> As already mentioned, the first item is false.

It's not false and it was only made possible by a corruption of the written words in the Supreme Court regiment AND by ignoring the 1988 constitution.

> The second is also false: if you perform an attack against the supreme court, in an coup attempt, or if you menace ministers, or the judges of supreme court, it is the supreme court that will handle the case.

First of all, there is no "fake news" crime in the Brazilian criminal code. Second, the Supreme Court cannot handle cases of people without special jurisdiction privileges, it must be handle by first instance courts. Third, you cannot have the same person performing the roles of victim, prosecutor and judge. This is a basically rule of Law, it's simply dishonest to pretend it's OK.

> It is also false that inquiry 4874 do not specify a crime to investigate.

Considering the existence of fraudulent news (fake news), slanderous denunciations, threats and infractions coated with animus calumniandi, diffamanadi and injuriandi, which affect the honor and security of the Federal Supreme Court, its members and families, resolves, in accordance with article 43 and subsequent of the Internal Regiment, open an iquiry to investigate the facts and corresponding infractions, in all their dimensions. [1]

Not a single concrete, specific instance of a crime is mentioned. There are only vagaries. It's a wildcard inquiry designed for political persecution.

> Your legal comprehension of the case is low and you are just repeating the far right narrative, created so that they will not face consequences for their coup attempt.

I've filled my comments with references, including the original document which determines the inquiry to be opened. Meanwhile all your comments accuse me of lying without any proof.

The thing is, I believe you know the inquiry is illegal, but you support it anyway because it is happening against people you don't like. That's why you have to bring up the ghost of a "far right narrative", but you are unable to reply with a single concrete fact.

In fact you don't even realize that you fail basic logic by referring to an event that happened on January 8th 2023 to justify the unconstitutional opening of an inquiry that happened 2019.

To make sure HN readers are not misled by your biased rebuttals, I will quote the words of the Brazilian Attorney General at the time, on her request for the archival of the inquiry, which was denied by the judge, prosecutor and victim of the case [2].

- The decision of Justice Dias Toffoli, who ordered the opening of this investigation ex officio, appointed its rapporteur, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, without observing the principle of free distribution; and gave it investigative powers, breached the guarantee of judicial impartiality in criminal actions, in addition to obstructing the criminal action holder’s access to the investigation.

- In addition to not observing the constitutional rules for the delimitation of powers or functions of the Public Prosecutor's Office in the criminal process, this decision transformed the investigation into an act with the concentration of criminal functions in the judge, which puts at risk the accusatory criminal system itself and the guarantee of the investigated regarding the exemption from the judging body.

- The jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court is not defined based on the fact that this court is a possible victim of a criminal act. The delimitation of the investigation cannot be generic, abstract, nor can it be exploratory of indeterminate acts, without definition of time and space, nor of individuals. After more than 30 days of this initiation, the files were not even sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office, as determined by the criminal procedural law itself

[1]https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/co/comunicado-supremo-tribunal-...
[2]https://g1.globo.com/jornal-nacional/noticia/2019/04/16/raqu...