According to Nassif, Fachin may be a hostage to his relationship with JBS.
Journalist Luis Nassif, from Jornal GGN, believes that Supreme Court Justice Luiz Edson Fachin may be being held hostage by his relationship with JBS; "The suspicion is that JBS offered financial support to senators to obtain their support. In the corridors of the Supreme Court, it is said that it invested up to R$ 30 million in Fachin's candidacy. The agreement would have been identified by Lava Jato and by the Attorney General's Office itself," he says.
247 - Journalist Luis Nassif, from Jornal GGN, believes that Supreme Court Justice Luiz Edson Fachin may be being held hostage by his relationship with JBS.
"Fachin was accused of improperly benefiting JBS. First, by taking on the investigation as the rapporteur for Lava Jato. The case had nothing to do with Lava Jato. Then, by the speed with which he approved the agreement, without delving into the investigation at all. Finally, by the extent of the benefits granted, which even included a general amnesty for the informants, an unprecedented benefit in the history of Lava Jato," says Nassif, adding that neither Alberto Youssef nor Marcelo Odebrecht deserved similar privilege.
Journalist Luiz Nassif also says that Fachin's candidacy for Supreme Court Justice was supported by JBS. "Over time, information leaked that Fachin's candidacy was funded by JBS. Lawyer Ricardo Saur visited several senators' offices accompanied by Fachin," he says.
"The suspicion is that JBS offered financial support to senators to obtain their support. In the corridors of the Supreme Court, it is said that it invested up to R$ 30 million in Fachin's candidacy. The agreement was allegedly identified by Lava Jato and the Attorney General's Office itself. Fachin would have been held hostage by both, Lava Jato and JBS. In cases where there was no conflict between them – in the episode of the plea bargain – he made quick and surprising decisions that satisfied both sides. In the proposal to annul the plea bargain, he behaved like Pontius Pilate. If he were in favor of annulment, he would expose himself to reprisals from JBS. If he were in favor of maintaining the agreement, he would reinforce the hypotheses of subordination to JBS. Therefore, he referred the decision to the plenary. In any case, we have a vulnerable Minister, a hostage of his recent past," says Nassif.
Read the full text at GGN newspaper.