🇧🇷 Brazil Episodes

Guests: Paulo Cesar Marques da Silva, PhD in Transport Studies from the University of London; and David Duarte Lima, PhD in traffic safety from the Free University of Brussels. 127 million vehicles. This is the number of the Brazilian fleet, according to calculations by the Ministry of Transport. Part of this fleet is in the hands of 20 million Brazilians who do not have a driver's license. The National Traffic Secretariat says that 50.4% of motorcycle owners are not licensed – about 16.5 million drivers. The country recorded 34,800 traffic deaths in 2023, according to data from the Atlas of Violence, released in May by the Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea) and the Brazilian Forum for Public Security (FBSP). We are the third country in the ranking of traffic deaths, behind only China and India. It is in this context that President Lula gave the go-ahead to end the mandatory driving school requirement for obtaining a National Driver's License. A public consultation on the topic was opened on Thursday (2) to discuss the topic. The government argues that the high cost of obtaining a CNH – between R$ 3,000 and R$ 4,000 – has led millions of Brazilians to drive without a driver's license. To explain the pros and cons of this idea, Natuza Nery talks to two traffic experts. First, she listens to Paulo Cesar Marques da Silva, PhD in Transport Studies from the University of London and professor at UnB. He is the one who points out the positive points of ending the mandatory driving schools in the country. "What has been observed is an escape from the qualification process," says Paulo, who has worked as a traffic engineer for the City of Salvador and the Traffic Engineering Company of Rio de Janeiro. Afterwards, David Duarte Lima, PhD in traffic safety from the Free University of Brussels, speaks. He presents the arguments against ending driving schools. For him, ending the mandatory requirement "may take away from the candidate for qualification the possibility of acquiring knowledge in a more concrete, solid and structured way."

Guests: Valdo Cruz, GloboNews commentator, and Thatiane Piscitelli, FGV-SP Tax Law professor. Deputies unanimously approved the bill exempting income tax for those earning up to R$5,000 per month. There were 493 votes in favor on Wednesday night. Now, the text goes to the Senate. According to government calculations, 10 million taxpayers should benefit. The government's proposal was sent to the Chamber in March to correct distortions in the income tax table – created to tax more those who earn more, the table has not been fully corrected since 1996. To compensate for the exemption, the government proposed taxation with a progressive rate of up to 10% on income above R$600,000 per year - workers who have salary as their only source of income will not be affected, as the tax discount is done automatically on the paycheck. To explain how this imbalance arose in the income tax table, Natuza Nery talks to Tathiane Piscitelli, doctor in tax law from USP and professor of Tax Law at FGV-SP. She discusses what tax justice means in Brazil. Valdo Cruz, GloboNews commentator, also participates. Previously, Valdo Cruz, GloboNews commentator, analyzes the text that went to a vote after months of negotiations. He also explains which proposals were presented by deputies, especially in relation to so-called compensations.

Guest: Carlos Henrique Dias, TV Globo producer. More than 20 cases of methanol poisoning in contaminated drinks are under investigation in São Paulo. By Tuesday night (30th), five deaths had been confirmed. Striking numbers: the Federal Police opened an investigation to see if other states received counterfeit batches of contaminated drinks. Methanol is a highly flammable, toxic and difficult to identify substance. Odorless, the substance causes abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, headache, tachycardia, seizures and blurred vision. In this episode, Natuza Nery talks to journalist Carlos Henrique Dias, from TV Globo in São Paulo. He reports how the first suspicions of poisoning arose early last week, on September 22nd. Carlos explains how the investigations began, what poisoning victims said and how the alert first sounded in São Paulo hospitals. The journalist explains in detail what the Federal and Civil police investigations indicate and why the investigated cases deviate from the usual pattern of methanol poisoning in the country.

Convidado: Feliciano de Sá Guimarães, professor do Instituto de Relações Internacionais da USP. Em 8 de setembro, a Polônia relatou que drones sobrevoaram o país sem autorização. Desde então, Romênia, Estônia e Dinamarca registraram invasão aérea de seus territórios. Todos estes países integram a Otan. Governos europeus apontam todos os dedos para Moscou: afirmam que se trata de uma ofensiva russa e que há um padrão de intimidação. O Kremlin nega. Em discurso na Assembleia Geral da ONU no fim de semana, o chanceler russo Sergei Lavrov fez acusações contra a Ucrânia, negou que Moscou esteja planejando um ataque contra a Europa e ameaçou quem agredir a Rússia. Para analisar a possibilidade de os drones serem russos e as consequências da reação preliminar da Otan, Natuza Nery conversa com Feliciano de Sá Guimarães, professor do Instituto de Relações Internacionais da USP. Ele avalia a hipótese de que a Rússia esteja testando as defesas antiaéreas e o monitoramento dos países que integram a aliança militar que prevê que, caso um de seus membros sejam atacados, o bloco deve se defender.

