Bolsonaro Convicted, Trump Vows Revenge
Birds of a feather and all that.
AP (“Brazilian Supreme Court panel sentences Bolsonaro to more than 27 years in prison for coup attempt“):
A panel of Brazilian Supreme Court justices sentenced former president Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years and three months in prison Thursday after convicting him of attempting a coup to remain in office despite his 2022 electoral defeat.
Bolsonaro, who has always denied any wrongdoing, can try to appeal the ruling. He is currently under house arrest in Brasilia.
Four of the five justices reviewing the case in the panel found the far-right politician guilty on five counts, in a ruling that will deepen political divisions and was expected to prompt a backlash from the U.S. government. It makes Bolsonaro is the first former Brazilian president to be convicted of attempting a coup.
The five counts are: attempting a coup after losing the 2022 race to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a plot that prosecutors alleged included plans to kill Lula; participating in an armed criminal organization; attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law; damage qualified by violence; and deterioration of listed heritage.
Bolsonaro’s co-conspirators, all of them former Brazilian officials, were also sentenced for their roles in the attempted coup. Gen. Braga Netto, Bolsonaro’s former defense minister and running mate in 2022, received 26 years. Admiral Almir Garnier got 24 years. Gen. Augusto Heleno received 21 years and Gen. Paulo Sérgio Nogueira got 19 years. Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid, who cooperated with investigations, was given two years under an open regime.
Chief Justice Luís Roberto Barroso joined the panel at the end of the session and called the trial a “watershed moment in Brazil’s history.”
Imagine that: the president of a country loses an election, uses violent means in a failed attempt to retain power, and is subsequently held legally accountable. Why, it’s like a democracy with a strong sense of the rule of law.
Naturally, the government of the region’s oldest democracy is thrilled.
Not so fast, my friends!
Reuters (“Rubio vows US response following conviction of Brazil’s Bolsonaro“):
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday said the United States would respond, without specifying how, after former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was convicted of plotting a coup to remain in power after losing the 2022 election.
“The political persecutions by sanctioned human rights abuser Alexandre de Moraes continue, as he and others on Brazil’s supreme court have unjustly ruled to imprison former President Jair Bolsonaro,” Rubio wrote on X.
“The United States will respond accordingly to this witch hunt,” he said.
A truly bizarre response from a U.S. Secretary of State. Much less one who is “the son of Cuban immigrants who left Cuba in pursuit of the American Dream.” And, “During the first Trump Administration, he worked with the President to hold members of the Cuban regime accountable, including the dictatorship’s military holding company.”
What could possibly explain such a turnabout?!
“Well, I watched that trial. I know him pretty well–foreign leader. I thought he was a good president of Brazil, and it’s very surprising that could happen very much like they tried to do with me, but they didn’t get away with it at all,” Trump told reporters when asked about Bolsonaro being found guilty and if that means additional sanctions.
“But I can always say this: I knew him as president of Brazil. He was a good man, and I don’t see that happening.”
Trump, who also faced a variety of criminal charges and ultimately became the first former U.S. president convicted of a crime last year, has criticized the Brazilian judicial system and threatened tariffs on the South American country for its persecution of Bolsonaro.
In July, he imposed 50% tariffs on most Brazilian goods to fight what he has called a “witch hunt” against Bolsonaro. He later exempted some Brazilian exports, including passenger vehicles and a large number of parts and components used in civil aircraft.
That same month, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over Bolsonaro’s criminal case, accusing him of authorizing arbitrary pre-trial detentions and suppressing freedom of expression.
And, indeed, he clearly did those things to substantial controversy. Supporters argued that they were necessary measures in the wake of a threat to the rule of law. Opponents argued that they were an extra- or even un-constitutional abuse of power. They are both right.
Regardless, there’s little doubt that Bolsonaro committed the crimes for which he was convicted and sentenced. This is not the sort of thing over which the U.S. government would ordinarily intercede. But, of course, the Executive branch is currently headed by a man who feels persecuted for being investigated over similar acts. So, naturally, it feels like a “witch hunt.”
And all US sanctions will do is help contribute to instability in Brazil (insofar as it may cause some level of economic consequences) and further encourage closer relations with China.
So, you know, a win-win.
I don’t want to overstate the instability issue. I am simply noting that in the context of what is a controversial ruling, insofar as Bolsonaro has some public support, there will be some agitation in Brazilian society. Having arbitrary tariffs on Brazil can’t be a positive in that context.
