“Strong rhetoric, but against the facts,” says Folena about Fux's vote declaring the Supreme Court incompetent.

247 - Lawyer Jorge Folena reacted vehemently to the arguments presented by Minister Luiz Fux in the trial regarding the attempted coup d'état, which involves former President Jair Bolsonaro and seven other defendants. In his social media post, Folena criticized Fux's statements, who claimed that the Supreme Court would not be competent to judge the case, since the defendants did not have parliamentary immunity.

Folena highlighted that Fux forgot a fundamental point: the criminal case is in the Supreme Court not because of acts committed by former President Bolsonaro, but due to crimes committed directly against the Court itself and its ministers. The lawyer recalled that maintaining the investigations under the supervision of Minister Alexandre de Moraes was a decision of the Supreme Court itself, which recognized the seriousness of the actions against the Supreme Court and its institutional integrity. "Fux forgot that the criminal case is in the Supreme Court not because of an act committed by a former president, but because of acts committed against the Supreme Court and its ministers, as the Court has already decided in maintaining the investigations under Moraes' supervision," the lawyer stated.

In his analysis, Folena questioned the logic of Fux's vote, arguing that, by attempting to disqualify the Supreme Court's competence to judge the case, the minister was disregarding the context of the crimes, whose main targets are precisely the members of the Court. "Strong rhetoric, but against the underlying facts of the crimes," wrote the lawyer, referring to Fux's argument as an attempt to divert attention from the accusations and the seriousness of the acts committed.

Folena's criticism is based on the understanding that the crimes imputed to the defendants—including attempted coup d'état and attacks on the democratic order—not only involve the overthrow of a legitimate government, but were also directly aimed at the Supreme Court. The lawyer emphasized that, by acting against the Supreme Court, the accused challenged the very structure of the rule of law and the authority of the institution that guarantees the constitution and justice in the country.