9 min read

JAIR BOLSONARO COURT HEARNG 09-10 JUNE 2025

JAIR BOLSONARO COURT HEARNG 09-10 JUNE 2025

By AI-ChatGPT40-T.Chr.-Human Synthesis-11 June 2025

HEARINGS OF JAIR BOLSONARO The hearings have concluded, and the Supreme Federal Court has moved on to the next stages toward a final judgment.

Recent Timeline (as of June 10, 2025)1. June 9–10:

Bolsonaro, along with seven core defendants, testified before a five‑judge panel led by Justice Alexandre de Moraes. This marked the final stage of evidence gathering, with no further direct hearings from defendants expected .2. End of Evidence Phase: After these testimonies, the court concludes the phase of collecting witness and defendant statements .

What Comes Next: Final Arguments & SentencingFinal Allegations (Fase de Alegações Finais):

Within up to 15 days after closing evidence, the Attorney-General and defense lawyers will present their closing charges and defenses. This needs to happen before the Supreme Court’s mid‑year recess in July 2025

Sentencing Phase:

Immediately following those arguments, the five‑judge panel will deliberate and issue verdicts.Expect Timeline: A final ruling is widely expected before the end of 2025, possibly by October, to avoid interfering with the 2026 election cycle .

Summary of Hearings:

Finished—the evidence phase is done.

Ongoing Process: Final arguments are pending, followed by judgment and sentencing.

Verdict Timeline: Likely unveiled in late 2025, with formal sentencing shortly thereafter.

What Just Happened

What Comes Next - 14 June 2025

  1. Additional Evidence Requests (Now)
    • Both the prosecutor and defense have a 5‑day window, beginning June 14, to request further investigations—such as new documents or witness re-examinations—as permitted by Justice Alexandre de Moraes chron.com+4theguardian.com+4counterpunch.org+4.
  2. Final Allegations (Mid to Late June)
    • Within about 15 days after the evidence phase, Brazil’s Attorney‑General will present the prosecution’s final arguments. Defense counsel will follow with theirs—both likely to unfold before the Supreme Court’s early July recess brazilreports.com+8beaumontenterprise.com+8chron.com+8.
  3. Verdict & Sentencing (Potentially July–October)
    • After closing arguments, a five-judge STF panel—including de Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino, and Luiz Fux—will deliberate. A verdict requires a majority decision. Sentencing follows, with appeals possibly extending into late 2025 reuters.com+15counterpunch.org+15apnews.com+15.

Video of complete hearings (2 hours in Portuguese)

Live clip from the Court Hearings - Vitness and Judges

The High Court Judge-

People present, let us begin with the interrogation of Mr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro, whom I now summon along with his lawyers, Celso Bilardi and Paulo Amador. I greet the defendant and his lawyers.

I remind once again, as we explained in more detail on the first day, that the defendants have the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination — that is, they are not obligated to tell the truth.

I ask the defendant whether he is aware of the accusations made by his deputies.

To begin, regarding the person with whom you reside — I would prefer not to disclose that because I am a public figure. Your profession?

Have you ever been arrested or prosecuted?

— No.

Are you married?

— Married.

Do you have children?

— Yes.

Sir, is the accusation made against you true?

It is not. It does not fall under international justice.

"Do you have any particular reason to attribute the accusation in the complaint as false?Do you know the witnesses who have already been questioned?Do you have any objection or conflict in relation to them?

"I know many of them. I have nothing against them.

Judge Moraes (reading from Bolsonaro letter from 2022)

"So, let us move on to the specific questions.If you'd like a more formal or legal-style translation, or have follow-up edits or clarifications, just let me know......Judge reading part of a letter written in 2022 by Bolsonaro.. "There was fraud in the electronic voting machines. And in that meeting on July 5th, in that ministerial meeting, on several occasions, you refer to yourself. So I will quote a few moments.

‘The polls are exactly right,’ you say, ‘according to the numbers inside the TSE computers, right?’ Still, quote:‘There's news today in the press, Fachin — at the time president of the TSE — signed an agreement with other countries to come and supervise the election. Look, with all due respect to all of you here, are you now going to supervise the elections?

