Brazil's Supreme Court stands firm on Bolsonaro trial despite foreign pressure
De Moraes, who is overseeing the criminal case against Bolsonaro, did not mention the United States or Donald Trump in his remarks, but tensions between the U.S. and Brazil escalated this week.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions against De Moraes for alleged suppression of freedom of expression, and Trump signed an executive order imposing a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods.
The U.S. government cited what it described as the 'political persecution' of Bolsonaro as the reason for its actions. The former president is facing trial for allegedly orchestrating a plot to remain in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The proceedings are in their final stage and, according to De Moraes, are expected to conclude by the end of the year.
'The Supreme Court's procedural schedule will neither be advanced nor delayed,' said De Moraes. 'The court will ignore the sanctions.'
De Moraes received support from Supreme Court President Luís Roberto Barroso and Justice Gilmar Mendes, who spoke before him.
In response to U.S. recent actions, De Moraes emphasized the independence of Brazil's judiciary saying that 'The Supreme Court will always be unwavering in the defense of national sovereignty, in its commitment to democracy and the rule of law, in its commitment to the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional principles of Brazil.'
While justices assembled in the capital, Brasilia, demonstrators gathered outside the U.S. consulate in Sao Paulo, carrying banners defending Brazil's sovereignty and calling on Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stay out of Brazil and Palestine. Organized by unions and social movements, protesters also burned dummies of Trump and Bolsonaro.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
36 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Mayor Brandon Johnson, facing a yawning budget deficit, could be in for a fight with corporate tax proposals
By opening the door to a pair of polarizing corporate taxes, Mayor Brandon Johnson could galvanize a progressive base itching to see him deliver on a campaign promise to 'make the ultra-rich pay their fair share,' but also infuriate business opponents already set on defeating him in 2027. Facing a more than $1 billion deficit and having disavowed a property tax hike, Johnson last week said he would consider the return of a per-employee 'head tax' on businesses or a much bolder payroll expense tax. Either would be a major shot across the bow of the city's corporate class. He told reporters Tuesday his administration would take a serious look at how 'individuals with means, particularly our billionaires and the ultra-rich who have benefited from a growing economy, can put more skin in the game' by contributing to the city's violence reduction and affordable housing efforts. Johnson and his allies described both business taxes as just two of the numerous options the mayor is considering that might eventually be included in his budget proposal this fall. A mayoral working group of business and labor officials, aldermen and administration leaders has been meeting regularly behind closed doors to come up with fresh revenues and efficiencies after Johnson said he won't push a property tax hike for 2026, which had dim prospects of passing the City Council anyway. The mayor's office late last week shared its estimates for what nearly three dozen new or expanded taxes, fees or revenue schemes might raise. The payroll expense idea emerged from a new think tank with ties to Johnson called the Institute for Public Good. Johnson cited figures about Chicago's concentration of millionaires and billionaires from the group's late July report, though the source of those figures has been criticized as unreliable. Launched earlier this year, the nonprofit is led by Julie Dworkin — former head of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless and a leader of the 'Bring Chicago Home' campaign that was a key Johnson initiative — and Ishan Daya, a community organizer who Johnson initially tapped for his budget working group. Daya stepped down from the group after facing backlash over a past video of him tearing down a poster of an Israeli hostage kidnapped by Hamas. He was replaced by Dworkin. In their report, they proposed a new 'corporate excise tax' that would charge businesses with more than $8 million in annual payroll in Chicago. The rate would be 5% of the cost of payroll for employees who earn more than $200,000. The group estimates, based on census data, that the tax could boost the city's annual revenues by $1.5 billion. An Illinois Department of Revenue spokesperson said the agency does not collect information with enough granularity to estimate precisely how many businesses in Chicago have payrolls over $8 million or employees with individual incomes exceeding $200,000. But based on the most recent and complete income data the state does keep, which includes wages but also pension distributions, investment returns and other benefits, just over 93,000 individuals in Chicago in 2022 reported income above $200,000. 