&w=3840&q=100)
Brazilian ex-President echoes Trump, calls coup plot trial 'witch hunt'
The evidence is clear: the defendant acted systematically, throughout his mandate and after his defeat at the polls, to incite insurrection and the destabilization of the democratic rule of law, Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet said in a 517-long page document released late Monday.
Bolsonaro is accused of seeking to overturn the 2022 election in which he was defeated by a left-wing rival.
All the accusations are false. I never violated democracy or the constitution, Bolsonaro said on X hours before Gonet submitted his final report. The ex-president said that the trial was a witch hunt, echoing a term used by US President Donald Trump when he came to his South American ally's defense last week.
The prosecution accuses Bolsonaro of leading an armed criminal organization, attempting to stage a coup and attempting violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, aggravated damage and deterioration of listed heritage.
The defence will present its case shortly. Then the panel of Supreme Court justices that opened a trial against the former leader will vote on whether to convict or acquit him. Experts expect that to happen in the second half of the year.
A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years. A conviction on that and other charges could bring decades behind bars.
The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and asserted that he's the target of political persecution. A lawyer for Bolsonaro didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Last week, Trump imposed a 50% import tax on Brazil, directly tying the tariffs to Bolsonaro's trial. The U.S. president has hosted the former Brazilian president at his Mar-a-Lago resort when both were in power in 2020. Last week, he compared the Brazilian's situation to his own.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump repeated the claim that the trial is a witch hunt.
Bolsonaro is not a dishonest man, he said. Nobody is happy with what Brazil is doing because Bolsonaro was a respected president. Trump added that Bolsonaro isn't a friend, but someone he knows.
Gonet formally charged Bolsonaro and 33 others in February in connection with an alleged coup days after President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva took office.
Gonet said Bolsonaro's actions were not limited to a passive stance of resistance to defeat, but were a conscious effort to create an environment conducive to violence and a coup. He added that the criminal organization documented almost all of the actions described in the indictment through recordings, handwritten notes, digital files, spreadsheets and exchanges of electronic messages.
The prosecution is also seeking convictions for several close allies of Bolsonaro, including his running mate during the 2022 election and former defense minister, Walter Braga Netto, ex-Justice Minister Anderson Torres and his aide-de-camp Mauro Cid.
Brazil's Supreme Court president, Justice Lus Roberto Barroso, said that the US sanctions a reference to Trump's tariffs are based on an inaccurate understanding of events.
For those who didn't live through a dictatorship or don't remember one, it's worth remembering: there was a lack of freedom, torture, forced disappearances, the closure of Congress, and the persecution of judges. In today's Brazil, no one is persecuted, Barroso said.
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 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.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Trump Birthright Order Blocked Again in Fresh Legal Setback
President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked nationwide for the third time in less than a month, the latest sign that a US Supreme Court decision restricting 'universal injunctions' is having little impact on the dispute. The injunctions set up what is likely to be yet another set of appeals that could reach the Supreme Court, which has largely backed Trump in his broad crackdown on immigration. The justices haven't yet taken up the question of whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is constitutional. A federal judge in Boston ruled on Friday that an injunction pausing Trump's order nationwide is the only way to offer full protection to the Democratic-led states the filed the suit. The judge said his actions are in line with the Supreme Court's findings. US Judge Leo Sorokin said in his ruling that he could not narrow his injunction in part because Justice Department lawyers hadn't offered useful details about how such a ruling would work. 'With stakes this high, the court simply cannot adopt the defendants' blasé approach to the details and workability of a more limited injunction,' the judge said. A nationwide injunction protecting all affected babies was granted in a class-action suit in New Hampshire on July 10, while a federal appeals court this week upheld a similar block in a suit brought by four Democratic-led states. The new ruling comes in a suit brought by 18 states. A judge in a separate class-action suit is weighing another potential injunction. The Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: QuickTake Trump's order would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a loophole that encourages illegal immigration. Trump's order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can't issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued. Sorokin held a hearing on the matter earlier this week. The Supreme Court's opinion, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn't stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president's birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed. In their request to maintain a nationwide injunction, the Democratic-led states said the Supreme Court's finding on so-called universal injunctions 'has no bearing on this case.' The states argue that a nationwide injunction is the only way to prevent harm that they say would be caused by allowing the executive order to take effect in some states, creating a chaotic patchwork of citizenship. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
2 women get 12-year rigorous imprisonment for heroin possession
Ludhiana: A local court sentenced two women drug peddlers, who are siblings, to 12-year rigorous imprisonment each for possession of around 1kg heroin. Special court judge Harvinder Singh also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on the two convicts. In default of payment of the fine, they will have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. On July 6, 2020, STF Phase Four, Mohali, police station booked Kiran Bala of Chuharpur, now a tenant at Mohalla Durgapuri, and Suman Bala of the same area, under the NDPS Act for possession of the contraband. As per the prosecution, on that date, SI Gurcharan Singh and a police party at Jassian Road area of Haibowal, received information that the sisters were to supply heroin to a customer from their house in Durgapuri. Later, the police party apprehended the duo riding a scooter driven by Kiran Bala. Upon checking, a large black polythene bag containing heroin was recovered. Police filed a case and arrested them. During trial, the accused pleaded false implication and stated that nothing was recovered from them. The defence counsel contended that the alleged independent witness, Ismile alias Yusuf, who allegedly witnessed the recovery, was not examined by the prosecution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Elin Nordegren Show Off Her Huge Size In New Vacation Photos 33 Bridges Undo In the absence of his testimony, statements of official witnesses could not be believed. The court didn't find force in the submission of the defence counsel and held, "It is now settled law that the testimony of police officials is as good as that of independent witnesses. The statements of police officials cannot be discarded merely because of the colour of their office. Whenever the case of the prosecution is based only on the statements of police officials, the only precaution for the court is to scrutinise their testimony with some more care and caution. " The court also turned down the submission of the accused about false implication in the case. The court observed that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and in view of the facts, possession of the accused is fully proved on record, and they failed to give a satisfactory explanation for that. "Moreover, there appears to be no justification for the police to falsely implicate the accused, from whose possession a huge quantity of contraband was recovered. It is highly improbable that such a huge quantity of intoxicant material would be arranged by the police officials in order to falsely implicate the accused," the court remarked. MSID:: 122902813 413 |
