[ad_1]
Gilmar Mendes is inclined to feel persecuted, as many of his actions in the Supreme and outside him suggest. The most recent one, the one that the IRS investigated the Mendes couple in the likeness of the Nazi Gestapo, is the first to have at least one utility. The minister says in his presentation that in the Brazilian era, there was "a deliberate strategy of attacking reputation on predetermined targets". with two common suspicions here. The first is that there is even an "attack strategy" on the chosen targets.
Not the federal taxpayer accused by the minister, but Sergio Moro and the Dalit prosecutors of Curitiba have committed, with amparo superiority, arbitrariness and illegalities more than sufficient to indicate the "strategy of attack to predetermined targets ".
The other sentiment shared here and coinciding with the Minister's statement is that Gilmar Mendes made an important and sometimes decisive contribution to the attack on exterminating "predetermined targets". It does not matter if you are aware of this role or not in developing the strategy you are aiming for.
If the Income's illegalities in the Mendes couple's financial examination were true, Gilmar Mendes would be serious, even if there were no distant precedents and not so much.
With authority
Speaking of Sergio Moro, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support, is succinct in his response to criticism of the most severe punishment for both candidates (money received and not declared in campaign): "The second choice is a fraud."
Such as the disclosure, for political purposes, of illegal phone tapping. And the disclosure of "testimony" of Antonio Palocci, seven days before the presidential election and for the purpose of electoral interference.
The ease with which senators have endorsed an IPC petition against higher courts – or even their ministers – goes both ways. This may reflect the general indisposition, and not without reason, with the high judiciary.
But this could be the beginning of political blackmail, scary ministers who will decide the constitutional validity of problematic government projects.
In both cases, it is presenting the moral frailty of the Supreme. And, in short, the sign of future institutional complications. By confrontation or capitulation.
Source link