My grandmother, João from the hills, a Martian, they’re not going to find anything. It's all for show. It’s like someone who puts on a lot of makeup to look beautiful, right? But if it rains a little, it all washes away. That’s what’s happening in Brazil.’Then, also in sequence, you directly refer to former Minister Paulo Sérgio, saying, quote: ‘Are we going to wait until 2023, 2024 to do something? Then ask, why didn’t I take action back then? Action and force, no. [expletive]. It's not about shooting. Paulo Sérgio, am I going to send the troops to the streets, set things on fire, open fire?

That’s not it, damn it.’‘From now on, I want every minister to say what I’m going to say here and show it. If you think I’m going to get 70% of the vote and win like I did in 2018 and I’m going to prove it — you’re in the wrong place. Here, there’s no one with...’ [continues]**Then another part, quote: ‘Why are these guys preparing everything, damn it? For Lula to win in the first round, by fraud. I’m going to show how and why. Does anyone here believe in Fachin, Barroso, Alexandre de Moraes?

Bolsonaro

Does anyone believe? If you believe, raise your hand.Good afternoon, Mrs. Luiz Furtes, Mr. Paulo Boneto.I served two years as a city councilor and 28 years as a parliamentarian. My rhetoric has always been similar to what follows. Let’s go.The issue of distrust, suspicion, or criticism of the judiciary is not something primitive at all.

I could mention many names, but I’ll just cite a few here.Mr. Flávio Indiano, in 2012, when he lost the election—or in 2010, when he lost the gubernatorial election in Maranhão—he said (and I would show a video, but the request was denied), in the video he says the following:"Today I had the opportunity to be a victim of a process that needs improvement, without the slightest doubt, which is the electronic voting system.

"Then, when asked, “Do you believe there was fraud?"He replied,"There were several frauds, various types."I’m talking about Mr. Flávio Indiano.Then also, curiously, in another campaign ad—free electoral advertising—by Mr. Carlos Lupi. Why “curiously”?Because he filed the lawsuit with the Electoral Court (TSE) questioning my eligibility, based on my criticism of electronic voting and mentions of fraud by Flávio.

But one of his campaign ads, lasting about 30 seconds and still available today on his Facebook, ends with him saying:“Without printed votes, there is no possibility of recount. Without a recount, fraud prevails.”This is still on Mr. Carlos Lupi’s Facebook to this day.I fought hard in the Chamber of Deputies, since 2012, for printed votes. I managed to get it approved from 2015 to 2016. President Dilma Rousseff vetoed it. The proposal returned to Congress. In the Chamber, we overrode the veto, even with PT’s votes. In the Senate, something similar happened, and we also overrode the veto.

I was very happy that we would have printed votes in 2018.I don’t remember whether I requested the meeting or if Minister Luís Fux invited me. I went to speak with him about this issue, and he told me that 5% of Brazil’s voting machines would have printed votes. Why only 5%? Because there was no funding for more. And over time, it would reach 100%.I was very pleased and thanked Minister Fux—he treated me very well.

But unfortunately, shortly after, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) ruled, by 8 votes to 3, that printed voting was unconstitutional—on the grounds that it could harm the security of the elections.So, we didn’t have printed voting in 2018.My campaign in 2018 was rather unusual, with all due respect. Not even I expected to become president—given who I was. I was a parliamentarian, but not one aligned with a major party.

I had no political support. But since 2014, after the second round of elections, I had already launched myself, traveling around Brazil, saying I would run in the 2018 elections.I ended up running—after surviving a stabbing that nearly killed me.That helps explain a little more about this issue here. I think that’s all. (Just a short sample in english).

*(Continuing interrogating whisteling friend)

"It’s really poorly written, right? In terms of something, right. But I don’t remember who took the photo — it wasn’t me who took the photo, I didn’t hand over this physical document, it only came through digital means, right, through Artigrato, right, and it also wasn’t passed on to anyone, right. The computer is already gone — I remember it was almost 11 at night, mid-afternoon, doing whatever it was.

