President Luiz Inácio da Silva (PT) publicly charged ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court) this Wednesday (8) and said that. The speech shows a departure from the court, which the PT member was close to throughout his current term.
The president’s stance highlights an effort to separate his image from that of the minister. Although he was nominated by the former president (MDB), a political opponent of the PT, Moraes has his name associated with Lula, according to research to which government officials had access.
Still according to these surveys, Moraes would cause more damage to the government than Minister Dias Toffoli himself, who was appointed by Lula. In the words of one of the president’s collaborators, his statement therefore means an attempt to reduce harm.
In the interview, Lula also said that the role of Moraes’ wife in defending the Master harms the image of the court.
He stated that he advised the magistrate not to throw away his biography because of those involved and suggested that Moraes convey some message of firmness to society, such as the promise that he will declare himself prevented from doing so.
“Comrade Alexandre de Moraes knows that it damages the image. You can have something that is legal, but, in the circumstances that happen, people treat it as an immoral thing. And in a political year, in which people will give a lot of attention to this”, he stated in an interview with ICL Notícias.
“I’ll tell you what I said to him: ‘you built a historical biography with the January 8th trial; don’t allow this Vorcaro case to throw away your biography'”, added Lula.
The gesture in relation to the STF occurs in this context of court wear caused by the case of . Moraes and Dias Toffoli are named in the scandal. The head of government tries to distance himself.
“When you go to the Supreme Court, you have to make an almost religious commitment. He is not there to make money,” said the President of the Republic. “If the guy wants to become a millionaire, he can’t be a Supreme Court minister.”
The head of government also defended that ministers explain when they are publicly linked to irregularities.
“If there is any member of the Supreme Court who committed a deviation, that citizen must pay the price for the deviation. But the Supreme Court cannot pay the price”, declared Lula, still in the same interview.
He defends that the Constitution determines the conduct requirements for members of the Supreme Court, instead of a code with internal rules. The president of the court, Edson Fachin, has defended the creation of a code of conduct for ministers.
“There must be a better definition in the Constitution itself of what requirements you make for someone to be a minister of the Supreme Court”, declared the PT member.
“Will there be a mandate? How long will this mandate last?”, he asked.
Currently there is no set term of office for Supreme Court ministers. Once in office, they can remain until age 75, when they must retire.
Lula’s allies say that, last year, the president criticized the involvement of magistrates in the scandal, defending the imposition of strict rules on the court. Among the president’s collaborators, there was, however, a disagreement about the opportunity for a public demonstration by Lula.
In addition to being innocuous, they claimed, this gesture by the president could undermine the relationship with the court. However, the argument prevailed that it would be necessary to demarcate a critical position.
Lula has been irritated for months with the political strain caused by Banco Master. He believes that he has suffered the loss of popularity even without having anything to do with the scandal. The matter becomes more delicate for the PT member as the election approaches.
The PT member’s strategy for the electoral campaign is to present himself to voters as an anti-system candidate, classifying the economic and financial elite as “system”. The movement will be more difficult if his management becomes associated with a financial fraud scandal.
The political group around the president evaluates movements as a distancing from the Supreme Court and the center as a way of not making the anti-system speech unfeasible.
The assessment of PT members and other Lula allies is that the case is mainly linked to the government of Jair Bolsonaro (PL). Despite this, according to this reasoning, public opinion would blame the incumbent government for cases of corruption in general.
Lula claims that the “snake’s egg” was hatched by the then president of the Central Bank Roberto Campos Neto, appointed by Bolsonaro.
“Everyone has to be clear that the extreme right will use the case of Banco Master, involvement with the Supreme Court, in the campaign. They will ask for a vote. ‘Whoever wants to impeach the Supreme Court, vote for that deputy or that senator.’ It will be like this”, said the head of government.
The president cultivated a close relationship with the Supreme Court throughout his current term and had one of his main sources of support in the court. That is why the exposure of their discontent has amplified political meaning.
In this Wednesday’s interview, he also criticized the frequent trips of court ministers to participate in events abroad.
As shown by Sheet In January, the PT member’s irritation with the links exposed between Supreme Court ministers and Banco Master is such that he even stated, in private conversations, .
Moraes began to be cited in the Banco Master scandal after a contract between the company and the office of lawyer Viviane Barci, the minister’s wife, became public knowledge. In the case of Toffoli,.
At the STF, ministers assess that there is no need for a “prior declaration” of impediment if Moraes does not have Master’s processes under his report, which is the case. Furthermore, as André Mendonça is the rapporteur of the criminal investigation, the judgment competence lies with the Second Panel, and not the First — therefore, Moraes would naturally be left out of the collegiate vote.
In February, when citing criticism made by public opinion against the Supreme Court, but without mentioning the Master case, Moraes said that the rules of impediment and suspicion are clear in the court. “The magistrate, from the judge of Aguaí [município de São Paulo] even that of the STF, is prevented from judging any case that has his relatives as parties or as lawyers”, he stated.
