Brazil's Bolsonaro rejects coup allegations in final court statement
The lawyers argued late Wednesday that no solid evidence had been presented to prove that Bolsonaro acted against Brazil's democratic institutions or incited others to do so, and said the fact that he allowed the presidential transition to proceed contradicts the basic allegation that he plotted to thwart it. 'This is evidence that eliminates the most essential of the accusatory premises,' they said.
The former president and other defendants were required to present their final arguments by Wednesday. This marks the last procedural step before the trial concludes, which is expected by year's end.
A panel of five Supreme Court justices will now decide whether Bolsonaro and his allies are guilty. If convicted of attempting a coup, Bolsonaro could face up to 12 years in prison. Combined with other charges, he could spend decades behind bars. Even if convicted, Bolsonaro can appeal the decision to the full Supreme Court.
Brazil's top court on elections has already barred the far-right leader from running for office until 2030, ruling that he abused his authority by undermining confidence in the country's electoral system.
Bolsonaro has been under house arrest since Aug. 5. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case, said Bolsonaro violated precautionary measures by spreading content through his three lawmaker sons. Last week, De Moraes eased the restrictions, allowing unrestricted family visits.
The case has gripped Brazil as it navigates a trade dispute with the United States.
Bolsonaro has received support from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called the prosecution a 'witch hunt' and linked his decision to impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports to Bolsonaro's legal troubles.
Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet submitted his final arguments in July, citing extensive evidence of a conspiracy against Brazil's democratic institutions. He said that includes handwritten notes, digital files, message exchanges, and spreadsheets allegedly detailing the plot.
___
Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
6 minutes ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Obama praises Democrats who fled Texas redistricting vote as ‘inspiring'
Former President Barack Obama praised a group of Texas Democratic lawmakers for fleeing their state to stop a vote on a redistricting bill, calling their actions "inspiring," according to reporting. Texas state Rep. Gene Wu, who is chairman of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, posted on X on Thursday, thanking the former president for meeting with the lawmakers via Zoom. Wu said the Democrats were "encouraged" by Obama's words and "remain committed to fighting for democracy, in Texas & across the country." ABC News reported that an Obama spokesperson confirmed the meeting, saying he "lauded their fight against the Republican efforts to enact an even more egregious gerrymander in Texas ahead of the midterms." The spokesperson told the outlet that Obama "made clear that they are part of a bigger effort to protect free and fair elections and commended them for inspiring others with their actions." This comes amid a continued standoff between Texas Republicans and Democrats over an effort backed by President Donald Trump to pass a redistricting bill that would likely give the GOP five additional congressional seats. Over 50 Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives fled the state to deny the legislature the quorum necessary to pass the bill. In response, Texas Republican leaders have filed legal action to compel the AWOL lawmakers to return and have also threatened to remove them from office if they continue refusing to participate in the legislative process. Texas House Democrats released a statement on Thursday in which they announced they will only return to the state if the legislature agrees to adjourn without plans to meet again or if California introduces its own redistricting legislation to "neutralize" the GOP seats gained in Texas. Obama has previously voiced solidarity with the Texas Democrats, saying in an Aug. 5 X post, "We can't lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year's midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy." Wu told ABC News that the Democrats were "especially excited" to have Obama address them via Zoom. "Having President Obama speak with us and support us is proof that when Texas House Democrats stand up and fight back, we don't stand alone -- we have the support of Democrats at every level who understand that when Republicans attack voting rights in Texas, they're attacking the foundation of our democracy everywhere," Wu told the outlet. He said that the meeting was held via Zoom because of "Republican threats." "The fact that we have to meet President Obama from an undisclosed location and via Zoom because of Republican threats and surveillance only proves how desperate Abbott and his extremist allies have become," Wu said. "They know their racial gerrymandering scheme is falling apart, so they're resorting to intimidation tactics. But President Obama's support shows the whole country is watching -- and Texas House Democrats won't be silenced by bullies." On Thursday, California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans to counter the Texas redistricting plan by pushing to have his state redraw its districts to eliminate the Republican seats. In response, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, shot back that if California eliminates all its Republican districts, Texas should do the same, which would leave the GOP with a net gain.
Engadget
36 minutes ago
- Engadget
The Supreme Court lets Mississippi's social media age-verification law go into effect
The Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on one of the many state-level age-verification laws currently being reviewed across the country. Today, the top court chose not to intervene on legislation from Mississippi about checking the ages of social media users, denying an application to vacate stay from NetChoice. The Mississippi law requires all users to verify their ages in order to use social media sites. It also places responsibility on the social networks to prevent children from accessing "harmful materials" and it requires parental consent for minors to use any social media. NetChoice represents several tech companies — including social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube — and it sued to block the law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. A district court ruled in favor of NetChoice, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its temporary block. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the application to vacate stay on the appeals court ruling, he also wrote that "NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members' First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents." He denied the application because NetChoice "has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time." This decision means that, at least for now, Mississippi's law will be allowed to stand. "Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "This is merely an unfortunate procedural delay." There are several other state laws being assessed at various points in the US legal system. Some are centered on adult content providers such as pornography sites , while others are more broadly targeting social media use. Arkansas and Florida have seen federal judges block their laws, while Texas and Nebraska are working toward adopting their own rules about social media for minors. Yahoo, the parent company of Engadget, is a member of NetChoice.
