> That's not what you said. You said "certain groups" are trying to undermine the non-existent impartiality of the supreme court.
I said they were trying to "stamp political motivation on on the decisions of the upper judiciary".
IOW, to label them as politically motivated.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since these groups have been pretty vocal about it.
By "certain groups" I meant "some political parties, politicians and associates", though I'm not comfortable defining it further since I don't have exact references ATM.
> As you can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that was claimed.
This is a different inquiry, check the numbers.
> Whatever Bolsonaro plotted to do is mostly irrelevant when faced with this. If anything it'd be a counter-coup.
I understand. Let's agree to disagree.
I said they were trying to "stamp political motivation on on the decisions of the upper judiciary".
IOW, to label them as politically motivated.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since these groups have been pretty vocal about it.
By "certain groups" I meant "some political parties, politicians and associates", though I'm not comfortable defining it further since I don't have exact references ATM.
> As you can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that was claimed.
This is a different inquiry, check the numbers.
> Whatever Bolsonaro plotted to do is mostly irrelevant when faced with this. If anything it'd be a counter-coup.
I understand. Let's agree to disagree.