Escrita em 1791, a Primeira Emenda da Constituição americana garante cinco liberdades: religião, expressão, imprensa, reunião e petição. Liberdade de expressão ganha volume após decisões de Trump e casos como a suspensão de Jimmy Kimmel. Natuza Nery e Thiago Amparo explicam a Primeira Emenda e a liberdade de expressão. Thiago compara liberdade de expressão nos EUA e no Brasil, analisando medidas de Trump para cercear a imprensa e impedir protestos.

Convidado: Guga Chacra, comentarista da TV Globo, da GloboNews e colunista do jornal O Globo. Sem visto para entrar nos EUA, o presidente da Autoridade Palestina, Mahmoud Abbas, discursou por videoconferência na Assembleia Geral da ONU. Em uma fala que durou quase 20 minutos, Abbas condenou os ataques do Hamas de 7 de outubro, afirmou que o grupo terrorista não terá papel em um futuro governo e agradeceu aos mais de 140 países, incluindo aliados históricos dos EUA, que reconhecem o Estado Palestino – entre eles a França e o Reino Unido, que integram o Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas e anunciaram apoio nesta semana. O discurso de Abbas foi feito um dia antes de o premiê de Israel falar na ONU. Benjamin Netanyahu é esperado nesta sexta-feira (26) na Assembleia Geral. O primeiro-ministro israelense, aliado de Donald Trump, já afirmou categoricamente que “não haverá um Estado Palestino”. Em conversa com Natuza Nery neste episódio, Guga Chacra analisa o que disse Abbas e projeta o que esperar da fala de Netanyahu na ONU – e da reação da comunidade interacional. O comentarista da Globo e da GloboNews avalia que Netanyahu chega “poderoso e, ao mesmo tempo, isolado pela comunidade internacional”. Guest: Guga Chacra, commentator for TV Globo, GloboNews and columnist for the newspaper O Globo. Without a visa to enter the US, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, spoke by videoconference at the UN General Assembly. In a speech that lasted almost 20 minutes, Abbas condemned the Hamas attacks of October 7, stated that the terrorist group will have no role in a future government and thanked the more than 140 countries, including historical allies of the US, that recognize the Palestinian State – among them France and the United Kingdom, which are members of the United Nations Security Council and announced their support this week. Abbas' speech was made one day before the Israeli Prime Minister speaks at the UN. Benjamin Netanyahu is expected this Friday (26th) at the General Assembly. The Israeli Prime Minister, an ally of Donald Trump, has already stated categorically that "there will be no Palestinian State". In a conversation with Natuza Nery in this episode, Guga Chacra analyzes what Abbas said and projects what to expect from Netanyahu's speech at the UN – and from the reaction of the international community. The Globo and GloboNews commentator assesses that Netanyahu arrives "powerful and, at the same time, isolated by the international community".

Guests: Laura Marise, researcher and creator of ‘Never Saw 1 Scientist’, and Romulo Negrini, vice-president of Febrasgo's childbirth commission and obstetrics coordinator at Hospital Albert Einstein. This Wednesday (24th), the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that there is no conclusive scientific evidence linking paracetamol use during pregnancy to autism. The statement was made after, earlier in the week, Donald Trump linked Tylenol use to autism. The association was made by the US president in a statement alongside Robert Kennedy Jr, Secretary of Health known for being an anti-vaccine voice and for spreading conspiracy theories. The trade name of paracetamol, Tylenol is one of the most used medicines in the world for pain and fever. Recognized as safe for pregnant women, it is an alternative to ibuprofen, a medicine not recommended for use during pregnancy. In this episode, Natuza Nery talks to pharmacist Laura Marise to answer what studies say about paracetamol use and about autism spectrum disorder. With a PhD in biosciences and biotechnology from Unesp, Laura is one of the creators of the scientific dissemination project “Never Saw 1 Scientist”. She warns of the danger of spreading information without scientific proof and answers what research reveals about the increase in autism diagnoses worldwide. Afterwards, Natuza receives doctor Romulo Negrini. Vice-president of the childbirth commission of Febrasgo (Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations) and medical coordinator of Obstetrics at Hospital Albert Einstein, he warns about the need for each woman to seek medical advice during pregnancy. And he reinforces that paracetamol use is recognized as safe for pregnant women, when used under medical guidance.

