Complaint against Bolsonaro is proceeding at cruising speed.

Strategies are defined forms and means to achieve a specific objective. They can be well thought out and poorly executed, poorly thought out and poorly executed, or well thought out and well executed. A poorly thought-out strategy has no chance of being well executed. In the case of Jair Bolsonaro's defense strategy, in the face of the formal complaint filed with the Supreme Federal Court by the Attorney General of the Republic, it seems to be of the "half-or-half" type. 

It must be thankless to defend Bolsonaro, despite the certainly high remuneration. Not because of the specific case itself, since criminal lawyers like challenges, but because of the brainless figure to be defended. The idea of ​​bringing up the Trump-Capitol case, in which the future defendant praises the slowness and leniency of the American justice system—a model to be condemned in any civilized country—must not have originated with his lawyers.

Whether out of ignorance, stupidity, or a lack of a better strategy, Bolsonaro supporters accuse the Supreme Court of lacking speed, a noun that denotes a virtue, especially when it comes to the application of justice. To be swift is to be quick and correct. It has nothing to do with haste or recklessness. 

The Attorney General's Office's complaint against former President Jair Bolsonaro – and seven other people – was filed with the Supreme Court on February 18. Justice Alexandre de Moraes released it for judgment on March 13. On the same day, Justice Cristiano Zanin, president of the First Panel, scheduled the trial for March 25. Therefore, 25 days elapsed between the Attorney General's Office receiving the complaint and the setting of the trial date. This pace was in accordance with the court's procedural rules. 

It is worth remembering: then-judge Sergio Moro indicted Lula in the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba six days after receiving the complaint from the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. The complaint against Lula in the Guarujá triplex case was filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office on September 14, 2016, and Moro accepted it on September 20, 2016.

To protest is a right of those who see themselves about to be convicted and imprisoned. In the case of those with electoral ambitions, even if prevented by the courts from entering that game, like Bolsonaro, creativity is key. "In a trial like this, what the investigated and subsequently accused can do is try to question the legitimacy of the trial, try to capitalize electorally for themselves or their supporters," FGV Direito professor Rubens Glezer told the column.

Desperate, Bolsonaro is seeking pretexts to delegitimize the judicial process even before becoming a defendant. "Anything that could suggest prejudice, persecution, or something like that is emphasized. If the proceedings were taking too long, things like 'where has this ever been seen?', 'the justice system is slow,' 'the justice system is inefficient' would be said," Glezer observed.

The jurist and law professor Lenio Streck, in a conversation with this column, was direct and didactic: “There was an indictment, the accused responded within the deadline, the Attorney General made the response to the responses within the deadline, and Zanin scheduled the trial. Nothing new and nothing abnormal. It's bizarre that there are complaints about meeting deadlines. Slow justice seems to be the most appropriate, according to Bolsonaro.” 

Constitutional law expert Pedro Serrano, a professor at PUC-SP, also did not see any intentional acceleration on the part of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in this case. “The case is proceeding normally. The fact that it has a shorter timeframe than a common case is the same situation that occurred in the Mensalão scandal; that is, there is no different instance of appeal, but a judgment that will take place in a single instance. In a common case, the judgment is made by the first-instance judge, then appeals are made to the State Court of Appeals (TJ), then to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), and from there to the Supreme Federal Court (STF). In this case, it is not the same,” Serrano explained to the column.

Since the attack, in an attempted coup, was also directed against the Supreme Court, only the Supreme Court can judge the case – there is no other way. 

“There is nothing rushed in this case. This statement actually reveals an intention to delay, perhaps unduly, the process. Time must be the time of Justice, which is neither too fast nor too long – it is the optimal time, the time necessary for the facts to be known, for the right to a full defense to be granted. In the end, if the materiality of the crime and authorship are verified, the person is convicted. If not, the person is acquitted. These are criteria of justice, not of a power struggle,” pondered Pedro Serrano.

So far, the charges against Jair Bolsonaro and his coup-plotting associates are progressing smoothly through the judiciary. Stable, constant, efficient.