They used caller id spoofing and a telco vulnerability.
1. Change your phone ID and try to login on Telegram;
2. Telegram will send an SMS with an authentication number followed by a phone call to the actual mobile phone;
3. To avoid the message going through, spams the victim with many VoIP calls;
4. The Telegram call will be recorded on the missed call voice messages;
In Brazil, you can listen to the recorded messages calling your own number. Surprisingly, the telco only checks if the calling number was equal to the called number.
5. Again, with the call id spoofing, call your own number.
6. Now you have access to the victim's Telegram (past conversations and contact list)
EDIT: I translated part of the transcription used to accuse GG in another thread.
I described the procedure the hackers used to access the politicians conversations. Not GG's.
In one interview, Gleen Greenwald said the computer with the copy of the data isn't connect to the internet. Many news organization worked with the same offline computer at his office. According to him, he did that to avoid leaking personal information.
Yet, he published conversation of others journalists with theirs sources. Violating the secrecy of the source (protect by law). I should note that this other site editorial line is the opposite of GG's.
GG suggested the hackers to delete all the files. They didn't. That's how the police manage to get the messages of GG talking with the hackers.
At least from a U.S. perspective, it seems more likely that law enforcement would try to get a court order to get into the hacker's conversations than a journalist's.
Some people speculate the prosecutor was looking for exposure and might run for some position in the next election.
(a) we're not versed in Brazilian Law
(b) we don't really have all the facts of the case
(c) "charged with" and "found guilty of" are vastly different things
(d) one's opinion on the morality of a certain alleged episode has no bearing on its legality
While this is true, the related question over whether the law in question is "just", is very much a relavent issue, and something worthy of comment.
Or are folks questioning whether that law is being falsely applied in this instance?
I think it's the latter. Folks are saying, essentially, that he wasn't part of the conspiracy to commit a cybercrime but that he was working as a journalist who simply received information. That's a very fact-dependent claim. I don't think folks here would say that journalists have blanket immunity to commit cybercrime or anything like that -- this seems like a dispute over the facts. Of which we have basically none.
According to Folha de São Paulo there is a recorded conversation where Greenwald mentions to one of the "hackers" that The Intercept Brasil had saved all the submitted files, hence there was no reason for the hacker group to keep them:
The plaintiff considers this is a proof of Greenwald assisting the group.
But it doesn't sound like Greenwald will get a jury trial.
Thanks for the correction!
It depends on the crime. Sometimes an ‘objective’ view of morality is an element of an offense. E.g. in fraud (and potentially, this charge)
To be fair this is the most important comment in this thread. Greenwald was charged by a prosecutor who belongs to the same organization whose misbehavior he exposed, despite not being a target of the investigation. Said prosecutor already pulled a similar trick before.
The government, who just a few days ago was forced to fire a secretary who literally quoted Goebbels in a speech, loves this kind of news-cycle management and is clearly trying to assassinate Greenwald's reputation. Probably nothing will happen, which the government will then use as ammunition to blame the biased, radical left-wing, communist Judiciary, yadda yadda, as they have been doing in their ongoing war against all institutions in the past year.
What you are saying is: as Greenwald exposed supposed misbehaviour (are you a judge?) by some prosecutors them he can't be prosecuted anymore, which gives him immunity to commit all kind of crimes he wants to.
That judge went after one of the largest corruption scandals of our age. There's no evidence he did so in order to acquire a political position: at the heyday of the prosecutions against the workers party, the current president (who made the judge one of his ministers) wasn't even widely known by the population.
On the other hand, Greenwald, who works for The Intercept and is funded by Pierre Omidyar (one of Ebay's founders), has a very strong leftist agenda (he's a regular in communist conventions and whatnot, for that matter), and has been working in all ways possible to discredit the current government while praising the previous government which was impeached -- the one whose party members have been convicted by various crimes, mostly corruption related. It's hard to argue that Greenwald was exposing some sort of manipulation by the judicial system. He was trying to manipulate the media by creating a narrative using information that he acquired illegally, and that he couldn't use to demonstrate wrongdoing in the end of the story.
It's not hard to argue at all - it's exactly what he did.
The leaked texts make it clear that the prosecutor's office and the judge (Moro) had clear political motivations for taking down the front-running candidate in the last election and that they abused their powers to do so.
At the time the bulk of the investigations were happening, Lula wasn't even running for president, and the elections were quite far away (4-6 years), so you can't argue he was in the front-run of the election.
All this political activity is revealed by Greenwald's reporting on the leaked messages.
Also, do you really believe that could have changed the outcome of the elections?
It's interesting to note that Greenwald keeps playing the key that Moro did "politically motivated" actions (disregarding the fact the legal actions against the worker's party went through about a dozen judges beyond Moro), while Greenwald himself is doing "journalism" that is "politically motivated".