Guest: Guilherme Casarões, political scientist and professor at Florida International University. As is tradition, the Brazilian president gave the opening speech at the UN General Assembly. For 18 minutes, Lula defended national sovereignty, highlighted the importance of the environmental agenda and international organizations, mentioned the defense of democracy in Brazil, and defended the independence of a Palestinian state. Immediately after Lula, it was Donald Trump's turn. In his longest speech at the UN, Trump spoke for more than 50 minutes. And what was seen was a complete antagonism to Lula: criticism of the UN and attacks on immigrants. The US president classified climate change as "a hoax" and defended his tariffs. Until, surprisingly, Trump reported a brief meeting with Lula behind the scenes, saying he had "excellent chemistry" with the Brazilian. The US president stated that he should hold a meeting with Lula next week – a meeting still without details and viewed with caution by Brazilian diplomacy. To explain the antagonisms of Trump and Lula's speeches and what an approximation between the two might mean, Natuza Nery talks with Guilherme Casarões, political scientist and professor at Florida International University. Casarões classifies the divergences between them and points out the prospects for negotiation between the US and Brazil after months of deterioration in relations between the countries.

Convidado: Thomas Traumann, jornalista e comentarista da GloboNews. No dia seguinte às manifestações pelo país contra a PEC da Blindagem e contra a anistia, o presidente da Câmara, deputado Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB), afirmou que a hora é de “tirar da frente pautas tóxicas”. Na semana passada, foi Motta quem pautou a PEC e a urgência do projeto para anistiar os golpistas do 8 de janeiro de 2023. Em conversa com Natuza Nery, o jornalista Thomas Traumann avalia o tamanho dos protestos realizados em todas as capitais do país no último domingo (21). Thomas explica como os atos simbolizam uma mudança na capacidade de mobilização de grupos ligados à esquerda, depois de parte da direita priorizar os interesses da família Bolsonaro. Thomas fala também sobre como as sanções anunciadas pelos EUA contra autoridades brasileiras colocam mais um elemento de tensão política no ar. “Isso foi feito de forma mesquinha, para criar constrangimento para o presidente Lula”, diz, ao citar o discurso do presidente brasileiro desta terça-feira (23) na Assembleia Geral da ONU.

Guest: Deisy Ventura, jurist and professor of ethics at USP's Faculty of Public Health. In October 2021, the final report of the Covid CPI pointed to a series of errors, actions, and omissions by the Jair Bolsonaro administration that contributed to Brazil reaching the tragic mark of 700,000 deaths from the coronavirus. Now, almost four years later, accountability for the handling of health in the pandemic is beginning to take shape. Last week, based on this report from the Covid CPI, STF Minister Flávio Dino opened an investigation for the Federal Police to investigate the conduct of Bolsonaro and 23 allies – including the former president's three eldest sons. In this episode, Natuza Nery listens to Deisy Ventura, author of a study that analyzed more than 3,000 norms adopted by the Bolsonaro administration related to the Covid pandemic. The study led by her provided data for the installation of the CPI in 2021. Jurist and professor of Ethics at USP's Faculty of Public Health, Deisy explains what the so-called "crime of epidemic" is and emphasizes why health agendas cannot be "cheap electoral material." She also affirms the importance of not forgetting the crimes committed during the pandemic.

Guest: Fernando Abrucio, FGV-SP prof. and GloboNews commentator. In just over 48 hours, deputies approved the Shielding PEC and the urgency to analyze the amnesty for the January 8 coup plotters. Decisions that benefit the political class and distance themselves from the real needs of the people – precisely who the deputies should represent in Congress. A detachment that has repercussions for the population and for the Executive and Judiciary branches, exposing a growing tension in Brasília. In conversation with Natuza Nery in this episode, Fernando Abrucio assesses that this is "the worst moment for the Chamber since redemocratization." FGV-SP professor and GloboNews commentator Abrucio points out the consequences of this moment for the country. He analyzes why, despite the strong reaction on social media against the Shielding PEC, parliamentarians approved the project: "the fear of being convicted or arrested today is greater than the fear of losing votes," he says. Together, Natuza and Abrucio also point out what is needed to reverse the current moment and highlight the importance of the 2026 legislative elections.