This also, yet again, demonstrates that these tariffs are not being used for anything close to a response to an “emergency.” It is just Trump doing whatever he wants in a capricious manner.
I’m waiting for the announcement of a visit by the Chinese and/or Russian navy to the Port of Santos, followed by an trade initiative amongst the BRICs with outreach to the EU. So much winning.
Trump’s myopia and narcissism are at play, but what the eff is Rubio thinking? He’s another overly ambitious pol who has sacrificed his honor and dignity at the alter of Trump. And kudos to the Brazilian courts and justice department for following the facts and the law and protecting their democracy by convicting a thug masquerading as a statesman. That country’s action, and the reaction from Trump and his ilk, demonstrate the difference between the rule of law and the rule of (corrupt) men.
@Steven L. Taylor: Bingo. Most of the president’s blanket tariffs are illegal because there is no economic emergency (aside from his own incompetence). The Brazilian tariffs especially so, since Trump admits they’re a political revenge measure.
The Supreme Court should strike down these tariffs, but the Roberts Court’s rightwing majority is dishonest and corrupt, so who knows. The constitution very obviously does not allow the president to stage a coup, but Roberts & Co. rewrote it anyway.
@Steven L. Taylor:
It may go the other way. It may allow the government to dismiss the Bolsonaro supporters as tools of American imperialism. But China will certainly benefit no matter what.
@Charley in Cleveland:
I don’t think there is a better example of someone who has sold their soul for power than Marco Rubio. I think he thinks this is his ticket to being president. He is delusional on that count.
@Michael Reynolds: I am thinking more just about the kind of low-level unrest that comes about when, say, regional coffee workers don’t have jobs or the way in which import-oriented businesses will suffer and the ripple effects thereof. It has the potential to make agitation easier.
It will definitely drive Brazilian exporters to find other markets.
The MAGA reaction is no surprise. Their only moral axis is allegiance to Trump. A Trump-supporting sheriff takes bribes? Pardon him. Trump-supporting people assault police officers, murder protesters or commit war crimes? Pardon.
Even with Trump himself, MAGA never disputed that Trump did the thing he was accused of. Their entire argument was that he should be allowed to get away with it.
@Charley in Cleveland: “Trump’s myopia and narcissism are at play, but what the eff is Rubio thinking?”
He’s thinking the only thing he ever thinks: “What does Trump want?”
@Charley in Cleveland: “Trump’s myopia and narcissism are at play, but what the eff is Rubio thinking?”
He’s thinking the only thing he ever thinks: “What does Trump want?”
@Steven L. Taylor: they’re already selling soy beans to China, instead of of China buying from US farmers. Just ask Arkansas.
Avelo airlines, the deportation airline, has placed a firm order for 50 E2 Embraer regional jets.
How awkward.
And there are options for 50 more.
@Steven L. Taylor:
China has already stepped up to partly fill the coffee trade.
China welcomes 183 Brazil coffee sellers in wake of US tariffs
@becca: There is an awful lot of winning going on.
@Sleeping Dog: And there you go.
Don’t forget that a few years ago there were reports that he was seeking citizenship in his ancestral home of Italy, though even under Meloni the Italian government denied that was happening and said that if he tried they would reject him due to his crimes.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Positioning himself to be the heir apparent for 2028.
I know what I am about to say is well, maybe silly is as good a word to describe my thoughts right now as any other, but Brazil could easily let the U.S. become Bolsonaro’s new home. He could hang with his homie President Trump. I am sure Trump could find a position for his BFF J.B. that will allow him to screw over American Citizens.
Brazil still ends up in a position where they are rid of the pest that is J. Bolsonaro, and they have countries like China opening their doors to buy Brazilian coffee, soy beans, etc..
A whole lot of winning for Brazil since their Supreme Court justices had the balls to do the right thing and convict President Trump’s bestie, but perhaps not so much winning for the United States.
Just think, if Congress did the right thing several years back, we could have been the ones sending our guy over to Brazil to permanently hang out with J.B., and (now) President Trump would have been their problem not ours.
We live in such interesting times.
@Sleeping Dog: China has developed a taste for coffee. There was an interesting report on the increase in the popularity of the bev on the BBC not long ago. That’s a lotta lattes.
Nice coinkydink.
@wr:
That’s the only thing that makes sense. Creating an international incident over Bolsonaro will do nothing to enhance his ’28’ prospects, since the voters will have no idea who Bolsonaro is.
Many in Brazil seem elated at yesterday’s verdict and sentence.
