Bolsonaro is gone; Fux, the new Heitor – 06/29/2023 – Reinaldo Azevedo

As I write, former candidate for dictator Jair Bolsonaro —I belong to the open air of the democratic State and the rule of law (I insist on the connection)— is heading towards ineligibility, in an ongoing trial at the TSE, by 3 votes to 1. It is reasonable to assume a score of five to two against the rogue (no bows here). A “4 to 3” is enough for the constitutional determination, expressed in Article 85, to be fulfilled, according to which the representative commits a crime when he violates the free exercise of the Powers of the Republic. “Fiat lux, fiat lex”. Let there be light through the fulfillment of the law.

“Ah, Azevedo’s lawyer! Such a device concerns crimes of responsibility”. This amateur —who, after all, is the one who loves— of the laws and the Constitution knows that at least. It turns out that he learned from the professionals, the good ones, that the legal system is not salami that can be eaten in slices. The systematic interpretation of the norm tells us that “the whole without the part is not the whole, the part without the whole is not part”, as a Bahian poet wrote.

The abuse of political power and the undue use of the means of communication, perpetrated by the said-whose, are the transgressions pertaining to the Electoral Justice. The bottom line is to know which general values ​​were attacked in a specific area, namely: the meeting with ambassadors on July 18 last year, at the Alvorada Palace. He used means that only the representative could mobilize, with an unequivocal aim: to violate the rules of the game and the judges who certify its health, inculcating distrust in the system in followers and unsuspecting people through lies and unfounded assumptions.

Bolsonaro has a good defender, Tarcísio Vieira, but he has no defense, and the doctor knows that. His thesis affronts the facts, the meaning of the words and the expressed will of his client. Without contesting the lawyer’s prerogative to propose an alternative reading of the events that led his client to the dock, I note that the preacher’s thesis demands from the listener the opposite of what another Vieira, the priest, asked in his sermons: we would have to compete for your success with ignorance, not with understanding.

I refrain from listing here, because they are everywhere, the lies told by the then president at that meeting and the unequivocal effort to prevent the election a month and a half after it took place. But Vieira, not the priest, won the heart, I don’t know if the reason, of Minister Raul Araújo. He did not contest the typical conduct of the defendant. He limited himself, when voting for acquittal, to pointing out the ineffectiveness of his crimes, in contrast to the efficiency of the Electoral Justice. With such a thesis, a school of law can be founded: only successful criminals are liable to punishment.

Thus, a scammer would always do well. If successful, he would seize power and punish the Democrats; if unsuccessful, he would be guaranteed impunity on account of his incompetence. It would be a small step for jurisprudence, but a giant leap for barbarism. I will dedicate myself to other votes of Araújo in the STJ, his court of origin. Is it the first time to make such a singular judgment?

And since we are talking here about laws and Justice, I comment on the vote of Minister Luiz Fux, of the STF, against the guarantees judge. He asserted that the proponents of such a civilizing advance (the scribe’s opinion) are like the Greeks, lashed on horseback at the gates of Troy, ready to invade the fortress of the Judiciary by trickery. He said: “Unlike the Trojans, who were sacrificed, we have a duty to fulfill the oath we took to defend our judiciary because our defeat means the victory of impunity.”

It evokes, as it reads, a “we”. Court ministers, then, who disagreed with him would belong to a “they”—the destroyers of order. He speaks like a corporate unionist. Alexandre de Moraes, evoking the most fascinating figure in the “Iliad”, made a joke: “I just wanted to praise Minister Fux for his vote and tell His Excellency that, unlike Prince Heitor, who was unable to defend Troia, Minister Fux managed to defend the judiciary”. He chuckled. And he heard: “Thank you very much, Minister Alexandre!”

This “Trojan” did not understand the “Iliad”, the irony or the guarantee judge.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.