Nassif: Attorney General's decision regarding Toffoli protects Serra and Aécio.

By Luis Nassif, from GGN newspaper

We've entered one of the most interesting puzzles of Lava Jato: the "fruit of the poisoned tree" operation, possibly orchestrated to shield Aécio Neves and José Serra from the OAS plea bargains. This involves the partial leak of the plea bargain testimony of OAS president Léo Pinheiro, implicating Minister Dias Toffoli of the Supreme Federal Court.

Part 1 – The explosive content of the testimonies

Information has already circulated that the OAS plea bargains will be devastating for José Serra and Aécio Neves. Even a blog closely linked to Serra – and to the Lava Jato task force – reported this fact.

In many high-profile operations, prior to Lava Jato, the accused used the so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine to annul investigations and proceedings. The courts consider that if an investigation contains any piece of evidence resulting from an illegal action, the entire process will be annulled. This was the case with Castelo de Areia. And it was the case with Satiagraha.

In the Sandcastle case, it was an alleged anonymous tip. In the Satiagraha case, it was the fact that investigators requested authorization to raid one floor of the Opportunity building and then extended the investigations to another.

Part 2 – Tricks to suspend investigations.

Let's look at an arsenal of fabricated facts created to generate political events or disrupt investigations:

Audio-less wiretap – in the midst of Operation Satiagraha, a wiretapped conversation between Gilmar Mendes, a Supreme Court Justice, and Demóstenes Torres, a senator from the DEM party, surfaced. It was a reverse wiretap, in which the recorded content favored those being wiretapped. The authorship of the wiretap was never proven. Even so, with the uproar created, Gilmar managed to remove Paulo Lacerda, director of ABIN (Brazilian Intelligence Agency). The vehicle that published the fabricated story: Veja magazine.

The fake wiretap at the Supreme Court – The offensive was revived with a bombshell article denouncing a wiretapping system at the Supreme Court. It was a report from the Supreme Court's security detail, at the time presided over by Gilmar Mendes. The uproar led to the creation of a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into Wiretapping, intended to further corner the Federal Police and ABIN (Brazilian Intelligence Agency). Once the report's contents were revealed, it became clear that it was just another fabrication. The outlet that published the false positive: Veja magazine.

Lula's false request – in the midst of the AP 470 carnival, Gilmar fabricates a version of a meeting with Lula, in which the former president allegedly interceded on behalf of the defendants in the Mensalão scandal. The uproar surrounding the false accusation resonates with Minister Celso de Mello, the senior member of the Supreme Court, and is fatal in consolidating the pro-conviction position of the Ministers. Later, the only witness to the meeting, former Minister Nelson Jobim, vehemently denies Gilmar's version. The outlet that disseminated the version: Veja magazine.

The Lunnus case – the wiretap placed in Roseane Sarney's political office, which made her presidential candidacy unviable. An older case, at the time there were still no signs of Serra's rapprochement with Veja magazine.

The R$3 bribe – the Correios case, a R$3 bribe that helped trigger the "mensalão" scandal. Published by: Veja. Source: Carlinhos Cachoeira, as determined by the Correios Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry.

Part 3 – The Dossier Factory

Based on these episodes, I sought to map the common points between the most famous dossiers released by the media.

Check out:

Fact 1 – In the Health sector, through FUNASA, then-Minister José Serra hired FENCE, a company specializing in wiretapping, Federal Police delegate Marcelo Itagiba, and public prosecutor José Roberto Figueiredo Santoro.

Fact 2 – In a fact reported even by Jornal Nacional, Santoro tries to co-opt Carlinhos Cachoeira, right after the Valdomiro Diniz episode.

Fact 3 – Cachoeira has two key men. One of them, the wiretapper Jairo Martins, is his main advisor for wiretapping cases. The second is former senator Demóstenes Torres, his main agent for political maneuvering. Both have close ties to Minister Gilmar Mendes: Demóstenes as a friend, Jairo as an advisor specifically hired by Gilmar to assist him.

Fact 4 – all the main characters in the organizational chart – Serra, Gilmar, Cachoeira, Demóstenes and Jairo – maintained a close relationship with Veja, as sources, as characters in schemes or as suppliers of dossiers.

These were not merely dossiers for commercial disputes, but episodes that directly affected the Republic. The organizational chart above is not conclusive proof of the existence of an organization specializing in dossiers for the press. They are only indications.

Part 4 – the complaint against Toffoli.

Several facts stand out in this edition of Veja magazine.

Fact 1 – the impact of Léo Pinheiro's testimonies on Serra and Aécio was already known (http://migre.me/uJKsj)Having gained access to the most anticipated testimony of the moment, the magazine forgoes explosive accusations against Serra and Aécio in favor of a bland one against Toffoli.

Fact 2 – Veja's article self-destructs in 30 seconds. Besides not revealing any criminal act by Toffoli, the magazine itself absolves him by admitting that the narrated facts mean nothing. In the same edition, there is an unprecedented criticism of Foreign Minister José Serra, regarding the episode of the attempted purchase of Uruguayan votes. Veja's historical alliance with Serra is well known. The report in question could be a sign of acquired independence. Or it could be a diversionary tactic.

Part 5 – The position of the Supreme Federal Court and the Attorney General's Office

One of the points most strongly defended by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, in its so-called "ten commandments" against corruption, is the relativization of the so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree." They want – rightly so – to ensure that minor irregularities do not compromise investigations as a whole.

If the leakers' intention was to compromise the plea bargain, they acted masterfully.

Without compromising Toffoli, the leak fuels a sense of unity within the Supreme Court, due to the injustice committed against one of its members. At the same time, it instills fear in the Justices, since any one of them could be the target of a similar low blow.

Take the case of Gilmar Mendes. From the Supreme Court outwards, so far, there has been no public pronouncement from the Minister, who specializes in outbursts of indignation when one of his own is affected. And from within the Supreme Court? Would he be demanding drastic measures against the leak, the annulment of the plea bargain? Let's wait and see what happens. But certainly, Gilmar gains enormous firepower to enforce his arguments that have prevented the progress of investigations against Aécio Neves.

The unknown factor is Attorney General Rodrigo Janot. Until now, he has turned a blind eye to all the leaks from the most leaked operation in history. And now?

If he insists on the annulment of the plea bargain, Hypothesis 1 is that he is allied with Gilmar in obstructing the investigations against Aécio and Serra. Hypothesis 2 is that he is intimidated after the spurious shot in the request for the arrests of Renan, Sarney, and Jucá. Hypothesis 3 is that he would be following the law. But this hypothesis is invalidated by the fact that, until now, no action has been taken against the ocean of leaks from Lava Jato.

In any case, this is a point of no return, which either strengthens the Attorney General's Office and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, or definitively discredits it.

Ultimately, the Lava Jato operation is being run by a task force that, during the presidential elections, enthusiastically campaigned for candidate Aécio Neves. All it would take is for a police officer linked to Serra and Aécio to leak innocuous information against a Supreme Court Justice to invalidate a crucial plea bargain. Provided, of course, that the Attorney General accepted the game.

It will be interesting to observe the preaching of the apostles of the ten measures, if the annulment of the denunciation is consummated.