The Supreme Court's judgment as interpreted by the media.
In Brazil, before the Supreme Court even judges the Mensalão scandal, it is the court itself being judged by the media. These media outlets, in a way, are also acting to influence the outcome. The question is: will the Supreme Court succumb to this pressure?
247 - The controversy surrounding the alleged pressure exerted by former President Lula on Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes to postpone the Mensalão trial is yet another chapter in a decisive battle that is mobilizing the major forces in Brazilian society.
Under normal circumstances, the Mensalão case should be treated, as Minister Marco Aurélio Mello rightly defined it, as a trial like any other. But everyone knows that it is not – and will not be – like that. It is a symbolic trial that could tarnish the PT (Workers' Party) as the patron of "the biggest corruption scandal in the country's history." And it could put symbolic figures of the left in the country behind bars, such as José Dirceu and José Genoíno.
Therefore, there are elements surrounding the Mensalão scandal that go beyond the legal field. The case is also political and, above all, ideological. A conviction, reinforced by the symbolism of the image of handcuffs and prisons, on the eve of an electoral process, could vindicate an opposition weakened by recent poor results at the polls and also reinvigorate an ethical discourse – which has weakened in recent years in the face of the hypocrisy of figures like Senator Demóstenes Torres (independent/GO).
Who is pressuring whom?
This weekend's Veja report, in a way, achieved some of its objectives by putting statements about Supreme Court justices in the mouth of former President Lula. Statements that, according to the host of the meeting, Nelson Jobim, were not made, but which put pressure on some Supreme Court justices.
According to the report, Lula allegedly said that Minister José Antônio Dias Toffoli "must participate in the trial." This means, according to Veja magazine, that Toffoli should recuse himself, as he has previously represented the Workers' Party (PT).
Regarding Carmen Lúcia, Lula allegedly also stated that he would speak with Sepúlveda Pertence, responsible for her nomination, to "take care of her"—a claim denied by Pertence. In any case, the statement casts doubt on the minister's independence, and the same can be said of Ricardo Lewandowski. Regarding him, Veja magazine attributed the following phrase to Lula: "He was only going to present the report next semester, but he is under a lot of pressure."
Lula was not interviewed by Veja, and Jobim denied that the Mensalão trial was discussed. Even if Gilmar Mendes were telling the truth, it would be somewhat reckless to attribute verbatim phrases to Lula, pulled solely from Gilmar's memory, from a meeting held a month ago. Therefore, by stating that it is Lula who is pressuring Lewandowski not to deliver his report, Veja is doing the opposite. It is pressuring Lewandowski to deliver it now.
What was the Mensalão scandal?
In 2002, the campaign that led Lula to the presidency of the Republic cost approximately R$ 200 million. The Workers' Party (PT) emerged from it with a debt of approximately R$ 55 million, which was covered by loans from Banco Rural and Banco BMG, in an operation orchestrated by businessman Marcos Valério de Souza, who had already tested this model in Minas Gerais, working with the then-governor Eduardo Azeredo (from the PSDB party) and his vice-governor Walfrido dos Mares Guia.
By lending resources to the PT (Workers' Party), Rural and BMG expected to close major deals with the federal government. BMG, in fact, became one of the largest in payroll-deducted loans. Rural intended to lift the intervention in Mercantil de Pernambuco and then incorporate it. Evidence of the use of public money was the transfer of funds from Visanet, a company affiliated with Banco do Brasil, to Marcos Valério's agencies, without proper documentation of advertising expenses.
Did parliamentarians receive monthly payments to vote with the government? This was not proven. But paying off past campaign debts and organizing expenses for future campaigns is indeed a way to guarantee parliamentary support, whether in the National Congress, state legislative assemblies, or city councils across the country.
What happened was serious? Extremely serious. Will it be judged in strictly legal terms? It will be up to the Supreme Court to demonstrate that, without succumbing to political or media pressures – which, in essence, are also political.