What the trial of Brazil's ex-President Bolsonaro is about, prompting Trump's intervention
The case received renewed attention after President Donald Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on Brazilian imported goods to Bolsonaro's judicial situation, which Trump called a ' witch hunt.'
The Supreme Court's order for Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor, among other restrictions, came after Federal Police and prosecutors said Bolsonaro is a flight risk.
Authorities, listing multiple social media posts, also accused Bolsonaro of working with his son Eduardo to incite the US to interfere in the trial and impose sanctions against Brazilian officials.
On Friday, the US State Department announced visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials, prompting President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva 's to condemn what he called the unacceptable interference of one country in another's justice system.
Here's what you need to know about Bolsonaro's trial:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Team Amritpal to challenge MP's continued detention under NSA in SC
Amritsar: Team Amritpal has decided to challenge the imposition of the National Security Act (NSA) against Khadoor Sahib MP Amritpal Singh for the third time in the Supreme Court . The team also expressed resentment over Amritpal's continued solitary confinement in Assam's Dibrugarh Jail, even as nine other persons who were detained alongside Amritpal at the high-security prison had already been shifted to Punjab. Advocate Imaan Singh Khara, legal counsel for Amritpal Singh, informed that he recently met the Lok Sabha member from Khadoor Sahib at Dibrugarh Jail and following the meeting, they have decided to file a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking protection of Amritpal Singh's fundamental right to personal liberty and quashing of the third NSA order imposed on him. Amritpal Singh's detention under the NSA was extended for the third time on April 23. Imaan Singh also lamented that Amritpal Singh remained in solitary confinement, even as the other detainees had been transferred to different jails in Punjab. Out of the other nine detainees, four have been transferred to Bathinda Jail, three to Patiala Jail, and one each to Amritsar and Ropar jails, he said. It all began in Feb 2023, when Waris Punjab De activists, led by Amritpal Singh, stormed Ajnala police station under the cover of Guru Granth Sahib demanding the release of their associate Lovepreet Singh Toofan. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Are You From Bangladesh? You Might Qualify For AI Courses Artificial Intelligence Course | Search Ad Undo During the incident, which was widely described as an attack on the state, eight police personnel, including a deputy superintendent of police were injured. Such was the attack that the DSP required 18 stitches. In response, the police on March 18, 2023, launched an operation to apprehend Amritpal and after a month-long manhunt, he was finally arrested on April 23, 2023, from Rode village in Moga district. A senior member of the Team Amritpal, meanwhile, informed that Amritpal had not only given consent to contest the ensuing Tarn Taran byelection under the banner of Akali Dal Waris Punjab Dae, but also called upon the people of the constituency to support the party candidate. Sources said the party was still considering Paramjit Kaur Khalra's name for the bypoll and was in touch with the rights activist. Paramjit Kaur, however, in a post on X, had denied contesting any election. "Very soon we will announce our candidate and begin campaigning," said the source. MSID:: 122922747 413 |
Scroll.in
40 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court declines to extend stay on release of ‘Udaipur Files'
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to extend the stay on the release of the Hindi film Udaipur Files, which is reportedly based on the 2022 killing of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal, reported The Indian Express. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Union government's order, which allowed the film to be released with six cuts, according to Live Law. The film was scheduled to be released on July 11. The Delhi High Court had stayed the release on June 10 and directed the Union government to examine the film's content. The Centre recommended that the film should be released with a disclaimer, The Indian Express reported. 'You first go to the High Court, the other side is satisfied with the central government order,' PTI quoted the bench as saying on Friday. 'So, please go to the High Court, why waste our time.' The Supreme Court also clarified that it was not commenting on the merits of the case and said that it was the High Court's domain. It requested the High Court to take up the matter on Monday. In June 2022, Lal, a tailor, was killed in Rajasthan's Udaipur for purportedly sharing a social media post in support of suspended Bharatiya Janata Party Spokesperson Nupur Sharma. She had made disparaging remarks about Prophet Muhammad during a television debate in May 2022. The assailants and several other persons accused in the matter were arrested by the Rajasthan Police. A video showed two men claiming responsibility for the killing of Lal as they brandished the cleavers used in the murder. The murder case was investigated by the National Investigation Agency and the persons accused in the matter were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The trial is underway in a Special NIA Court in Jaipur. The High Court had stayed the release of Udaipur Files while hearing a batch of petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madani, seeking a ban on the film. The petitioners had alleged that the film is communally provocative and vilifies the Muslim community. A day before the order, the Supreme Court had heard a writ petition filed by Mohammed Javed, one of the eight persons accused in the murder case. Javed argued that the release of the film would violate his right to a fair trial. He had sought that the release of the film be postponed until the trial in the matter concluded. The petitioner also argued that the film, based on its trailer, appeared to be communally provocative. In response, the Supreme Court said that the petition could be mentioned before the appropriate bench when the Supreme Court reopened on July 14 after the summer break. It added that the movie could be released in the meantime.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Kangana Ranaut hails government's OTT ban to protect culture and youth
Actress-turned-politician Kangana Ranaut has voiced strong support for the Centre's recent crackdown on OTT platforms accused of streaming sexually explicit content. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has directed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block public access to 25 such platforms, including Ullu, ALTT, Desiflix, and others like Big Shots App, Boomex, Kangan App, and Mojflix. Kangana, known for her outspoken views, lauded the move as necessary to safeguard Indian cultural values and the well-being of future generations. 'In order to preserve the overall culture of our country and the future path of our youngsters, and so that our society does not collapse completely, this step was much awaited and is now much appreciated,' she said. 'The action taken against these apps, especially the illegal ones, is highly appreciated.' The blocked platforms were reportedly in violation of multiple Indian laws, including Section 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; and Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The government has also requested the Department of Telecommunications to ensure swift compliance by the ISPs in disabling these platforms. This decision follows a petition filed in the Supreme Court earlier this year seeking a ban on sexually explicit content on OTT and social media platforms. While the Supreme Court stated that it was not within its domain to act, it emphasized the need for executive intervention—prompting the present move. Ranaut's endorsement adds weight to the cultural debate surrounding digital content regulation in India.