Between tariffs on the world’s largest coffee exporter and rising coffee prices in the US, how long before drinking coffee becomes regarded as anti-American?
Me, I’ve no plans to reduce my coffee intake (and we’re getting some Chiapas coffee next week).
Rubio:
In all honesty, and being rathee undiplomatic here: f@ck off, Marco.
This was a court judgement, based on rather copious evidence of Bolasoanro’s involvement in a conspiracy to overturn an election, including both mass violence, co-ordinated disruption, and assasination,
The Brazilian courts are not “kangaroo” orperations, and if the US adminstration is dreaming that attempting to bully Brazil on this will work, they really need to wake up and smell the Brazilian coffee.
If Rubio is attempting to court the favour of Trump and MAGA on this, (which he pretty certainly is) he might be better avvised to caution the White House against hubris.
As with India, and South Africa, and much of South East Asia, the US Administration seems determined to drive the entire world into alignment against the US, on the basis that “US stronk! Hulk bash!”
Which works, until it doesn’t.
In a way, Trump is fortunate: the Russian war in Ukraine means Europe must be cautious about a full-breach with the US.
Just as China’s moves constrain Japan etc.
But he is not just burning US diplomatic capital: he’s putting sticks of gelignite under the bonfire and pouring petrol on it.
The entire structure of post-1945 US diplomatic/economic/security strategic dominance and security and advantage is perilously close to a systemic breakdown.
Brazil is one of the 10 largest economies in the world. America enjoys a modest trade surplus in goods and a massive one in services. Brazil has partnered with the US for much of its defence needs. Yet Republicans are willing to alienate the country for no better reason than that Trump’s feelings are hurt.
Trump’s absolute authority over a cowering party even as he comes apart before their eyes remains utterly inexplicable.
@inhumans99:
The intersting thing is, Bolsonaro did in fact move to Florida for a time, then returned to Brazil in 2023.
Why exactly seems unclear: perhaps he hoped that US pressure would end the prosecutions, then he would be poised for some sort of political comeback?
By all accounts, Bolsonaro has always been prone to both delusions and inability to plan things out.
Brazil, being a constitutional and lawful state, has no means of just waiving a court judgement and permitting Bolsonaro to wave bye-bye and bugger off.
Unless there is some provision for “presidential clemency” in such cases?
(idk, ianal)
And Lula were inclined, if even possible, to use it?
One thing is for sure: if the US attempts to strong-arm the Europeans into collaboration on sanctions on Brazil over this, there is going to be an almighty row.
I’ve already seen MAGA social media posts about “Brazil should be cut of from the SWIFT inter-bank transfer system”
Which neglects one teensy little detail, that MAGA Americans often forget: SWIFT is a European based system, not under US control.
Oopsie.
@Ken_L:
See also India.
The willingness of what were supposed to be “serious” Republicans, concerned about US national interests and security, to simply fawn upon Trump and sweet-talk MAGA would be hilarious if it was not so appalling.
It recalls to me the history of early 1950’s when the US Right got sucked into a delusion-space of “who lost China?” and McCarthy, and Yalta, and etc.
Only, this time, there is no-one in the Republican camp prepared to tell them they are being tom-fools, or even attempt to put a brake on their tom-foollery
@JohnSF:
Just the qualities one expects from a military officer.
If there’s such a thing in Brazil, I’d advise Lula the following: Ford pardoned Nixon to end the scandal and move on. They got 45+ years of wealth transfer from the bottom to the top, an eviscerated middle class, a ridiculous national debt, and El Taco.
@Kylopod:
Meloni is many things, but a fool is not one of them.
There is no way way she would cross the European legal lines on this.
Especially given the ties of Portugal to Brazil, which means issues in the EU Council.
And given Meloni’s evidenced impatience with idiots, I suspect she’s entirely contemptuous of Bolsonaro.
Incidentally: the EU Council vote of Portugal is another reason why the EU is not going to support any US sanctions on Brazil.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Europe can always drink more coffee.
I’m up for another cup, right now.
Preferably with some whiskey in it.
Back shortly!
@DK:
I was thinking something like this:
Surely the Supreme Court must rule such tariffs as unlawful, given it is obviously not an emergency for the US, and therefore requires Congress to decide.
The two questions dependant:
– Will the Court actually rule as is the obvious rational outcome of the laws and precenden?
– If it does will the Congressional Republicans then simply re-enact “the will of Trump”?
Both are impoertant; especially the second.