Guests: Elisa Clavery, GloboNews reporter in Brasília; and Renato Stanziola Vieira, lawyer and former president of the Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences. In two rounds and with the support of almost all parties in the House – there were about 350 votes in favor – the Chamber approved the Shielding PEC, which will now be voted on in the Senate. The proposal establishes a new rule for the investigation of crimes committed by parliamentarians: once the PEC is approved, the deputies and senators themselves will vote on whether or not a lawsuit can be opened against a congressional colleague. The text approved in the Chamber also provides that the vote for the opening of proceedings against parliamentarians will be secret. This point was made possible by a regimental maneuver orchestrated by the president of the House. Still on Wednesday evening (17), Hugo Motta (Republicans-PB) scheduled the vote on the urgency of the Amnesty Bill – which was approved with more than 300 votes in favor. In this episode, Victor Boyadjian talks with Elisa Clavery, GloboNews reporter in Brasília, about the details of the Shielding PEC text and what the climate is for the vote on the proposal in the Senate: she explains that, with an eye on the 2026 elections, senators are concerned about the reaction of social networks and should avoid "controversial agendas". Also participating is criminal lawyer Renato Stanziola Vieira, partner at Kehdi Vieira Advogados. Master and PhD in criminal procedural law from USP and former president of the Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences, Renato assesses the constitutionality of the PEC and says why it is a sign of democratic fragility.

Convidados: Kleber Tomaz, g1 São Paulo reporter, and Rafael Alcadipani, FGV-SP professor and member of the Brazilian Public Security Forum. Murdered last Monday on the São Paulo coast, Ruy Ferraz Fontes was the general delegate of the São Paulo Civil Police between 2019 and 2022 – he was in charge of the Administration Secretariat of the Praia Grande City Hall. Last Monday (15), Ruy was the victim of an ambush carried out by masked, bulletproof vest-wearing, heavily armed bandits: he was chased, overturned his car, and was shot more than 20 times with a rifle. In this episode, Victor Boyadjian talks to Kleber Tomaz, a g1 São Paulo reporter who has covered organized crime for two decades. Kleber recalls how the former delegate played a key role in the arrest of Marcos Willians Herbas Camacho, Marcola, head of the PCC criminal faction, in 1999. He outlines Ruy's profile and reports on the lines of investigation into the crime. Afterwards, Victor interviews Rafael Alcadipani, professor at FGV-SP and member of the Brazilian Public Security Forum. Alcadipani answers what type of protection former security agents should have after retirement, and points out the evidence that the perpetrators planned the crime. The professor also recalls the influence of organized crime in Baixada Santista and the region's importance to criminal factions.

Convidados: Nilson Klava, correspondente da Globo nos EUA, e Carlos Gustavo Poggio, professor do Berea College nos EUA. Assassinado quarta-feira, o ativista conservador Trumpista tinha trânsito na Casa Branca. Kirk discursava na Universidade Utah Valley quando baleado. Com "prove que estou errado", atraía multidões, especialmente jovens, potencializando a vitória de Trump. O caso expõe polarização perigosa: mais de 100 casos de violência política, quase 50 mortes. Inclui atentado contra democratas e incêndio na casa do governador da Pensilvânia, após tentativa de assassinato de Trump. Natuza Nery recebe Klava e Poggio. Klava descreve o crime e relatos de estudantes. Responde sobre a investigação e o papel de Kirk. Poggio analisa a violência política, comparando com 1960/70. Avalia potencial do caso Kirk aumentar o discurso de ódio e conclui que a democracia está em risco com "desumanização" de adversários.

Convidado: Marcos Nobre, prof. Unicamp e pesquisador Cebrap A condenação de Jair Bolsonaro leva forças políticas a rearranjarem-se. Como ficam direita, extrema-direita e centrão após a condenação do ex-presidente por atentado à democracia? Natuza Nery recebe Marcos Nobre, professor Unicamp e pesquisador Cebrap, para responder. Marcos crê que o bolsonarismo segue ativo social, digital e politicamente, a pouco mais de um ano das eleições de 2026. Mesmo fora das urnas, Bolsonaro segue referência da direita e forte líder. Marcos reflete que o julgamento reflete visões de mundo opostas no Brasil. Ele analisa a força política da família Bolsonaro após a condenação, e como fica o bolsonarismo. Conclui sobre as instituições brasileiras após a decisão histórica do STF.

