Brazil's Bolsonaro used intelligence agency to spy on judges, lawmakers and journalists, police say

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — Brazil's federal police accused former president Jair Bolsonaro and 35 others of involvement in a sprawling scheme that used the country's intelligence agency to spy on members of the judiciary, lawmakers and journalists. The seal on the 1,125-page document, which adds to the far-right leader's woes, was lifted by the country's Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The federal police document said Bolsonaro was both aware of the scheme and its main beneficiary. Investigator Daniel Carvalho Brasil Nascimento, who chairs the probe, named one of the former president's sons, Rio de Janeiro councilor Carlos Bolsonaro, as a key plot member. The police investigation focuses on a so-called parallel structure in Brazil's intelligence agency.
'(Bolsonaro and Carlos) were responsible for the definitions of the criminal organization's strategic guidelines, for choosing the targets of the clandestine actions (against opponents, institutions, the electoral system) so they would politically gain from these operations,' the federal police said. 'They are the decision center and the main recipients of illicit advantages.'
Bolsonaro, who governed between 2019 and 2022 and is already barred by Brazil's electoral court from running in next year's elections, is standing on trial over allegations that he attempted a coup to stay in office despite his 2022 defeat to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He denies any wrongdoing and claims he is being politically persecuted.
One of the counts Bolsonaro will be sentenced on in the coup case is precisely on leading a criminal organization, which stopped federal police from requesting the same for the accusations revealed on Wednesday, as both investigations entwine.
'If he were accused again for the same facts, this would most likely come up against a prohibition called prohibition obis in idem, a Latin formula that means double punishment or double accusation for the same act,' said João Pedro Padua, a law professor at the Fluminense Federal University.
The evidence revealed on Wednesday can still be used in the coup probe.
Celso Vilardi, a lawyer for Bolsonaro, told the The Associated Press he was yet to analyze the federal police report and its accusations against his client.
Brazil's federal police also accused Luiz Fernando Corrêa, the head of the country's intelligence agency under Lula, of undue interference in investigations. On Tuesday, staffers of the agency issued a statement to push for Corrêa's resignation. He did not respond a request for comment.
Brazil's Supreme Court will hand the police investigation to Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet, who will decide whether the investigation will be taken to the Supreme Court for trial.
Last year, police arrested five people in connection with the case, under the suspicion that the Brazilian intelligence agency was being misused.
Court documents showed then several authorities were under illegal investigation, including former speakers Arthur Lira and Rodrigo Maia, Supreme Court justices, officials of Brazil's environmental agency Ibama, former Sao Paulo Gov. João Doria and prominent political journalists.
____
Savarese reported from Sao Paulo.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNN

2 hours ago

• CNN

Pope Leo praises work of journalists in first public comments on clerical abuse scandal