'It seemed like the only options floated were having to massively raise property taxes or cut tons of jobs and city services. So we wanted to come up with a third way,' Dworkin said. The tax would be well timed, Dworkin argued, after the 2017 federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the corporate tax rate to a flat 21% rate from a top rate of 35%, and delivered the steepest savings to high earners. Soon after Johnson publicly entertained the excise tax idea, the business community pushed back, suggesting that implementing such a tax would not only deter new business and spur relocations out of the city, but would also be unconstitutional. 'If I'm a business and I'm more mobile or making a decision on whether to come to Chicago, I'm considering what's going on on the local level,' said Jack Lavin, the president of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. With outside business-backed groups such as Common Ground Collective and One Future Illinois already gearing up to oppose progressive proposals, Lavin said the defeat of Bring Chicago Home and Gov. JB Pritzker's graduated income tax shows that the broader business community 'is better positioned' to win the messaging battle with the public. 'I also think taxpayers in general are tired of the constant increase in taxes and (thinking), 'What are we getting out of it?'' Lavin said. But Ald. Anthony Quezada, 35th, a mayoral ally, countered that progressive proposals are popular and that 'folks are tired' of 'nickeling and diming small businesses or homeowners or consumers.' Aldermen largely refused to go along with Johnson's proposed increases to city fines and fees for this year's budget, nixing a garbage collection cost hike and a bump to the alcohol tax, and forcing the mayor to completely abandon a property tax hike. They did agree to add parking and plastic bag charges, and went along with the mayor's additional speed cameras to help close the deficit. This year, most aldermen concede they must pair any new revenue with some cuts or efficiencies. It's not only a political necessity to win over the public, but a fiscal reality that neither cuts nor revenues alone could fill the gap. According to a memo distributed to aldermen Thursday and provided to the Tribune, city officials estimated a garbage fee increase could net anywhere from $19.6 million to just under $300 million, depending on the rate. The city's current garbage collection program, which charges $9.50 a month per dwelling unit, runs a $160 million deficit. But for some aldermen, increasing that charge could cause more of a political uprising than raising the property tax levy. An additional liquor tax could bring in between $30 million and $90 million, according to the memo, while charging the sales tax rate on services like haircuts or accounting would net between $78 million and $305 million, but would require a state law change. Charging tax on online sports bets could bring in between $8.5 million and $17 million, the memo notes. The administration did not endorse any specific proposal. Ernst & Young is also looking for ways the city can recover the costs of hosting special events and changes to city fines and fees 'to promote fairness and revenue generation.' Johnson touted a midyear budget report released Wednesday as 'a clear turning point' for city finances, pointing to stabilizing revenues and a drop in operating costs. A day later, his administration enacted a hiring freeze 'to manage costs responsibly and support core service delivery,' according to a memo shared with the Tribune. The new hiring freeze follows a similar cost-cutting measure used by the city last year. It allows for hiring in many revenue-generating and safety-related roles, but suspends non-essential travel and overtime for non-public safety jobs. While Quezada said he wanted time to vet the institute's corporate tax proposal, he appreciated efforts to find money to continue investing in violence prevention, mental health and affordable housing, rather than searching for cuts. 'We really need to shift the narrative away from austerity and decay to growth and investment. Progressive revenue streams like this, bold ideas like this, start a really productive conversation,' Quezada told the Tribune. The institute's pitch is modeled after Seattle's JumpStart 2020 payroll expense tax but the group roughly doubled the highest rate there to come up with its tax dollar estimates for Chicago. Today, Seattle charges businesses with payroll expenses over $8.8 million and at least one employee earning more than $189,000. The tax is applied to the total annual compensation paid in Seattle. Rates range between 0.7% and 2.557%, depending on total payroll. JumpStart brought in $293 million in its first year and $360 million in 2024. The tax is expected to bring in $430 million this year and $451.5 million next. Grocers and independent contractors are exempt. But the tax there can be subject to significant swings: Seattle's budget office said about 70% of revenues from the tax are paid by just 10 companies. Most are in the tech sector, making returns especially volatile during layoffs or stock market fluctuations, 'since stock grants represent a notable share of total compensation for technology workers.' Dworkin said McDonald's, Mondelez, United Airlines, as well as major local banks, law and real estate development firms would likely be the ones to pay here. JumpStart passed following a yearslong push to tax Amazon. It garnered significant pushback from the city's Chamber of Commerce — including a lawsuit — and other downtown business groups that argued the charge was an income tax 'masquerading as an excise tax.' Like Chicago, Seattle is constitutionally barred from charging its own income tax. JumpStart backers successfully argued the program isn't an income tax because businesses were barred from passing the tax onto employees, and the chamber dropped its appeal in the summer of 2022. Collections continued throughout the court fight. Lavin and others predicted a similar Chicago tax, if passed, would end up in court. 