Convidados: Felipe Recondo, Reynaldo Turollo Jr., Pierpaolo Botino, Thiago Bottino, Oscar Vilhena e Gustavo Binenbojm. Entre 2 e 11 de setembro, a 1ª Turma do Supremo Tribunal Federal julgou Jair Bolsonaro e 7 réus por tentativa de golpe de Estado, incluindo militares de alta patente. A última quinta-feira (11) foi histórica. Nas últimas duas semanas, O Assunto relatou os fatos que levaram ao julgamento e acompanhou as quase 36 horas de sessões. Neste sábado (13), O Assunto detalha como Bolsonaro e militares foram julgados e condenados por atentar contra a democracia brasileira.

Guests: Reynaldo Turollo Jr, g1 reporter in Brasília, Gustavo Binenbojm, prof. UERJ Law School, and Oscar Vilhena, prof. FGV-SP Law School. For the first time in history, a former president is convicted of crimes against democracy. By 4 votes to 1, the STF's 1st Panel convicted Jair Bolsonaro, and 7 other defendants of 5 crimes. The sentence imposed on the former president is 27 years and 3 months in prison. In addition to Bolsonaro, Alexandre Ramagem (former director of Abin), Almir Garnier (former commander of the Navy), Anderson Torres (former Minister of Justice), Augusto Heleno (former Minister of the GSI), Mauro Cid (former Bolsonaro's aide-de-camp), Paulo Sérgio Nogueira (former Minister of Defense), and Walter Braga Netto (former Minister of Bolsonaro's Civil House and candidate for vice in the defeated ticket) were convicted. In this episode, Natuza Nery receives three guests: Reynaldo Turollo Jr, g1 reporter in Brasília, Gustavo Binenbojm, prof. UERJ Law School, and Oscar Vilhena, prof. FGV-SP Law School. The g1 reporter who followed all the trial sessions from inside the STF, Turollo explains how the votes that led to the conviction of Bolsonaro and the other defendants were cast. He reports on the atmosphere among the ministers the day after Luiz Fux's vote - the only magistrate to request the former president's acquittal. He tells how the sentences were defined and what happens from now on. Oscar Vilhena outlines the political and historical meanings of the conviction. "We had the prevalence of law over barbarism," says the professor. Vilhena analyzes the internal pressures for amnesty and the external threat coming from the US - Donald Trump called the conviction "terrible" and the US Secretary of State promised a response to the decision. The professor concludes: "from today onwards, anyone committed to democracy must be more attentive than ever". Afterwards, Natuza Nery receives Gustavo Binenbojm to talk about the legal arguments presented by Cármen Lúcia and Cristiano Zanin. He points out how the four ministers who voted for the conviction analyzed "the film" of the coup, while Fux pointed to isolated facts to justify his request for acquittal.

Convidados: Reynaldo Turollo Jr, repórter do g1 em Brasília, e Oscar Vilhena Vieira, professor da Faculdade de Direito da FGV-SP. A sessão em que o ministro Luiz Fux deu seu voto durou mais de 13 horas. Fux votou pela absolvição de Jair Bolsonaro de todos os cinco crimes pelos quais o ex-presidente responde no julgamento por tentativa de golpe. Com isso, o placar está em 2 a 1 pela condenação de Bolsonaro. Logo no início da manhã, Fux abriu uma série de divergências em relação ao relator do caso, o ministro Alexandre de Moraes, e pediu a anulação do processo por falta de competência do STF para julgar Bolsonaro e os outros sete réus. No diário do 4º dia do julgamento de Bolsonaro, o repórter do g1 Reynaldo Turollo Jr. detalha o voto de Fux, os pontos de divergência abertos por ele e os argumentos usados pelo ministro para pedir a absolvição do ex-presidente no processo da trama golpista. Turollo revela também quais foram as reações dos ministros da 1ª Turma ao ouvirem as longas horas do voto de Fux – e como as argumentações do ministro foram recebidas pelas defesas dos réus. Depois, Natuza Nery volta a conversar com Oscar Vilhena, professor de Direito da FGV-SP. Vilhena se debruça sobre o voto de Fux e analisa os argumentos jurídicos apresentados pelo ministro ao votar pela absolvição de Bolsonaro. O professor responde quais são as implicações jurídicas das discordâncias entre Fux e Moraes no processo: “Isso põe por terra que o ministro Moraes é um tirano e que ninguém pode votar contra ele dentro do tribunal.”