Pope Leo XIV has said the Catholic Church must establish a culture that refuses to tolerate abuse in 'any form,' as he thanked a Peruvian journalist for reporting on allegations of abuse inside a powerful Catholic group. Leo's remarks, the first he has made publicly on the church's abuse scandals since his election to the papacy on May 8, were contained in a message sent for the performance of a play which dramatizes the work of an investigative journalist, Paola Ugaz, who has faced a long campaign of legal actions and death threats due to her reporting. 'It is urgent to ingrain throughout the Church a culture of prevention that does not tolerate any form of abuse — neither of power or authority, nor of conscience or spirituality, nor sexual,' Leo wrote in a message read on 20 June. 'This culture will only be authentic if it is born of active vigilance, transparent processes, and sincere listening to those who have been hurt.' The pope said the work of journalism was essential to implementing that culture of prevention, as he praised Ugaz and other Peruvian journalists for their reporting on abuse scandals inside the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (Sodality of Christian Life, or SCV), a hugely influential Catholic society which had deep ties to Peru's powerful and wealthy. Pope Leo, who spent years working as a missionary and bishop in Peru, came face-to-face with the SCV case when working in the country with Ugaz, and several survivors have said he was crucial in ensuring action was taken against the now dissolved group. In his message, the first American pope said it was vital the church followed 'a concrete path of humility, truth, and reparation' when it came to tackling abuses and cited a landmark 2018 letter from Pope Francis, in which he pledged the church's 'commitment to guarantee the protection of minors and vulnerable adults'. Leo insisted that the response to abuse cannot simply be a 'strategy' but requires a 'conversion' by the church, which for decades has been grappling with devastating revelations of sexual abuse by priests and other church leaders. The pope's praise of journalists' work in exposing abuse scandals is significant, given that some bishops have in the past criticized the media for its reporting on them. Leo XIV, however, said the journalists who had reported on the Sodalitium had done so with 'courage, patience, and fidelity to the truth' and had faced 'unjust attacks.' The pope said the church recognized the 'wound' in 'so many children, young people, and adults who were betrayed where they sought solace' and 'those who risked their freedom and their (good) names so that the truth would not be buried.' The June 20 message from Leo was read at a performance in Lima, Peru, of the play 'Proyecto Ugaz' (Project Ugaz), which highlights Ugaz's years-long investigation into the Sodalitium. Monsignor Jordi Bertomeu, one of the Vatican investigators into the Sodalitium group, read out the message with Ugaz on stage alongside him. The work of journalists is vital, Leo insisted, in ensuring the church is a place where 'no one suffers in silence' and where 'the truth is not seen as a threat, but as a path to liberation. He praised Ugaz and fellow journalists for their courage in exposing the abuses. Pope Leo also referenced 'tensions' in Peru, which have been heightened following the removal of President Pedro Castillo in 2022, and he underlined the importance of a free media in a country where journalists have faced intimidation and attacks. 'In this time of profound institutional and social tensions, defending free and ethical journalism is not only an act of justice, but a duty of all those who yearn for a solid and participatory democracy,' he said. 'Wherever a journalist is silenced, the democratic soul of a country is weakened. Freedom of the press is an inalienable common good. Those who conscientiously exercise this vocation cannot see their voices silenced by petty interests or fear of the truth.' A few days after his election, the pope met media representatives in the Vatican and during that gathering he stressed his support for a free press and called for the release of imprisoned journalists. Ugaz was among those present at the meeting, and after his speech she greeted Leo with a broad smile, as she handed him a box of chocolates and a Peruvian scarf. That meeting with the media, Leo explained in his message on June 20, affirmed the 'sacred mission' of journalists to 'become bridges between the facts and the conscience of the people.'

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'