'It's an income tax, so I don't think it's constitutional; it certainly will be litigated,' Lavin said. The mayor's office told the Tribune it is conducting a legal analysis of the institute's proposal and different potential iterations. A far more modest proposal — which is nevertheless also receiving business pushback — is returning the corporate head tax. Nixed by the Chicago City Council under former Mayor Rahm Emanuel in 2011, Johnson said Tuesday the idea was back on the table. Back before it was scuttled, companies with 50 or more employees who earned at least $4,300 every three months were required to pay a $4-a-month tax for each of those workers. The juice from the head tax may not be worth the squeeze for Johnson: The city estimates charging $5 per employee today would net just over $25 million, which wouldn't put a significant dent in a $1 billion deficit. Johnson said the administration has also 'been looking at' a PILOT, or payment in lieu of taxes, program, as well as a digital ad tax. PILOT programs seek to get nonprofit entities like hospitals, universities, religious and cultural organizations that don't pay property taxes to voluntarily contribute to city coffers. One of the country's most successful PILOT endeavors is in Boston, which by 2023 raised $35.7 million in cash contributions. But Boston's success took years to build up and relied on individual negotiations with entities. Replicating that in Chicago would not only take time, but it is complicated by federal funding cuts hitting hospitals and universities. Despite the initial opposition from the city's business community, longtime Chicago media and political consultant Delmarie Cobb said the mayor could have success with the suite of progressive taxes. 'I think, if the mayor presents it correctly, that progressives will get behind it because this is the kind of creative thinking that we have been asking for,' she said. Emanuel 'didn't get rid of (the head tax) because he cared about poor people, he did it so his rich friends would feel good about him,' Cobb said. Progressives 'need to have that same kind of aggressive thinking and action when it comes to generating money and making sure that the people who suffer the most as a result of it aren't the people that can afford it the least.'
San Francisco Chronicle
36 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Britain hopes a crackdown on people-smugglers' social media ads will help curb Channel crossings
LONDON (AP) — Britain says people who advertise fake passports or people-smuggling services on social medial could face up to five years in prison, in the government's latest effort to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats. The government said Sunday that anyone convicted of creating online materials intended to break U.K. immigration law will face prison time and a large fine. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the aim was to stop the 'brazen tactics on social media' used by smuggling gangs. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the U.K. and a life in this country — whether on or offline — simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral,' she said. Assisting illegal immigration to the U.K. is already a crime, but officials believe a new offense — part of a border security bill currently going through Parliament — will give police and prosecutors more powers to disrupt gangs that send migrants on perilous journeys across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the crime gangs are a threat to global security and should be treated like terror networks. Since taking office a year ago, Starmer's center-left Labour Party government has adopted powers to seize the assets of people-smugglers, beefed up U.K. border surveillance and increased law-enforcement cooperation with France and other countries to disrupt the journeys. Despite that, more than 25,000 people have reached Britain by boat so far this year, an increase of 50% on the same period in 2024. Small boat crossings have become a potent political issue, fueled by pictures of smugglers piling migrants into overcrowded, leaky inflatable boats on the French coast. Opposition parties say the government's plans aren't working — though the government argues the problems built up during 14 years when the Conservative Party was in power, The Conservatives say Starmer should not have scrapped the previous government's contentious and expensive plan to send migrants arriving by boat on a one-way trip to Rwanda. 'This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing,' Conservative immigration spokesman Chris Philp said. The government says it will take time to clear a backlog of applications that has left thousands of migrants stuck in temporary accommodation — often hotels — without the right to work.
Los Angeles Times
36 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Will Trump weaken the federal judiciary with specious accusations against judges?
Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who shows more fealty to President Trump than to the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold, filed a complaint against the only federal judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the government for defying his orders. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, she alleged, had undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by making 'improper public comments' about Trump to a group of federal judges that included Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. What is Boasberg alleged to have said? No transcript has emerged, but according to Bondi's complaint, at a March session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Boasberg is alleged to have expressed 'a belief that the Trump Administration would 'disregard rulings of the federal courts' and trigger 'a constitutional crisis.' ' The Judicial Conference is the perfect place to air such concerns. It is the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, and twice a year about two dozen federal judges, including the Supreme Court chief justice, meet to discuss issues relevant to their work. Recently, for example, they created a task force to deal with threats of physical violence, which have heightened considerably in the Trump era. But nothing that happens in their private sessions could reasonably be construed as 'public comments.' 'The Judicial Conference is not a public setting. It's an internal governing body of the judiciary, and there is no expectation that what gets said is going to be broadcast to the world,' explained former U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who spent seven years as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, a kind of think tank for the judiciary. I reached out to Fogel because he is part of a coalition of retired federal judges — the Article III Coalition of the nonpartisan civic education group Keep Our Republic — whose goal is to defend the independence of the judiciary and promote understanding of the rule of law. Bondi's complaint accuses Boasberg of attempting to 'transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would violate court orders.' You know how they say that every accusation is a confession in Trump World? A mere four days after Boasberg raised his concerns to fellow federal judges, the Trump administration defied his order against the deportation of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador. You probably remember that one. A plane carrying the deportees was already in the air, and despite the judge's ruling, Trump officials refused to order its return. 'Oopsie,' tweeted El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele after it landed. 'Too late!' Thus began the administration's ongoing pattern of ignoring or flouting the courts in cases brought against it. It's not as if the signs were not there. 'He who saves his Country does not violate any law,' Trump wrote on social media in February, paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte, the dictatorial 19th century emperor of France. In June, Erez Reuveni, a career Department of Justice attorney who was fired when he told a Maryland judge the government had deported someone in error, provided documents to Congress that implicated Emil Bove, Trump's one-time criminal defense attorney, in efforts to violate Boasberg's order to halt the deportation of the Venezuelans. According to Reuveni's whistleblower complaint, Bove, who was acting deputy attorney general at the time, said the administration should consider telling judges who order deportations halted, 'F— you.' Bove denied it. And last week, even though other Justice Department whistleblowers corroborated Reuveni's complaint, Bove was narrowly confirmed by the Senate to a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge. 'The Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,' wrote Bondi in her complaint against Boasberg. This is laughable. A July 21 Washington Post analysis found that Trump and his appointees have been credibly accused of flouting court rulings in a third of more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling. The cases have involved immigration, and cuts to the federal funding and the federal work force. That record suggests, according to the Post, 'widespread noncompliance with America's legal system.' Legal experts told the Post that this pattern is unprecedented and is a threat to our system of checks and balances at a moment when the executive branch is asserting 'vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.' It's no secret that Trump harbors autocratic ambitions. He adores Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán, who has transformed the Hungarian justice system into an instrument of his own will and killed off the country's independent media. 'It's like we're twins,' Trump said in 2019, after hosting Orbán at the White House. Trump has teased that he might try to seek an unconstitutional third term. He de-legitimizes the press. His acolytes in Congress will not restrain him. And now he has trained his sights on the independent judiciary urging punishment of judges who thwart his agenda. On social media, he has implied that Boasberg is 'a radical left lunatic,' and wrote, 'This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!' Some of Trump's lapdogs in the House immediately introduced articles of impeachment (which are likely to go nowhere). Roberts was moved to rebuke Trump: 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' he said in a statement. 'The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' Some described his words as 'stern.' I found them to be rather mild, considering the damage Trump's rhetoric inflicts on the well-being of judges. 'It's part of a longer term pattern of trying to … weaken the ability of the judiciary to put checks on executive power, ' Fogel told me. He is not among those who think we are in a constitutional crisis. Yet. 'Our Constitution has safeguards in it,' Fogel said. 'Federal judges have lifetime tenure. We are in a period of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has given the executive a lot of leeway, but I don't think it's unlimited.' I wish I shared his confidence. Bluesky: @rabcarianThreads: @rabcarian