Because if so, the world will know there is no longer any effective legislature majority opposition to such utter idiocy.
That the lunatics have, in incontrovertible reality, taken over the asylum.
@Kathy:
The Brazilians seem, generally, little inclined to surrender their hard-won system of constitutional legality either to Bolsonaro or, still less, to Trump.
Unlike Nixon, Bolsonaro is plainly guilty of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and democratic outcomes.
Nixon’s sins were trivial by comparison.
Trump might have obtained clemency for Bolsaonaro, by acting quietly (a rather alien concept to the King in Orange, I grant).
By making it an issue of national sovreignty, he is rendering that rather less likely.
@JohnSF:
I’ve no confidence the fixer court will act lawfully.
That said, the donors and those who fund the lavish lifestyles of the legally corrupt hate most of the tariffs. Many are not happy about losing their low wage workforce to mass deportations and ICE terror. So maybe the Chief Fixer and the rest will rule against El Taco.
The same argument goes for Congress. But with caveats. The Fixers are in for life, absent impeachment. Congresscritters face primaries every two or six years. So maybe they’ll compromise with El Taco’s delusions and pass some tariffs, far lower and/or more targeted.
The big issue is whether tariffs can be passed on a CR or budget reconciliation. They are taxes, after all, and well within the purview of funding the government.
If not, then there’s no way they get enough Democratic votes in the Senate to break a filibuster. If this happens, then either there may be further compromise, or Thune can go nuclear and end the legislative filibuster.
@Kathy:
Even if the Court permits the Adminstration to act, that still puts the ball in the court of the Legislature. (unintended tangled metaphor there. 🙂 )
If Congress meekly submits to Executive will, then the entire judgement international parties must make about US behaviour must change.
Previously, it has been largely Congress refusing to uphold Executive policy (see League of Nations, US-UK agreements, etc)
If it is now just an unconstrained Presidency, with no regard for any prior legal frameworks, that means all othe international actors must assume an essentially unreliable and uncomitted and uncomittable US.
Therefore: the US can no longer be an reliable ally.
Or an ally at all.
Therefore: the US is a potential adversary.
I really don’t think MAGA has worked through the decision tree of all this.
If such a concept could even begin to impinge upon their silly kayfabe brains.
The 7-4 appeals court decision ruling against Trump’s tariffs was concerning, given the compelling reasoning in the original 3-0 decision of the US Court of International Trade. I expect there is more than enough “Emergency? Who are we humble judges to contradict the finding of the President that there’s an emergency?” reasoning in the dissent for five Supreme Court judges to adopt it.
@JohnSF:
Nixon was trying to steal the election beforehand. Bad as that was, at least he had foresight. That it turned out o be unnecessary does not negate the criminal actions taken. And then there was the coverup.
As to El Taco, I’m sure he won’t act quietly even after he’s dead.
Europeans should know this is called an absolute monarchy, or a fascist dictatorship.
And yes, that’s where it’s headed. If things progress this way, by El Taco’s third term, if not sooner, the rubber stamp senate will confirm Gatze to any post El Taco wants.
@Kathy:
Call me biased, but I don’t think trying to screw an election, in advance, is remotely the same as trying to overturn a result by insurrection.
If it were, almost every British government in history would be up at the bar.
“… an absolute monarchy, or a fascist dictatorship …”
Or revolutionary directorate, or parliamentary protectorate, or Napoleonic imperium, or even the UK government in WW2.
There are lots of permutations, historically.
Some justifiable, in context, others not.
The real difference with the Rule of the King in Orange is that it’s obviously unecessary, obviously based on stupid predicates, and obviously stupid in implementation.
Even the Tsars had the excuse of “this is always how it has been; how can it be otherwise?”
Republicans have no such excuse for any future Gibbon not mocking them.
Who told you that? The same folks who told you Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, that it was racist to say COVID-19 came from a lab in China, that Joe Biden’s brain was perfectly fine, and that Charlie Kirk was a fascist?
The willful consumption of news media that you know are lying to you is going to be one of the defining pathologies of the pre-crisis 21st century.
@PepperPrepper:
We agree completely on this. And yet, not at all.
(Hint: We know Trump colluded with the Russians because, y’know, his own people admitted it and our own intelligence agencies verified it. And yet, you think that’s all lies because… Remind us again — who is that source you consider to be more authoritative?)
@PepperPrepper:
Any cursory survey of the evidence from the outset, and a look at that presented in court in Brazil.
By your silly argument nobody could ever be found guilty of anything.
Think it through.