A few points:
1. The judge can talk to anyone (freedom of expression here). He would incur in a crime if his ruling favored one side disregarding the evidences
2. Greenwald associated himself with a group that hacked Moro's phone so that they could steal potentially incriminating information. He's being prosecuted because of that act, not because of his political agenda, or because "the government" is trying to cease his freedom of expression
3. The uncovered conversations between Moro and the prosecutors didn't uncover wrongdoing, as far as the law is concerned. Moro was open about his talks with the prosecutors and defense about 4 years ago, so that alleged "coordination" wasn't exactly "hidden"
4. Moro didn't "lead" any groups. All the cases that put many workers' party leaders in jail were judged by many other judges, in different stances of the judiciary, including the supreme court which is highly favorable of the workers party to this day
In essence this whole story is a smoke screen to try to incriminate a Judge and "forget" about the crimes committed by the workers party leaders by stating that "because Moro talked to prosecutors, the rulings were biased", and by stating that "a heroic journalist is having his freedoms of expression persecuted" while that journalist committed a crime exactly on the grounds of stopping other people to communicate by invading and stealing data from their devices.
Anyways, if it is, Greenwald has been one of the most outspoken critics of many aspects of the Russiagate accusations against Trump(1); and in consideration of your aforementioned "liberal agenda" of his, it hardly makes any sense at all to label him on this hand a Trump defender--as he has been accused of--and on the other a 'liberal commie.'
Greenwald has been criticizing Russiagate, but he's certainly not supporting Trump. He's very far from being a Trump defender if you've been following his work.
I think there is materially a difference.
That said, I don't know the specifics of the case, I'd be interested in hearing if there is material legitimacy to the case.
If they are jailing a reporter for essentially publishing data and merely 'communicating' with individuals ... this would be bad.
Also - there is the question of the legitimacy of publishing hacked data.
If someone hacked into your phone, and published it, it would be a crime. If they gave it to a journalist, not a crime?
If there is uncovering of actual, illegal activities, then it changes the dynamic, but what if it's not? What if the 'details' are just embarrassing, or problematic for those hacked? Do we want to legitimise theft for political objectives?
> If someone hacked into your phone, and published it, it would be a crime. If they gave it to a journalist, not a crime?
The hacking is a crime, the publishing isn't. But once you start giving direction to the hacker, you became the hacker accomplice.
> If there is uncovering of actual, illegal activities, then it changes the dynamic, but what if it's not? What if the 'details' are just embarrassing, or problematic for those hacked? Do we want to legitimise theft for political objectives?
That's whats happened in Brazil. There published communication didn't show any _unquestionably_ illegal activity. Even if did, the brazillian law don't allow to use illegally obtained proofs (unless if absolves someone).
It all depends on the contents of your phone. If you committed certain actions that are of public interest, and lied about and/or hide these actions (as is the case of the Brazilian group of judges and prosecutors), then it is imperative that journalists publish that content. Journalists are protected in their activity exactly because of this reason.
By that logic, almost anything could be hacked and published on some arbitrary blog because of the very vague term 'public interest'.
If this is the threshold we're going to use than almost the majority of political communication, huge swaths of business communication, and large portions of personal information of anyone with a public profile can be subject to hacking and publication.
While it might be good that 'a liar was exposed somewhere in Brasil' - this might not be the path we want to go down.
People doing something "all the time" in one jurisdiction doesn't magically make it legal in a different one.
I truly don't have an answer, but I think this ethical question must be done.
Should journalists be free of charge when they know the source is breaking the Espionage Act? New York Times v United States (1971) says "yes"
In the case in question, we're talking about hacking private phones (not those provided by the government as corporate phone).
I don't think the same principle can be applied here.
But hacking private phones sounds like a new question to me.
so he was an active participant, according to prosecution
Journalists (and basically anyone against those in power) are killed routinely in Brazil. It's not even a big deal in these countries. 
 - https://cpj.org/americas/brazil/
Same in US.
As a Brazilian in voluntary exile due to the violence, I'd respectfully point out that it's also not easy to move when you're dead
He only became a congressman when the other politician abdicate the position due life threats.
Why would it be legal or even moral to steal property in order to 'embarrass' someone?
This is a very slippery slope. Stealing stuff and then hiding behind 'journalism' is problematic to the extent that there is no material, legal, whistleblowing.
We have to figure out the lines that can and should be crossed, otherwise it won't be good for anyone.
What a judge does in the course of his work is not his own personal property.
