Podcast Summary: O Assunto – O diário do julgamento de Bolsonaro – parte 4 (11/09/2025)

Overview

This episode of O Assunto, hosted by Natuza Nery, offers an in-depth analysis of the crucial fourth day in the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro and associates regarding the alleged coup attempt on January 8th, 2023. The discussion focuses on the surprising and divergent vote delivered by Supreme Court Justice Luiz Fux, who acquitted Bolsonaro of all accusations while convicting other defendants, most notably Bolsonaro’s former aide-de-camp Mauro Cid. Natuza is joined by G1 reporter Reinaldo Turullo Jr., who has covered the daily developments, and constitutional law professor Oscar Vilhena, to break down the legal reasoning, the reactions in the Supreme Court, and the broader legal and political implications.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Justice Luiz Fux’s Surprising Vote

Luiz Fux delivered a lengthy and meticulous vote, diverging sharply from other justices, particularly the rapporteur Alexandre de Moraes and Justice Flávio Dino.

• Incompetence and Nullity: Fux argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction (“incompetência absoluta”) since none of the accused currently held positions that granted them special legal standing (foro privilegiado). He also contended that cases should be tried by the court's full bench, not just one panel, and found procedural flaws that should annul the entire trial.

  • “Eu também acolho essa preliminar de incompetência absoluta... declaro a nulidade de todos os atos praticados por este Supremo Tribunal Federal.” — Luiz Fux [00:24]

• On Crimes Charged: Fux differentiated between “organization of a criminal group” and “joint criminal acts.” He found no autonomous criminal organization, contesting the prosecution’s framing.

  • “O agrupamento de pessoas para a prática de delitos determinados... não configura um crime autônomo, mas, em tese, concurso de pessoas.” — Luiz Fux [04:27]

• On Bolsonaro’s Responsibility: Fux concluded there was no evidence Bolsonaro ordered or participated in the planning or execution of the events, or that he used public office or military resources for a coup. Discussing speech crimes, Fux argued criticism or contestation of the election was not enough to constitute a coup attempt.

  • “A simples defesa da mudança do sistema de votação não pode ser considerada narrativa subversiva... uma live no exterior seria capaz de abolir o Estado Democrático de Direito?” — Luiz Fux [08:58]

• On Other Defendants: Fux convicted Mauro Cid for attempting to abolish the democratic order (based on direct involvement and explicit plotting), but acquitted others based on lack of proof of their leadership or direct action.

  • “Condenando o Mauricídio e absolvendo os outros.” – Oscar Vilhena & Fux [02:52–02:44]

• Previous Contradiction: The vote starkly contrasted Fux’s stance in 2023, when he voted with the majority to convict defendants from January 8th’s attacks, aligning fully with Moraes’ positions.

2. Legal Reasoning and Divergence

• Processual Issues: Fux accepted “preliminares” (preliminary defense motions), supporting claims that the defendants were not given proper opportunity to mount a defense due to the disorganized presentation of evidence (“tsunami de dados”).

  • “Ele chamou de tsunami de dados o volume de provas... de forma desorganizada e tardia.” — Oscar Vilhena [17:38]

• Criminal Organization: Fux introduced a restrictive interpretation, now implying that unless there were arms present, an “armed criminal organization” charge could not be supported, drawing criticism for the implications.

  • “O PCC deve estar felicíssimo, o Comando Vermelho deve estar felicíssimo...” — Luiz Fux & Oscar Vilhena [44:51–44:53]

3. Expert Reactions

a. Reinaldo Turullo Jr. (G1 Reporter)

• Surprise and Reception: The defense commended Fux, feeling he “washed their souls”. Legal experts, court watchers, and even some ministers were baffled by the abrupt change from his prior position.

  • “Não é um voto contra Alexandre de Moraes, nem contra o procurador... é um voto contra Luiz Fux. É Fux versus Fux.” — Natuza Nery [16:20]

• Future Implications: Fux’s stance opens the door for legal appeals, virtually ensuring extended legal debates.

b. Oscar Vilhena (Constitutional Law Professor)

• Fundamental Paradoxes: Vilhena analyzes the contradiction of convicting aides (like Mauro Cid) for acting in the leader’s service while acquitting the leader (Bolsonaro). He emphasizes that attempted coups are crimes even when unsuccessful, and criticizes Fux’s formalist, literal approach for ignoring real-world context and legal doctrine.

