The new accusation is a serious blow, and the Supreme Court is expected to authorize its referral to the Chamber of Deputies.

Rodrigo Janot's second indictment against Miguel Temer is a powerful blow. It's more consistent than the first, which accused him of passive corruption but failed to prove he was the intended recipient of the R$ 500 found in Rocha Loures's suitcase. It's stronger when it addresses the leadership of a criminal organization than when it speaks of obstruction of justice. Current assessments that Temer's majority in the Chamber of Deputies will guarantee its rejection are premature. The base is no longer the united force it was in August, and it resents the government's "default" on the commitments made at that time. Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court is expected to defeat Temer again, authorizing the sending of the indictment to the Chamber of Deputies without waiting for the conclusion of the investigations into the behind-the-scenes dealings of the JBS plea bargain. And for an obvious reason: Janot's new indictment is based much more on Lúcio Funaro's testimony than on JBS's. The requested prior suspension would make sense if it were based solely on the testimony of Joesley Batista and his executives.

For the second time, Fachin decided to share decisions that could be made unilaterally with the full court. On Wednesday, he brought Temer's appeal arguing for Janot's suspension to the full court. Now, he has decided to consult the full court about sending the indictment. He is shielding himself against accusations of "persecution" or bias, avoiding a wearisome challenge of suspicion. If the indictment is sent next Thursday, the 21st, it should be voted on by the Chamber's full court in early November. The first indictment, presented on June 26th, was voted on August 2nd. It took 35 days to process, including the phase in the Constitution and Justice Committee. In November, the legislative year will be ending, it will be time to approve the 2018 Budget and the Provisional Measures that will be bogged down on the agenda. And with that, goodbye to the pension reform. The market should know this, as it had been believing Meirelles' promise of a vote in October.

The rejection of the charges is not as certain as it is said to be, although approval, by 342 votes, would require an enormous effort in a House where the opposition has only 100 deputies. It would be necessary to convince 242 government supporters that Temer is no longer even useful to the coup's program, defeated on the political front by the illegal actions of the "criminal organization" and on the economic front by the disastrous results of Meirelles' austerity measures. But there has been a change in the atmosphere in the Chamber, where this week there were government supporters announcing that they would change their vote (compared to August) if the charges came with force. And they did. The PSDB, fractured, fell silent, and the votes against the government may increase, proving the party's bad business with its support for the government. The PSB is now joining the opposition. A strong popular mobilization echoing "Out with Temer" would give the necessary push to the recalcitrant, but this is also an uncertain possibility. The widespread rejection of Temer has not yet translated into a popular willingness to demand his resignation.

This game is wide open, and many variables could still influence the final outcome. Government supporters are clinging to the impact of signs of economic improvement, but these are tenuous and do not constitute a guarantee of votes for Temer. Between now and November, much can happen, including the testimony of Geddel Vieira Lima.

Let's speculate on the best-case scenario: if the Chamber accepts the charges in early November, Temer will be removed from office for 180 days, a period during which the country would be governed by Rodrigo Maia, ending in April. If a conviction follows, an indirect election would be held within 30 days. That is, by the end of May or beginning of June. This indirect election would only last six months. At this point, a surge of rationality might descend upon all decision-makers, favoring the approval of a constitutional amendment that would bring forward direct presidential elections.