The Justice of Brazil issued a ruling and found Jair Bolsonaro guilty for abuse of power in the 2022 elections. In this sense, an investigating judge in the case requested his political disqualification for 8 years. The former president had called a meeting with ambassadors to discredit the electoral system. The trial will continue on Thursday with the evaluation of other magistrates.
The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) judges the far-right leader for the attacks against the electronic voting system in Brazil during a meeting with ambassadors in July 2022, three months before being defeated at the polls by the current president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
This Tuesday, Gonçalves, investigating judge of the trial against the ex-president of Brazil, He found him guilty of abuse of power in the 2022 elections and asked to disqualify him for 8 years.
The cause is based on a meeting in which Bolsonaro summoned fifty ambassadors at the official residence of the Presidency to disqualify the electoral system, since it assured that Justice acted in favor of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
In this way, the judge confirmed that Bolsonaro, on July 18, took advantage of his role “to defraud the electoral environment”, in addition to “inciting a state of collective paranoia” and fabricating “conspiracy theories” with “false information” and “heinous lies”.
“It is not possible to close your eyes to the anti-democratic effects of violent speeches and lies that jeopardize the credibility of the electoral Justice”, express.
Gonçalves considered that the meeting with ambassadors It was “abnormal” and that the now former president established suspicions about electronic ballot boxes without evidence, that have been operating without complaints of fraud since 1996.
The trial was suspended after the first vote of disqualification and will resume on Thursday, the day in which other electoral court judges will analyze Bolsonaro’s guilt.
On the other handGonçalves acquitted Bolsonaro’s running mate, General Walter Braga Netto, since his responsibility was not “proven” in the case.