‘I looked for Lira, but he closed the doors’, says Deltan about impeachment at TSE | Policy

With the term of deputy revoked by decision of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), former prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol (Podemos-PR) complained that the mayor, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), has refused his contacts to speak on the process, which still needs to go through a procedure by the House Board. Deltan stated that he feels a “lack of welcome” from Lira. The deputy, however, said that he is still talking to other parliamentarians, including members of the Board of Directors of the Chamber to reverse the impeachment, which was also the subject of a conversation between him and the president of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), Rosa Weber.

Do you have hope of recovering the mandate? What is the strategy, in addition to resorting to the STF?

Maintaining the mandate is difficult, but it is possible. There are two ways: one is through the decision of the Chamber, which, in view of the broad defense provided for in the Constitution, examines the existence of a breach of impartiality, unconstitutionality and political persecution executed in a trial. There is also the possibility of a measure in the Federal Supreme Court that reverses the decision of the Superior Electoral Court.

The mayor, Arthur Lira, did not show much willingness to reverse the result when answering a question of order from the president of Podemos, Renata Abreu.

I was even surprised, because he interrupted her speech, and she could not fully present the technical and legal basis of the request. In any case, this issue will be considered, after the delivery of my defense, by the Board of the Chamber, which is composed of seven deputies and who will consider whether or not they will give a full defense under the terms that the Constitution provides. The Constitution does not provide for a simple execution of the judicial decision (of the TSE). There is the possibility of reassessing the context of that decision.

Have you looked for Lira?

I went to the mayor. I sent him a message, my advisor tried to schedule a meeting, but he closed the doors, not responding to messages and our requests. I even tried to speak to his chief of staff a few times. At the same time that I see a lack of acceptance by the President of the Chamber, I see a broad reception by the deputies of the House. In the first press conference we held after the impeachment, there were more than 50 deputies from 11 different parties representing more than 10 million votes. All expressing their solidarity and their indignation with the curtailment of popular sovereignty expressed by the vote.

Did you seek out other members of the Board of Directors of the Chamber to talk about the impeachment?

We have maintained dialogue with different members of the Board of Directors to present our case. After all, they are the ones who will decide. It has been a respectful interlocution of case and institutional presentation.

Lira’s party and himself have already been targets of Lava-Jato, as well as several other deputies. Doesn’t depending on them make it difficult to try to reverse the impeachment?

Arthur Lira and his father (former Senator Benedito de Lira) were even investigated and accused in Lava-Jato, including by us, in Curitiba, in the area of ​​administrative impropriety, in actions that were later suspended by Minister Gilmar Mendes, of the STF, in a confidential action. Our performance was professional, within the law, it never dealt with anything personal. Now, I understand that people who are investigated, made defendants in lawsuits, can feel personally affected, even if it is not, in any way, a personal matter for us. Regardless of the figure of the President of the House, the fact is that our work ended up reaching the interest of many powerful people in Brasilia: party presidents, party leaders, who influence the course of the country’s politics, the choice of members of the National Council of Justice, of the National Council of the Public Ministry, which influence the choice of members of courts. When there is this environment of animosity, in which, to illustrate the figure of the President of the Republic, Lula said that he sought revenge, it is clear that an inhospitable environment is created for those who worked in the fight against corruption in the past.

Did you talk about impeachment with the president of the STF, Rosa Weber?

It was a meeting that had been planned for several weeks, before my appeal was even scheduled at the TSE, and which had as its object a presentation and defense of anti-corruption guidelines, of care for people. Faced with the TSE’s decision, in passing, I mentioned and explained what had happened in this case (the impeachment). Now, the object of the meeting was not that. She just listened. I only presented perspectives on the original purpose of the meeting and quickly presented perspectives on this TSE decision.

Did you look for other ministers of the STF and TSE?

I have a relationship of respect and admiration with the ministers, but I don’t have a personal friendship with any of them.

Podemos has an open dialogue with the Lula government, has already appointed positions and has the deputy leader of the government in the Chamber. Isn’t it contradictory to be in the party, since you are in the opposition?

Podemos is an independent party that has assured me ample independence in taking my positions in relation to the agendas that I believe in. It is a party that has, within the state of Paraná, senator Oriovisto, senator Alvaro Dias (he was not re-elected) and senator Flávio Arns (he switched to the PSB), who are highly respected in the political system.

Do you see the risk of Senator Sergio Moro, who also responds to the action in the Electoral Court, suffering a setback?

I see. We saw the removal of a mandate outside the legal hypotheses of someone who fought corruption. Brazil is moving more and more towards the exercise of the right of force instead of the force of law. We need to restore institutionality, the rule of law and democracy. This depends on people taking a stand and taking action, always through democratic channels.

Lava Jato lost a lot of strength. Do you think Moro stopped being a judge to become Bolsonaro’s minister contributed to this?

Was the reaction of the corrupt system against Lava-Jato avoidable? If it was avoidable, where can the agents who acted in Lava-Jato better serve the resistance to the dismantling of the operation? Our reference is the past, especially Operation Mãos Limpas, in which law enforcement agents fought those who were above the law and those in power reacted by burying investigations and taking revenge on the agents. The decision of former judge Sergio Moro to leave the judiciary to go to the Ministry of Justice may be subject to criticism, yes. However, I do not doubt his intention to seek to contribute to the same reaction that happened in the Clean Hands Operation in Italy not happening in Brazil, or if it happened, it would be with a smaller force.

Was there anything you did at Lava-Jato that you would have done differently? Don’t the leaked messages that show you and Moro talking about the cases give ammunition to those who say the sentences were unfair?

Anything we did would be used for questioning. It’s not about what happened, it’s about who has power. Certainly, Lava-Jato made a mistake at some point, because there were tens of thousands of acts performed by hundreds of public agents. Human beings are subject to mistakes. Now, as far as I know there has never been an intentional error, never has anybody seen a line in the law and said, “I’m going to cross it.” Lava-Jato does not pay for possible mistakes, it certainly pays dearly for its successes, for having blamed those it blamed.