Bolsonaro and Moraes' Failed Agreement: A Detailed Look at the Mediated Pardon Deal and Constitutional Implications

SEM MIMIMI | o canal do Pavivi

Bolsonaro's Perceived Mistake and Ramagem Veto [0:00] [1:22]

• The speaker identifies Bolsonaro's "big mistake" as accepting the veto on the appointment of Alexandre Ramagem as the Federal Police superintendent.
  • This veto was viewed as a critical "inflection point."
  • The Constitution grants the President of the Republic the clear attribution to appoint such positions freely.

Lula's Convictions Annulment and TSE Intervention [0:32]

• Former Supreme Court Justice Marco Aurélio publicly disagreed with the annulment of Lula's Lava-Jato trials.
  • He stated that the plenary session biasedly changed its historical understanding and the meaning of the law to nullify Lula's convictions.
  • The TSE (Superior Electoral Court) subsequently banned the broadcast of Marco Aurélio Melo's interview during the 2022 election period.

The Alleged Bolsonaro-Moraes Agreement [2:09]

• A crucial "secret agreement" between Bolsonaro and Alexandre de Moraes is detailed.
  • Former President Michel Temer reportedly mediated a call between Bolsonaro and Moraes.
  • This mediation occurred a day or two after September 7th, following a harsh speech by Bolsonaro against the Supreme Court, where he declared he would no longer comply with their decisions.
  • During the call, Bolsonaro promised to "soften his tone" and retract his strong statements.
  • In exchange, Moraes allegedly promised to release Roberto Jefferson and Federal Deputy Daniel Silveira within 10 days.
  • Moraes, however, did not keep his promise to release the two individuals.

Bolsonaro's Pardon for Daniel Silveira and STF's Rejection [3:53] [4:48]

• Bolsonaro later pardoned Daniel Silveira on the last day of his term before traveling to the United States.
  • The pardon was granted under the legal modality of "grace" (indulto individual), which is a personal forgiveness granted by the President, explicitly provided for in the Constitution.
  • The Supreme Court (STF) subsequently held a session where they rejected the pardon.
  • The STF argued that acts of public administration must be "impersonal" and therefore could not accept a personal pardon.

Critique of "Anti-Democratic Crimes" and Language Manipulation [8:10]

• The speaker criticizes the Supreme Court for inventing the concept of "anti-democratic crimes."
  • He argues that all crimes are inherently anti-democratic, as they harm the power and rights of individuals.
  • The invention of a specific category of "anti-democratic crimes" implies that other crimes are "democratic," which is deemed absurd and dangerous.
  • The speaker draws a parallel to Nazism, citing Victor Klemperer's work on "The Language of the Third Reich."
    • Klemperer explained how the Nazis emptied words of their original meanings and stretched their definitions to dehumanize groups and justify barbarity.
    • The speaker suggests that manipulating legal terminology, like inventing "anti-democratic crimes," serves to delegitimize and "sticker" political opponents, similar to how the Nazis labeled Jews.

Alexandre de Moraes' Past Stance on Pardons [10:23]

• The speaker presents a video showing Alexandre de Moraes, while already a minister, defending a pardon for former President Temer.
  • In the video, Moraes stated that individual or collective pardons are the exclusive responsibility of the President of the Republic.
  • He emphasized that this presidential right exists "whether we like it or not."
  • The speaker highlights the perceived contradiction between Moraes' past statement and the STF's current decision to annul Bolsonaro's pardon for Daniel Silveira, effectively acting against the President's constitutional prerogative based on personal disapproval.