  • “Eu saí um pouco com essa impressão, exatamente por ele ter condenado Mauro Cid e não ter condenado aquele a qual Mauro Cid servia...” — Oscar Vilhena [24:04]

• Errors in Interpreting Attempted Crimes: Vilhena points out that Fux treated all actions as mere “preparatory acts”, dismissing evidence of actual execution of an attempted coup, contrary to the spirit and letter of criminal statutes.

  • “O crime não é dar um golpe, o crime é tentar dar um golpe...” — Oscar Vilhena [30:21]

• On Omission: Fux failed to recognize the president’s duty to act, disregarding the possibility of crimes committed by willful omission—a crucial aspect of public office responsibility.

  • “Nada fez. Claramente um crime de omissão. Ele cometeu esses mesmos crimes por ter se omitido.” — Oscar Vilhena [39:29]

• Broader Impact: Vilhena warns Fux’s judicial reasoning undermines not only the case at hand but future applications of democracy-protecting statutes, weakening their deterrent effect.

4. Political and Judicial Implications

• Immediate Legal Outcome: Unless further justices (Carmen Lúcia or Cristiano Zanin) side with Fux, his vote will remain a dissent, not affecting the trial’s outcome but setting potentially problematic precedents.

  • “Se não houver uma adesão da ministra Carmen Lúcia... a consequência jurídica para este caso será quase irrelevante.” — Oscar Vilhena [43:03]

• Precedent and Rule of Law: Fux’s radical shift signals that Supreme Court justices can and do revise their understandings. This both refutes accusations of an “authoritarian court” and potentially undermines clear legal benchmarks.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Judicial Contradiction:
  • “É Fux versus Fux, como aquele filme, Kramer versus Kramer.” — Natuza Nery [16:20]
• On Attempted Crimes:
  • “Ninguém está imputando que eles conseguiram dar um golpe, mas sim que tentaram fazer isso.” — Oscar Vilhena [29:09]
  • “O crime não é dar um golpe, o crime é tentar dar um golpe...” — Oscar Vilhena [30:21]
• On Legal Omission by Leaders:
  • “Nada fez. Claramente um crime de omissão.” — Oscar Vilhena [39:29]
• On Judicial Independence:
  • “Você tem um tribunal onde o juiz tem absoluta autonomia para decidir, inclusive para decidir de maneira equivocada...” — Oscar Vilhena [45:08]

Important Timestamps

• 00:24: Start of crucial vote by Luiz Fux on procedural and substantive charges
• 03:42: Discussion of the theoretical framework behind Fux’s legal reasoning
• 06:30: Fux’s view on absorption of coup attempt charges
• 08:58: Fux’s dismissal of Bolsonaro’s speeches as criminal evidence
• 12:29: Divergence in convictions between defendants (Cid, Garnier, Braga Neto)
• 16:04–18:57: Contradiction between Fux’s positions in 2023 and 2025
• 20:25: Reactions in the Supreme Court to Fux’s vote
• 24:04: Oscar Vilhena’s breakdown of the vote’s paradoxes
• 29:09–30:21: Debate about the concept of “attempt” in coup laws
• 39:29–42:58: Discussion about acts of omission and duty of public officials
• 43:03: Assessment of the judicial and political consequences

Conclusion

Justice Luiz Fux’s vote in the judgment of Jair Bolsonaro and co-defendants marks a pivotal, controversial moment, both for the court’s handling of the coup attempt and for future legal doctrine. By acquitting Bolsonaro and challenging Supreme Court jurisdiction, Fux unsettled previous jurisprudence, drawing sharp critique for logical paradoxes and selective reading of the evidence.

The episode, with its expert commentary and inside reporting, illuminates the layered legal and institutional debates regarding democratic protection and the rule of law in Brazil—showing how everything from judicial personality to legal minutiae can shift the trajectory of national crises.