Noblat accuses Dilma and the PT of sponsoring coups.

247 - Who, ultimately, is the coup plotter? The so-called "Coup-mongering Press Party," of which columnist Ricardo Noblat of Globo is allegedly one of the most active leaders, or the Workers' Party and the government of President Dilma? This Monday, in his column in Globo, Noblat takes a radical turn, accusing both the Workers' Party and President Dilma of sponsoring coups and conspiring against the rule of law in the country. Read below:

Pending coups - - RICARDO NOBLAT 

"We do not accept the influence of the Judiciary."

Renan Calheiros, president of the Senate

José Guimarães, the PT leader in the Chamber of Deputies, was asked his opinion on the approval, by the Constitution and Justice Committee, of the amendment to the Constitution that gives Congress the final say on certain matters.

decisions of the Supreme Federal Court (STF). Brother of the convicted politician José Genoino, Guimarães headed, in 2005, the operation that arrested the citizen with dollars inside his underwear, a memorable episode in the recent history of the PT (Workers' Party).

First, Guimarães responded that his party had nothing to do with the matter. Second, that, for that very reason, the matter had not been discussed by the PT deputies. Third, that not even he knew that the amendment would soon be voted on in the Chamber's plenary session. Finally, that the repercussion achieved by the approval of the amendment in the Committee was nothing more than a "factoid".

GUIMARÃES LIED. The PT (Workers' Party) did have something to do with the matter, yes, because the author of the amendment presented in 2011 is a member of the PT, and the president of the Commission who decided to put it to a vote is also a member of the PT. Furthermore, votes from PT members, such as those of Genoino and João Paulo Cunha, both convicted by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and involved in the Mensalão scandal, helped to approve the amendment. The PT was ready to approve the amendment in the plenary session, but then... THEN, THE

The repercussions of the event outside Congress were so significant that the Speaker of the House, Henrique Eduardo Alves (PMDB-RN), deemed it advisable to put the brakes on. It is the Supreme Court's responsibility to interpret the Constitution and ensure that it is respected. The other branches of government must abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. If some of these decisions seem absurd to them, they should appeal to the Supreme Court, hoping for a review.

The Workers' Party (PT) and its servile allies ignored the Constitution and conspired against the rule of law in the country. This is a coup. In this case, an attempted coup aborted by the repercussions that Guimarães preferred to call a "factoid." If the amendment had prospered, deputies and senators would have decided, ultimately, whether or not what they themselves approved would be valid. The Supreme Court could have been shut down. It would no longer be missed.

What was extraordinary about all this was that only one member of the government protested against what was happening: Michel Temer, the vice-president. Nothing prevented Dilma from speaking out about it, even while traveling abroad – but she didn't. The Minister of Justice remained silent. As did the other ministers. All of them were complicit! Not to mention being called accomplices in the failed coup.

This was not the only measure attempted last week. Approved in the Chamber of Deputies, a bill was awaiting Senate approval that would practically eliminate the possibility of creating new parties, preventing them from accessing electoral advertising time and resources from the Party Fund. Furthermore, the bill increases the advertising time for the candidate with the most support – in other words, Dilma.

The Supreme Federal Court (STF) granted an injunction suspending the vote on the bill. It was conceived to prevent former Senator Marina Silva from forming her own party and running for president to succeed Dilma Rousseff. Last year, Gilberto Kassab founded the PSD, to which the STF guaranteed the right to use the electoral advertising time and the share of resources from the Party Fund corresponding to the number of parliamentarians who joined it.

Questions that keep being asked: why would the Supreme Court deny new parties what it guaranteed to the PSD, which will support Dilma? With just over a year until the next elections, is it reasonable to change the rules governing them? Isn't the former ethical cleaner ashamed of what she sponsors?