Barbosa prevented Lewandowski from voting.

Once again, the lack of impartiality transformed the Supreme Federal Court's judgment into a personal dispute, relegating legal norms, doctrine, and jurisprudence to the background. To impose his plan of definitively condemning the politicians on trial, Minister Joaquim Barbosa accused Lewandowski of chicanery and using the appeal for "repentance." Lewandowski, who once again exploited the prosecution's weaknesses, then asked Barbosa to retract his statement. The president of the Supreme Federal Court refused.

The ministers exchanged embarrassed glances at the situation. The senior member of the Supreme Court, Celso de Mello, tried to intervene twice, in vain. The argument led Barbosa to end the session. But not the discussion.

In the anteroom of the Plenary, where the ministers meet before entering the trial and during recess, shouts could be heard. Those in the room said it wouldn't be long before the ministers came to blows. Lewandowski then left. The trigger for the argument was the appeals filed by the defendant Carlos Alberto Rodrigues Pinto, Bishop Rodrigues, a former member of parliament from the PL party.

Bishop Rodrigues was sentenced to six years and three months in prison for passive corruption and money laundering at the end of last year. In his appeal, he claimed that Law 10.763/2003, which increases the punishment for crimes of this kind, was applied to calculate his sentence for passive corruption. According to him, the previous, more lenient law should have been used, since the crime was allegedly committed in 2002.

Lewandowski was going to accept the appeals. The ministers then began to discuss the moment of the crime to define the application of the law. In the judgment on the merits, the decision to convict Bishop Rodrigues based on the more severe law was unanimous.

 The following discussion then took place:

Celso de Mello – The arguments are weighty. Perhaps we could adjourn this session and resume on Wednesday. We could pick up from this specific point so that the court can give an answer that is compatible with everyone's understanding. It seems to me that this would not delay the trial; on the contrary, it would allow a moment of reflection on the part of all of us. This is a delicate matter.
Barbosa – I don't think it's worth considering at all. I think Minister Lewandowski is completely reconsidering the point. This consideration... 
Lewandowski Is that unreasonable? I don't understand...
Barbosa Your Excellency is simply trying to reopen a discussion...
Lewandowskii – No, I'm trying to do justice!
Barbosa Your Excellency drafted a vote and now you've changed your mind.
Lewandowski What are embargoes for?
Barbosa They're not fit for that, Minister. For repentance. They're not fit for that!
Lewandowski So, it's best not to judge anything anymore. If we can't review any mistakes that may have been made, I honestly...
Barbosa Order the table view!
Celso de Mello – I would suggest to the eminent president that perhaps it would be advisable to adjourn the proceedings and resume them on Wednesday, starting specifically with this point. This will not delay...
Barbosa – It's already delayed. We could have finished this topic at 3:45 PM...
Lewandowski But, Mr. President, what's the rush? We want justice.
Barbosa – To do our job! And not to play games, Minister!
Lewandowski – Your Excellency is saying that I am engaging in chicanery? I demand that Your Excellency retract your statement immediately.
Barbosa – I'm not going to retract my statement, Minister. Come on!
Lewandowski Your Excellency has an obligation! As President of the House, you are accusing a minister, who is Your Excellency's peer, of engaging in chicanery. I will not tolerate this!
Barbosa Your Excellency voted in one direction, in a unanimous vote...
Lewandowski – I am presenting an argument supported by facts and doctrine. I am not joking. Is Your Excellency saying that I am joking? I will not accept that!
Barbosa – Your Excellency may interpret it as you wish.
LewandowskiYour Excellency presides over a House with a centuries-old tradition...
Barbosa – Which Your Excellency does not respect!
Lewandowski - I?  
Barbosa – It is Your Excellency who lacks respect.
Lewandowski I am bringing well-founded opinions...
Barbosa – The session is closed!

Crime and punishment
According to Lewandowski, what can be inferred from the Public Prosecutor's accusation is that the crime was committed in 2002, when the political agreement between the PT and PL parties was defined, with Rodrigues' receipt of the bribe being merely the culmination of the criminal conduct. Therefore, as jurisprudence dictates, the penalty should be applied based on the previous law, which is less severe and, therefore, more favorable to the defendant. 

Minister Joaquim Barbosa insisted that, unlike Valdemar da Costa Neto and other co-defendants, Bishop Rodrigues did not participate in the meetings that formed the government's base back in 2002. With the exception of Lewandowski, the other ministers agreed with the rapporteur.

However, Lewandowski insisted that "what matters is what is stated in the judgment," which, according to him, suggests that the crime occurred at the moment of the financial negotiation that was arranged in advance.

“I am receiving information from my staff, who are thoroughly reviewing the complaint, that there is an allegation in the initial accusation that Bishop Rodrigues received a first installment before [December 2003]. In other words, he received one of the installments previously, and doctrine and jurisprudence understand that a second, third, or fourth [receipt], as the continuing offense was imputed to him, is merely an exhaustion of the crime,” said Lewandowski.

However, the other ministers disagreed with Lewandowski's argument. Luiz Fux observed that, despite the receipt of the undue advantage being the exhaustion of the formal crime, this is also classified as the crime of receiving stolen goods, thus being a mixed alternative type and, therefore, characterized as a crime in itself. Fux also cited Precedent 711 of the Court, which indicates that the more severe penal law applies in cases of continued crime.

The reasoning was endorsed by Minister Celso de Mello, who argued that, in the case of the accusation, the receipt of the benefit is an "autonomous act," thus involving multiple offenses. "The Public Prosecutor's Office, in thematically delimiting the accusation, charged this defendant with the practice of passive corruption," said the senior justice. "There were two moments. One of them, in December 2003, when the most serious version of Law 10.763 was already in effect, and thus did not charge this defendant with the act of having previously solicited or received the undue advantage," the minister said.

The Dean of the Supreme Federal Court insisted that Bishop Rodrigues' receipt of a bribe in December 2003 was an independent event, unrelated to a previous negotiation that would have arranged for the receipt of the benefit. "What is the time of the crime? The time of the crime is when the action took place," he said. "The indictment imputes a specific activity to this defendant. Which one? The act of having received, without any connotation, as a prior acceptance of a promise or prior solicitation of an undue advantage. The issue is this, very objective, very clear. Therefore, the temporal moment in which the crime was consummated is situated. A crime of mere conduct, of simple activity," said Celso de Mello.

The president of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) also stated that the reviewing judge was attempting to re-examine the evidence, which is not permissible in a motion for clarification. Minister Fux also expressed the view that, at that point, it was no longer possible to re-evaluate the facts. "I have serious doubts as to whether it is possible to review an understanding in a motion for clarification." To which Lewandowski replied that this was "the moment for the judge to redeem himself," in case of error or omission.

Then, the discussion went off track and the ministers started arguing in the plenary session. The session was adjourned without a decision on the matter.