It has nothing to do with Gleisi, but they could release Lula.

These are two distinct cases. Gleisi's case began four years ago and only now has it reached its conclusion in the Supreme Federal Court (STF). Although the rabid right wing that wallows in the swamps of Facebook and Twitter is about to cut its wrists and shout from the rooftops that it was a coup, Gleisi was acquitted because the Federal Police did a poor job of investigating and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office thought the investigation was good. But it wasn't. There was no proof that the money destined for her had come from Petrobras' coffers. The testimonies were weak. The informant who allegedly handed over the money didn't know where he had taken it. A shoddy, poorly done process that was exploited for four years by the conservative media to discredit a senator of the Republic. All the ministers of the 2nd Chamber of the STF acquitted Gleisi because they have a reputation to protect.

This same panel of five will examine Lula's new defense request on the 26th. It will not be a judgment on the merits, as it was with Gleisi. This will take several years. They will decide whether or not to accept an appeal requesting Lula's release until the special appeal filed by his lawyers – whose progress the TRF-4 has been obstructing – goes to trial at the STF.

Four of the five justices in that panel – Celso de Melo, Gilmar Mendes, Dias Toffoli, and Ricardo Lewandowski – voted in favor of habeas corpus for Lula in the famous and lengthy vote on April 4th, in which they were defeated.

If they proceeded in this way, they accepted the argument that Lula was under illegal coercion from the state and should remain free. They accepted the argument expressed in Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence, stating that no one can be considered guilty before the final judgment of the case, and rejecting the court's resolution of February 14, 2016, which opened the floodgates to imprisonment after conviction in the second instance.

I don't believe they will change their position.

They voted for Lula's freedom two months ago, when he was under threat of losing his right to come and go. They will not be inconsistent enough to reject Lula's freedom now that he has already lost it.