But I don’t know, I really don’t remember who sent it, because, as I’ve said before, the volume of posts I received was really large. Just like these, honestly, there were many. There were several around. Tips, suggestions — do this, do that. So it was, let’s say, I don’t know, something almost normal. If you have a ton of stuff to do, you can’t… Oh, I want to die, I don’t want to die. What is this? What is this?""…

Or the generals — especially the four Ottoman emperors — agreed with or supported the president in such an action. Basically, this was the great scheme being attempted. It is always the president who signs the decree. The idea was: let’s pressure the military commanders to accept this decree, or support the president in signing it. That’s it.

If then-President Jair Bolsonaro tried to interfere in the Electoral Witness Commission organized by the Ministry of Defense, how did he do it? Did he try to interfere with the content of the Commission’s original report so that it would include claims about vulnerabilities? Because… that’s the clue. Say it now.Not a simpler document, but one with a much more technical conclusion stating that there was no fraud. The president believed the conclusion had to be tougher — suggesting the people had committed fraud or something like that.

So during that period, there was this discussion about what the document should say. In the end, it came out — not as General Paulo Sérgio initially wanted, nor as the president obviously wanted.It was said that it ended up somewhere in the middle — neither how then-Minister Paulo Sérgio wanted (more technical), nor how the president wanted (more political). And you said that Minister Paulo Sérgio wanted a more technical document.

And then-President Jair Bolsonaro wanted something more political. What would a 'more technical' or 'more political' document look like?In a way, the more technical version… and the president didn’t want just that. He wanted, for example, to include the allegations that had been raised — things aimed at the presidents and beyond — to suggest that there could have been fraud. To give it a tone that fraud might have happened in the elections. In the end, it seems the middle ground was to say that it was not possible for the State to confirm it.

It wasn’t possible to affirm such a thing — this was the middle ground. So, these were the questions. You say that after the report was sent by the Ministry of Defense and the statement from the Electoral Court (TSE), then-President Jair Bolsonaro gave guidance for Minister Paulo Sérgio to issue a note saying that nothing had been found, but also that we couldn’t affirm that nothing could be found. We just watched him in that moment, so something must have existed.""

A collaborator recalled — when he gave his statement — that the commanders of the three Armed Forces signed a note (I'm quoting here, using quotation marks), stating that the three commanders of the three branches signed a note authorizing the continued presence of people in front of the military barracks, by order of then-President Jair Bolsonaro.I would like to know if Mr. Leal could clarify the facts better: how exactly was this order from then-President Jair Bolsonaro given?"That’s it!""

They were there — that’s what it was about — but that kind of explicit order, in that exact form, I did not witness. If such an order existed, I didn’t see it. But there was an understanding, even in the conversations we had, that there needed to be support for the protesters in front of the barracks.My question is quite pressing, because in the previous testimony, the witness stated that this directive came by order of then-President Jair Bolsonaro.

What I would like to know is: how did he reach that conclusion — that this directive came directly from President Bolsonaro? There was no such order. I did not witness a direct command from the president to the military commanders instructing them to support the protests. If Mr. Administrator inferred, from certain circumstances, that the President of the Republic wanted that directive to be followed… well, that's a different matter. You said this in your testimony on the 21st, Mr. Leal — November 21st. That’s important.

Of course it’s important.Right. That was a conclusion based on the context we were living in and witnessing — the refusal to demobilize, and the perception that the Armed Forces were, in some way, supporting the protesters who were camped out there.What did the Armed Forces actually do? Essentially, the Armed Forces offered support — by 'support,' I don’t mean endorsement of the protesters’ demands, but rather that they ensured their safety, allowed them to remain in place.I would like to ask, Mr. Administrator, if my colleague can confirm whether there were members of the Spiritual Forces present as well." Thank you.

Editor Notes.

*Results from a difficult voice recording in Portuguese, translated and converted to English text. The cut starts with a Bolsonaro witness being questioned by the two judges. It was a little difficult to separate the speakers, but with a little intelligence, it will be understood.