[ad_1]
The general director of Abin (Brazilian Intelligence Agency), Alexandre Ramagem, told the STF (Federal Supreme Court) on Tuesday (15) that the agency did not produce reports to guide the defense of Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (Republicans-RJ). in the case of “crack”.
Ramage admitted there was a meeting with the MP’s defense, but said the meeting did not generate any subsequent formal government action to justify the lawsuit.
Both the director of the agency and the Minister of Institutional Security, Augusto Heleno, provided clarifications to the Supreme Court.
Both argued that the court should notify journalist Guilherme Amado, who denounced the case in Época Magazine, to present the aforementioned reports.
“In this sense, I would like to mention to the STF the appointment of the journalist who has the data of the alleged document prepared by ABIN to provide the cited reports so that it is possible to adopt the appropriate measures,” Ramage asked.
The two also maintained that the meeting with Flávio’s defense is not illegal, since it is up to GSI and Abin to ensure the safety of the president and his family.
“The meeting that takes place is completely regular, since it is within the powers legally attributed to GSI, a body of which ABIN is a part. As there was no breach of institutional security, there was no action as a result of the meeting, ”Ramage said.
The director of Abin and Heleno responded to the decision of Minister Cármen Lúcia, who, at the request of the Sustainability Network, had given 24 hours for both to comment on the Época report.
The article sent by the government to the STF indicates that the defense meeting with GSI took place because it drew the attention of the body, informally, through the lawyers Luciana Pires and Juliana Bieerenbach, information on alleged irregularities of the Federal Treasury in preparing reports on Flávio.
“According to the aforementioned lawyers, such complaints were brought to the GSI, in theory, to reach a member of the presidential family. However, in light of what was presented to us, what could seem a matter of institutional security, was configured as an issue, dealt with within the scope of the Internal Revenue Service, of an internal nature of that body and already prosecuted ”.