Boston Globe

2 hours ago

• Boston Globe

In US court, due process rulings have been word for word

In orders asserting their Advertisement They pointed to language in a landmark 1982 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of undocumented children to a free public education, which reads: 'even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.' US District Judge Indira Talwani, in an order issued April 28, was the first to stress the constitutional rights of immigrants, when she prevented the government from transferring an immigrant to another jurisdiction. The next day, Judge Leo T. Sorokin wrote a nearly identical order, then a dozen other judges adopted that language in orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants who filed habeas petitions. The rulings have provided critical relief for immigrants in Massachusetts at a time when many are immediately being shipped to detention facilities hundreds of miles away or deported without a hearing, according to advocates. Advertisement 'It's been heartening to see,' said attorney Benjamin Tymann, who represents several immigrants who filed habeas petitions. 'These are completely reasonable orders for judges to put in place because all they are saying is, 'OK, let's hit pause' ... and make the government make some showing on the merits of their arrest.'' Immigration lawyers have accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement of moving immigrants across the country to disrupt or delay efforts to challenge their arrests and removal from the United States, and to place them under the jurisdiction of more conservative federal courts. In one case, US District Judge Denise Casper temporarily barred the government from transferring 25-year-old Luis Fernando Olmos Ramirez while she considered his claim that ICE violated his rights when its agents arrested him in Lynn on May 24. Tymann argued there was 'no lawful basis' to arrest Ramirez, who was granted special immigrant juvenile status after coming to the United States from his native El Salvador as an unaccompanied minor in 2015 and has since lived with his father in Lynn. He has no criminal record and has an application pending for a Green card, according to Tymann. In her order, Casper wrote that relocating Ramirez to a facility outside Massachusetts 'will exponentially increase the risks that he will be further deprived of due process and unlawfully removed from the United States to dangerous conditions in El Salvador or elsewhere.' On June 10, Ramirez voluntarily dismissed his petition after an immigration judge released him on bond. But Tymann credits Casper's intervention with paving the way for his release. Advertisement 'Without the no-transfer order, he may have been sent to Texas or somewhere else,' Tymann said. US Attorney Leah Foley, whose office represents the government in habeas petition cases, acknowledged in a statement that the Supreme Court 'has established that all persons in the United States have Constitutional protections, regardless of their immigration status.' She said her office has no authority to tell ICE where to house immigrants in its custody, but immediately forwards the agency the judges' orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants. A spokesperson for ICE did not respond to requests for comment about the habeas petitions and allegations that agents have made unlawful arrests. But the agency has made clear that it has worked to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said during a press conference last month that agents were targeting dangerous and violent criminals, but will arrest anyone they encounter who is in the country illegally. And he argued that their rights are not being violated. 'ICE doesn't just scoop people off the street and remove them,' Lyons said. 'Everyone gets due process and that is what the US attorney's office is for. It's what the immigration courts are for.' Some of the petitions before US District Court judges were filed by people who entered the country without permission, then surrendered themselves to immigration officials and had been allowed to remain free as they pursued lawful status. They allege they were arrested without probable cause or due process while driving to work or dropping their children off at school. Advertisement In some cases, petitioners allege they were leaving the Chelmsford immigration court after judges set hearings for a future date, only to be arrested in the hallways by immigration agents and told they were facing expedited removal from the country. 'What we are seeing in this country is just an assault on the rule of law,' said attorney Todd Pomerleau, whose Boston firm, Rubin Pomerleau, filed habeas petitions on behalf of five immigrants in recent weeks. One of Pomerleau's clients, Andre Damasio Ferreira, 40, was born in Brazil, came to the United States nearly 20 years ago, and lives in Everett with his wife, who is battling cancer. Their two children, 13 and 8, are US citizens. Ferreira, who works for a flooring company, was a passenger in a pickup truck being driven by a co-worker on May 30 when they were stopped by armed ICE agents who demanded to see their passports and questioned them about their immigration status, according to Pomerleau. Ferreira was arrested and is being held at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility pending removal proceedings. US District Judge William G. Young issued an order June 5 temporarily blocking Ferreira's transfer out of state, using the same language as his colleagues while stressing Ferreira's constitutional rights. Young wrote that although federal district courts don't generally have jurisdiction to review orders of removal by an immigration court, they do have jurisdiction over violations of the Constitution. The government argued in court filings on June 12 that Ferreira's arrest was lawful and urged Young to dismiss his petition. ICE agents stopped Ferreira because he looked like someone else they were targeting, then discovered he was unlawfully present in the country and had previously been removed in 2005, according to the government. The judge has yet to rule on the case. Advertisement In at least two cases, immigrants were mistakenly transferred — one to Louisiana and the other to Mississippi — in violation of judges' orders, according to court filings. The US attorney's office apologized and the petitioners were brought back to the state. Though judges have issued orders halting transfers by the Trump administration as early as January, they specifically began adopting the language reinforcing immigrants' constitutional rights after the arrest of Tufts PhD student She was arrested by masked ICE agents outside her Somerville apartment in March. By the time her lawyers filed last month, a federal judge in Vermont ordered her released, while he considers her claim that the government violated her free speech and due process rights. 'Now we are seeing a lot more detentions that violate due process rights and that's not an issue that immigration judges are usually able to address,' said Shantanu Chatterjee, a Chelsea attorney who has filed habeas petitions on behalf of several immigrants. He said more immigration lawyers are seeking relief for their clients in federal district courts. The flurry of rulings 'sends a message to everyone that Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at