Interview: General Heleno’s lawyer believes in client acquittal

During his oral argument, lawyer Matheus Milanez, who defends General Augusto Heleno in the STF trial contested the probative value of the notebook seized by the Federal Police, nicknamed the “coup book”. According to him, the pages would have been manipulated to create a support narrative for undemocratic measures. In an interview with InfomoneyMilanez reiterates the statements.

The lawyer questioned evidence presented by the prosecutor, as a notebook that would only have, according to him, personal notes of Heleno and nothing that referred to an alleged coup and admits that he was pleased with the repercussion of the defense. “Seeing the repercussion, the people commenting on this question of the inquisitor judge, the evidence, and even the aid of Datashow were very good to help understand, I was even happier,” he admitted.

Also read: Allies are irritated by Paulo Sérgio’s defense strategy of implying Bolsonaro

According to Milanez, Heleno was progressively removed from the nearest nucleus of former President Jair Bolsonaro, and, therefore, says that “if there was anything, he did not participate, did not know, or was there.”

Follow the full interview of lawyer Matheus Milanez.

Infoomoney – He drew attention in the defense made by the Lord, especially a concern in showing General Heleno’s removal from Bolsonaro. Was this the defense strategy?

Matheus Milanez – Yes, because if there was anything, he didn’t participate, didn’t know, or went there. We deny any kind of plan, any kind of organization. But the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR), Paulo Gonet, points out that General Heleno would still be a great Bolsonaro consultant. We presented evidence that, really, in the first half of the term and even pre-campaign, General Heleno was a strong arm, he was a counselor, was there on Bolsonaro’s side as a political actor and was part of the high decision summit.

But from the middle of the term forward, when he joins the PL, the centron embarks on the government, there is a natural removal of the general. Because he did not agree with this traditional policy and, of course, these parties were not very close to him because of his positions. So, as General Heleno himself speaks in his interrogation: “Before I climbed and stayed in the cabinet, with this new format, yet I kept receiving the president, climbed with him, but was not in the cabinet.” That is, the president was looking for him much less than before. Which was confirmed by his own cabinet chief and the head of presidential security.

IM – Do you think PGR has taken this into consideration?

Mm “Actually, I think the PGR wasn’t wanting to look at the tests.” The prosecutor wanted to get any kind of element to condemn everyone. So he didn’t have so much,- it was a question that we hit a lot,- an impartial look of the tests. Impartial that I say, is to look attentively to the tests. Because he was aware only of the Judicial Police reports (IPJS), the analysis of the evidence by the Federal Police. From the beginning, we were beating to have access to the test. I even said we were complaining and being boring. And when the “Operation Times Veritaates” folder, two days before the interrogation, appeared, there was the notebook. We brought the agenda (a personal book of General Heleno) and demystified everything they had built.

IM – What did you have in this booklet?

Mm – Several personal notes – exactly what we put. The whole notebook is not in the process, is in the police database. But there are only notes like bank accounts, bank passwords, reminded to call so -and -so, has a page, which I even wanted to put it, I don’t remember if it was to go to the laundry or something. It’s very personal.

IM – But this booklet proves that at first there were meetings with Bolsonaro and then no more?

Mm – No. The removal was proven with witnesses. On the agenda, in that booklet, there is none of this meeting with the president. There is a noted meeting, sometimes there are some things about international scenario, there are GSI questions, as he was the minister. We put up to two pages talking about the judiciary, one about Minister Toffoli and one about Barroso. The Barroso who would have given an ADPF injunction, which he even writes direct action of non -compliance with a fundamental precept. And Minister Toffoli, about 20 days of vacation. Underneath, there are notes that have nothing to do with it. From Barroso, he puts the amount of vaccines per month and, in Toffoli, is written like this: “Working hard”

IM – So why was this booklet used as proof?

Mm – The Public Prosecution Service claims that this is a coup manual, that the agenda would take the step by step to prove how a blow is given.

IM – And what is the Lord saying exactly the opposite?

Mm “Exactly, I’m saying it’s actually a personal book.” And by the pages and table I put there is interesting, because the two main points that PGR is based on are: that strategic meeting, defendant of strategic guidelines that is written; and that meeting of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU) for alleged non-compliance with a court decision. They put it as if they had one another. When, in fact, one thing has been a hundred pages away from each other.

IM-Do you think the defense you presented yesterday, in a way, compromises that of former President Jair Bolsonaro?

Mm – No, at all. Because at no time did I say the president did or stopped doing something. What we put was: the general did not participate, did not play and did nothing. If something happened, it was also proven that he was unaware, did not play and did not work in this regard.

In – Why was this time distance between the two?

Mm – Exactly. But, not just for that. Because we brought witnesses also who proved that the general would not have politicized and used the Institutional Security Office (GSI). The prosecutor says that the general would have politicized and used the GSI. We have GSI tall -ranked witnesses, who said it was never discussed political subject inside. That the politician was the general and that was not treated there. Another point that PGR brings is that General Heleno was part of the parallel Abin. We proved that the general was not even indicted in the parallel ABIN report and that he was even investigated by Abin Parallel herself. There was 11 monitoring at his telephone terminal. So, how was it one of the articulators of the parallel investigation group, if this group itself investigates it. It has no sense.

IM – In his support the Lord made some “criticism” to the conduct of Minister Alexandre de Moraes, for example that he would have asked more questions than the MP. Do you think this can cause some kind of retaliation?

Mm “I don’t believe it, because criticism is in the field of ideas.” My “attack” was not an attack, just a criticism of acting. This is because in the accusatory system, which is our system, is in our code, and was implemented by the anticrimin law, says that the figure of the judge, the accuser and the defender are very well identified. There is no such confusion. So my question was not criticizing in the sense of driving, but it was to point out that the conduct of the work, the way he conducted the interrogations and the questioning of the witnesses violated the principle of the accusatory system. It was in this sense.

IM – Did you leave satisfied with the support you made yesterday?

Mm – Look, I admit that I was happy when I was over, I was pleased, but then when I saw the repercussion, I was even more satisfied. I hoped it was good, I prepared a lot, studied a lot, trained well the time was right, on top of an hour, I didn’t take more time. But then, seeing the repercussion, the people commenting on this question of the inquisitor judge, the evidence, and even the aid of Datashow were very good to help to understand, I was even happier. So, I consider that I did my job well. I was pleased.

IM – What do you expect as a result for your client’s process?

Mm – We believe in acquittal. So much so that I spent 50 minutes of my 60 talking about acquittal. Just bringing evidence and deconstructing all elements of evidence from the Public Prosecution Service. And, in particular, pointing out that the defense produced evidence and the prosecutor did not produce any. If you look at the proof of the beginning of the process, receiving the complaint now, nothing has been generated against General Heleno. On the contrary, there are only proofs to confirm, to contest the thesis of the Public Prosecution Service.

IM – Now, being not complete acquittal, would you be pleased with a milder penalty?

Mm – No, any different result of acquittal, I would not be happy.