PML: The hidden side of Pedro Barusco is revealed.

By Paulo Moreira Leite

A shameful low blow occurred during the Petrobras CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry). An opposition parliamentarian asked whistleblower Pedro Barusco if he wasn't afraid of ending up like Celso Daniel, the unfortunate mayor of Santo André who was kidnapped and murdered in 2002. The insinuation was obvious: they were trying to glorify Barusco's testimony by referencing the version that Celso Daniel was the victim of a crime commissioned by a city hall advisor and family friend. The version is that the mayor was killed because he had decided to confront a corruption scheme in the city hall.
The despicable act is simple and shameful, as it relies on a systematic effort to misinform Brazilians. Although the hypothesis of a contract killing was circulated for over a decade by newspapers and TV stations, this theory was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) under Justice Marco Aurélio Mello.

In December 2014, in a landmark decision, the process, which had lasted more than a decade and generated countless headlines, was annulled by Marco Aurélio. A magistrate with no suspicion of Workers' Party (PT) sympathies, he accepted the argument that there had been a denial of due process. This was not a mere formality. With his decision, the Supreme Court Justice sided with three investigations—two conducted by the São Paulo Civil Police and the third by the Federal Police—which had consistently denied the theory of a contract killing.

The mention of Celso Daniel served a dramatic purpose, however. It was an attempt to free Pedro Barusco from a difficult situation—that of a repentant corrupt individual trying to save his own skin as an informant—by portraying him as a victim at a time when his testimony was in a delicate situation.

Quite comfortable making accusations involving abuses and irregularities that occurred during the Lula-Dilma administration, he hid behind confidential agreements with the Public Prosecutor's Office to remain secretive about the period between 1997 and 2002. It was precisely during this time that he began receiving bribes and accepted funds deposited in Swiss bank accounts. He didn't say who made the offer, how much he received, or why. He remained silent—repeatedly, with the same excuse.

It was also around that time that the first Petrobras scandal emerged, when journalist Paulo Francis denounced a corruption scheme at Petrobras, a case that ended in an unusual and unexpected way.

When Petrobras' management decided to sue the journalist, the PSDB government mobilized to convince the company's management to drop the lawsuit. Instead of fulfilling its duty, which was to investigate the facts, it tried to cover things up.

Following the same line of thought, Barusco made no comment on the matter.

Barusco's testimony, selective and aimed at criminalizing the PT governments, is actually beginning to build a narrative that continues the AP 470 case. Remember: in 2012, PT members were sentenced to heavy penalties based on weak evidence. Meanwhile, a parallel inquiry—2474—was opened to keep secret evidence that could change the focus of the investigation and even aid in the defense of certain defendants. Testimonies and witnesses could not be examined even by the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which at the time generated vehement protests from Justice Celso de Mello.

Similarly, accusations against the PSDB in Minas Gerais were placed in a parallel investigation. While the PT defendants were judged by the Supreme Court, without the right to a second instance of jurisdiction, those accused in the PSDB mensalão scandal were taken to the first instance, with deadlines stretching into the distant future.

Not everything is the same now. The PT's behavior during the Postal Service CPI, when Roberto Jefferson's accusations began to turn into a circus, was the worst possible. The majority of the party kept their heads down, allied themselves with the accusations, and rarely bothered to investigate contradictions in the accusations. Today, the behavior is different, which may allow for a more impartial and realistic debate. Who knows.

The effort to criminalize the PT (Workers' Party) exclusively helps transform the investigation into a process of political destruction. The investigation into the PSDB's (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) actions has a political advantage. It raises the issue of campaign financing and political reform—which is the rational path to confronting corruption.

Judging by the testimonies released so far, there is a great risk that the investigations into the 1997-2002 period will suffer the same fate as the PSDB-MG mensalão scandal. Does anyone doubt it?