Convidados: Reynaldo Turollo Jr, repórter do g1 em Brasília, e Oscar Vilhena Vieira, professor da Faculdade de Direito da FGV-SP. 2 a 0. Esse é o placar parcial do julgamento de Jair Bolsonaro e de outros 7 réus por tentativa de golpe de Estado na 1ª Turma do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). Nesta terça-feira (9), dois ministros votaram: Alexandre de Moraes e Flávio Dino. Moraes, que é relator do julgamento, abriu a votação, apontou o ex-presidente como líder de organização criminosa e votou pela condenação de todos os réus. Na sequência, Dino também se colocou a favor da condenação dos réus, mas com culpabilidades diferentes entre eles. Neste episódio, O Assunto retoma o diário do julgamento. Natuza Nery recebe Reynaldo Turollo Jr, repórter do g1 que acompanha de dentro as sessões no Supremo. Turollo relata como Moraes e Dino sustentaram seus votos, qual o clima na Corte e como os pedidos de condenação repercutiram nas defesas dos réus. Depois, a conversa é com Oscar Vilhena Vieira, professor de Direito da FGV. Vilhena, que é mestre em direito pela Universidade Columbia e doutor em Ciência Política pela USP, analisa os significados dos votos de Moraes e Dino. E conclui como este é um julgamento extraordinário do ponto de vista histórico: “ele rompe com a tradição brasileira de impunidade daqueles que rompem com o Estado Democrático de Direito”. Guests: Reynaldo Turollo Jr, g1 reporter in Brasília, and Oscar Vilhena Vieira, professor at the FGV-SP Law School. 2 to 0. This is the partial score of the trial of Jair Bolsonaro and 7 other defendants for attempted coup d'état in the 1st Panel of the Supreme Federal Court (STF). This Tuesday (9th), two ministers voted: Alexandre de Moraes and Flávio Dino. Moraes, who is the rapporteur of the trial, opened the voting, pointed to the former president as the leader of a criminal organization and voted for the conviction of all defendants. Subsequently, Dino also favored the conviction of the defendants, but with different culpabilities among them. In this episode, O Assunto resumes the trial diary. Natuza Nery receives Reynaldo Turollo Jr, a g1 reporter who follows the sessions in the Supreme Court from within. Turollo reports on how Moraes and Dino supported their votes, what the atmosphere is like in the Court and how the requests for conviction reverberated in the defendants' defenses. Afterwards, the conversation is with Oscar Vilhena Vieira, professor of Law at FGV. Vilhena, who has a master's degree in law from Columbia University and a doctorate in Political Science from USP, analyzes the meanings of Moraes and Dino's votes. And concludes that this is an extraordinary trial from a historical point of view: "it breaks with the Brazilian tradition of impunity for those who break with the Democratic Rule of Law".

Guest: Andréia Sadi, GloboNews presenter and g1 columnist. On September 7th, supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro took to the streets in several capitals of the country to request amnesty for those convicted for January 8th, 2021 and attack the Judiciary. On the eve of the STF's 1st Chamber resuming the trial of Bolsonaro and seven other defendants for attempted coup d'état, the date commemorating Brazil's Independence had political acts from the right and the left. And one speech gained prominence: that of Tarcísio de Freitas, governor of São Paulo. On Avenida Paulista, Tarcísio pressured the president of the Chamber, Hugo Motta, to schedule the amnesty. And he criticized Alexandre de Moraes, saying that "no one can stand the tyranny" of the minister anymore. Within the Supreme Court, the speech of the governor of São Paulo provoked the reaction of Gilmar Mendes and the president of the Court, Luís Roberto Barroso. This Monday (8th), Barroso stated that the trial of Bolsonaro is "about evidence, not political or ideological dispute". In this episode, Natuza Nery talks with Andréia Sadi, GloboNews presenter and g1 columnist. Together, they assess Tarcísio's change of tone and the escalation of attacks made by him on the Judiciary. Andréia reports on the reaction to the speech of the governor of São Paulo within the Supreme Court, his situation after September 7th, and how the acts of Bolsonaro's supporters were received within the government.