If things work as institutionality dictates, the minister may have boomeranged the senator (MDB-SE) for abuse of authority.
In the opinion of the judge of the Federal Supreme Court, the then rapporteur for Organized Crime would have abused his prerogatives, that of his colleagues and the attorney general.
You will have to do acrobatics — which is not impossible — to see the basis for the request. First, because the senator prepared the piece in the exercise of his duties. Second, there were no consequences, as the report was rejected through a change of members of the commission of inquiry. Third, the senator has immunity in words and votes. Fourth, acts of a political nature are inherent to the politician’s activity.
If anyone went overboard, it was Gilmar when he used the authority of his position to resort to the State structure in order to defend himself against what he considered a personal offense. The abuse then moved from the senator to the minister, whose untimely reaction demonstrated a feeling of untouchability.
Alessandro Vieira may have miscalculated by leaving his usual balanced position to make a provocation in reaction to judicial interdictions made in the CPI’s attempt to include him in the investigations.
The senator provoked, he is being criticized for this and things would have ended there if the minister had not decided to send another message to the minister about the consequences resulting from attempts to challenge the attitudes of members of the court. These challenges are covered by the Constitution.
Parliament may not be ready to counterattack immediately. But the elections are here with the issue of impeachment on the campaign agenda for . And it is at this point that Gilmar Mendes’ liver may have made a mistake.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
