insidious as outright bans,' Jensen warns. The ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor didn't change the law outright, but it signaled a cultural shift. One where certain religious beliefs are being elevated above others. The uproar over inclusive books in schools isn't a spontaneous, grassroots movement; it's a carefully coordinated effort. 'These book bans are astroturfed,' Pieklo said. 'They don't bubble up organically in a community because there's overwhelming concern that some inappropriate material has been placed there. These are part of a larger advocacy campaign.' Despite the noise, most families support inclusive curricula and occupy a middle ground, favoring opt-out options for personal or religious objections without imposing blanket bans that restrict access for everyone else. According to Pieklo, these efforts to flood schools with opt-outs are part of a broader conservative legal strategy aimed at undermining public education and controlling what students learn, particularly around race, gender, and history. 'This isn't about free speech or parental choice,' she said. 'It's about using the power of the law to try and direct outcomes.' And those outcomes are already changing. The 11th Circuit Court recently upheld a Florida law that prevents teachers from using students' preferred pronouns, mandating that they refer to students only by their sex assigned at birth. The court even ruled that misgendering students is protected speech. The religious justification being used in these cases isn't general, it's specific. 'The ruling essentially says religion is more important than your identity, and not just any religion, but specific types of religious interpretations,' Pieklo explains. In oral arguments for Mahmoud, conservative justices grossly distorted the nature of inclusive books. Justice Neil Gorsuch even described Pride Puppy, a board book about a child attending a Pride parade, as 'a bondage manual for kindergartners.' For many families, the cultural and legal battles over school curricula aren't abstract; they're deeply personal. 'My kids are older now,' Pieklo said, 'but it is very important for me and my family that our children have access to, not just exposure, but access to, books, information, resources, materials that explain not just the world around them but a world they may or may not feel 100% a part of. That helps them understand and navigate shifting understandings of identity.' That sense of wanting children to see and understand the world in its full complexity is shared by other parents across the country. Stephanie, a mother from North Carolina, echoes the importance of broad exposure: 'I'm a Christian and I want my kids to learn about the world as it is, not just through the lens of our faith.' Katie, a public school teacher and parent, said she's horrified by efforts to limit what kids can learn. 'I want my kids to learn as much about the world as they can, and I know I can't teach them everything. I trust that they can handle hearing viewpoints that differ from their own.' That trust in students' ability to think critically is matched by a strong belief in the power of representation. Mindi, a former teacher, reflects on how she would approach things if she were still in the classroom. 'I would have integrated books with secondary characters who identify as LGBTQ — not for 'indoctrination,' but to support my students with other identities. No book bans, ever.' For some, like Denise, a mother in Pennsylvania, the issue goes even deeper — into questions of visibility and belonging. 'I think it's disgusting that LGBTQ+ is being erased from our children's education,' she said. 'These are real people with real and valid ways to love. Taking it out of schools means my kids will always think it's taboo to love who they love.' "We All Lose Something" Underlying all of these perspectives is a shared concern about whose values are shaping what's taught, and whose voices are being silenced. 'When one religious ideology dictates what can be taught, read, or affirmed in public schools, we all lose something,' Pieklo notes. As public schools face funding cuts and increasing pressure, decisions like Mahmoud v. Taylor hand a louder platform to a narrow, often extreme religious agenda that can then shape what every child is allowed to learn, regardless of their own parents' wishes. Though these rulings claim to protect parental rights, some parents feel they frequently silence and disenfranchise those who want their children to see themselves reflected in their education and to understand the rich diversity of the world around them. Megan, a mother of children in public schools, puts it even more bluntly: 'Religion does not belong in schools. I do not enforce or force my beliefs on other people's children. And I'm incredibly not okay with one religion being forced on mine in a 'free' country.' The deeper issue, some parents argue, is the widening gap between well-funded private religious schools and under-resourced public ones. Jensen warns that unless communities push back, this divide will only deepen: 'This ruling might fuel the expansion of voucher programs, pushing public funds toward private religious education,' she said. 'It divides the 'haves' from the 'have-nots.' And it hurts public schools that already struggle for funding.' Megan echoes that concern, pointing to the strain on her children's school, where the teachers' union has had to fight for basics like smaller class sizes and fair pay. 'They deserve help — not funding cuts and more pressure on an already struggling system.'
