Comparisons · Statement × document
Moro: "no abnormality is perceived" (June 9, 2019) × Supreme Federal Court (STF) rulings on his bias (2021)
What was said diverges from what a document records.
What was said
“Sobre supostas mensagens que me envolveriam publicadas pelo site Intercept neste domingo, 9 de junho, lamenta-se a falta de indicação de fonte de pessoa responsável pela invasão criminosa de celulares de procuradores. Assim como a postura do site que não entrou em contato antes da publicação, contrariando regra básica do jornalismo. Quanto ao conteúdo das mensagens que me citam, não se vislumbra qualquer anormalidade ou direcionamento da atuação enquanto magistrado, apesar de terem sido retiradas de contexto e do sensacionalismo das matérias, que ignoram o gigantesco esquema de corrupção revelado pela Operação Lava Jato.”
Sergio Moro, June 9, 2019 · Note/letter · Statement from the Minister of Justice (Migalhas) · context and source
What happened afterward
- March 9, 2021. Gilmar Mendes's vote concluded that the duty of impartiality had been violated and cited Operation Spoofing dialogues solely for the historical record.
“O exame conglobante de tudo o que foi até aqui narrado estreita a inevitável compreensão de que houve de fato a violação do dever de imparcialidade do magistrado.” source
source - March 23, 2021. The Second Panel of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) declared Moro biased in the triplex case (3 to 2, according to Poder360). source
- March 23, 2021. Cármen Lúcia, who in 2018 had voted against the bias ruling, changed her vote, saying the judgment was open to new elements and that she was voting on the basis of the data of that moment.
“Eu disse que estava aberta a novos elementos e o julgamento não acabou. Está tendo sequência o julgamento e com dados desse momento é que profiro o voto” source
source - March 23, 2021. Nunes Marques voted against the bias ruling and considered the use of the dialogues as evidence unlawful.
“Entender-se de forma diversa, que resultado de tais crimes seriam utilizáveis, seria uma forma transversa de legalizar a atividade hacker no Brasil” source
- June 23, 2021. The full court (Plenary) upheld the Second Panel's decision; Fux and Marco Aurélio dissented.
“Essa prova foi obtida por meio ilícito e violou a Constituição Federal” source
source
How they explained it
In the sources consulted, as of October 24, 2026, we did not find a statement or declaration by Moro on the decisions of March 23, 2021 and June 23, 2021 (the research was interrupted by the environment's search limit; pending item).
Note
In 2019 Moro said that the content of the messages, "taken out of context," showed no abnormality. In 2021 the Supreme Federal Court (STF) recognized the bias on the basis of acts performed in the case file and, in Gilmar's vote, also on the basis of Spoofing dialogues. The majority is not uniform as to the grounds; dissenting justices pointed to the unlawfulness of the evidence. The comparison places the statement and the ruling side by side, without concluding on the merits: these are judicial decisions subject to criticism, including by the justices in the minority.
Sources of the events
Gilmar Mendes's vote in HC 164.493 concludes that the duty of impartiality was violated, declares that the conclusion "is ascertainable from the facts narrated in the original petition" and includes, among the seven facts analyzed, the acceptance of the invitation to be Minister of Justice; the vote also cites Operation Spoofing dialogues "merely for historical record".
Excerpt: “meramente para registro histórico”
Source: Voto do ministro Gilmar Mendes no HC 164.493/DF (suspeição de Sergio Moro) — Supreme Federal Court (copy published by Poder360), Mar. 2021 · Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the vote · open original ↗
Court decision (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Limitations: A vote, not the final ruling. The majority of the Second Panel did not necessarily adopt all of the grounds; Cármen Lúcia said she was not relying on the messages (Poder360).
On March 23, 2021, the STF Second Panel judged HC 164.493 and declared Sergio Moro biased in the Guarujá triplex criminal case; according to Poder360, by 3 votes to 2.
Source: STF confirma suspeição de Sergio Moro na ação do triplex do Guarujá — Supreme Federal Court (Communications Secretariat), June 23, 2021 · "Anulação" (annulment) paragraph · open original ↗
Release (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Limitations: The ruling was not opened; the tally comes from Poder360.
According to Poder360, in 2018, when HC 164.493 began to be judged, Justice Cármen Lúcia voted against Moro's bias ruling, following rapporteur Edson Fachin.
Source: Cármen Lúcia muda voto e STF declara Moro parcial em condenação de Lula — Poder360, Mar. 23, 2021 · Fifth paragraph · open original ↗
News report · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Limitations: Verbatim statement from the 2018 vote not found; to do: stenographic notes or video of the Second Panel session.
The STF Plenary upheld on June 23, 2021 the Second Panel decision that declared Moro biased in the triplex case; according to the STF, the prevailing view was that the Plenary only reviews panel decisions in the cases provided for in the Internal Rules.
Source: STF confirma suspeição de Sergio Moro na ação do triplex do Guarujá — Supreme Federal Court (Communications Secretariat), June 23, 2021 · First paragraphs and "Regimento" (Internal Rules) section · open original ↗
Release (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Limitations: Institutional news item; the ruling was not opened. The Plenary vote dealt with the appeal against the rapporteur's decision, which had considered HC 164.493 moot (see fonte).