"In the files, conversations between lead prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol and then-presiding Judge Sergio Moro reveal that Moro offered strategic advice to prosecutors and passed on tips for new avenues of investigation. With these actions, Moro grossly overstepped the ethical lines that define the role of a judge. In Brazil, as in the United States, judges are required to be impartial and neutral, and are barred from secretly collaborating with one side in a case."
Are you claiming these conversations never happened?
Also, "tips for new avenues of investigation" may be ethically questionable (although it's hard to make the case for that), it's not crime at all. It would be crime if the judge was taking sides in the ruling, which that specific judge is not accused of.
"He exposed evidence of criminal behavior " - if this is true, it seems the exposition is warranted - but still there are still questions about where the line is between theft and journalism.
Also - I'm not an expert but I'm actually quite doubtful that this was criminal activity that was exposed.
" a judge that was trying to conceal his activities which are subject to public scrutiny via using his personal phone" - this is not criminal in the vast majority of cases.
Richard Nixon had to resign from the presidency for breaking into opposition property to try to get information to 'embarrass them'. Would he have been sanction had he just turned the information over to the press?
There is a legit grey area here: you can't steal stuff just because you might think it's wrong. We make reasonable accommodation when there is actually criminal activity, but it's pretty fuzzy still.
But the problem is in your comment 'improper collaboration'.
Who decides what is 'improper' or not? I'd imagine the Republicans think almost everything Democrats do is 'improper' by some measure - can they steal and then publish information?
This is very grey and needs to be cleared up or it will be a really ugly new kind of information war.
I hope he manages to skip out of this cause his kind of reporting is rare.
In another thread I discussed how they hacked the Telegram accounts.
> MOLIÇÃO: Like it happened with Danilo Gentilli, the MBL and Holiday. We got [their Telegram account] last october. They only started talking [on the news] about this [Telegram hacking] now.
Danilo Gentilli is a liberal tv show host that was very vocal on the last election;
MBL is acronym to "Free Brazil Movement";
Holiday is a politician with MBL affiliation.
In Brazil, the liberals are the right-wings. Their motto is "Liberal on the economy and conservative on the customs", custom as traditional practice.
On page 58:
> GG: Because, for instance,
if they knew that someone is getting ready to publish [the hacked conversations],
that we [The InterceptBR] are ready to publish,
get an judicial order
the publication or reporting of this material.
But so far, no one have done that.
Therefore, it look like
they don't know who has "this material".
> GG: They know someone have this, but they don't know who has it.
> M: Yes. We also want to know your opinion about something...
Once you publish the articles,
everyone will exclude their conversations,
everyone will exclude their Telegram.
We want to know what do you suggest us should to do.
We have some names separated,
we can get [their conversation from Telegram] this weekend
or leave it for a while. [I ask this]because, there are some people
that already changed their number, we can't get their conversations anymore.
> GG [black text included]: Yes. Look, we are going to [??], what is going to happen? They are going for sure try to accuse us in participating in the hacking. They are going to accuse that us of being part on the hacking attempt.
For sure, they are going to accuse us. So, I'll keep the messages for myself, the messages are the proof that you only talked to us after you already done everything. This is very important for us as journalist to show that our source only talked after they already had everything.
> GG [only text in red]: We already saved everything, we received everything. I think you had any reason to keep any of this, understood?
In the bold text, Molicao asks if they should hack more people, he wanted to know GG opnion.
> GG: Yes, yes. This is difficult because I can't give you advice but I've the obligation to protect my source and this obligation is a very serious obligation, very serious. We are going to do everything we can to do this, understood?
> GG [only red text]: Also, we are going to say we received everything before those articles from the other week about Moro [begin hacked], about the other hacking.
Even the most ethical journalist in the world would have limited time, a limited network of sources, a reader base that prefers coverage of specific issues, and personal interests that drive the direction of their reporting.
From my perspective, accurate reporting on a limited set of issues is much preferred over "truthy" reporting on a broader set of issues.
If we're issuing challenges, then I challenge you to prove that every single journalist IS lying by omission.
A lie by omission is intentionally leaving out facts to misrepresent the truth. Another way to describe it is that a lie by omission is the cherry-picking of facts.
This differs from providing a limited subset of the facts for other reasons. You may not have all the facts yourself, you may not be certain of every fact you have, you may be practically limited by the amount of information that you can convey to your audience (perhaps because the audience only wants to read a 1-page article instead of 10, or perhaps because you don't have the time to write 10 pages instead of 1). In none of these cases are you necessarily lying by omission, as long as you choose to present facts that are representative of the broader set of facts that you have instead of cherry-picking facts to match a given narrative. You may still have implicit bias; that does not mean you are lying by omission because you are not necessarily intending to be biased.
Do you believe that every single journalist is intentionally skewing the truth and cherry-picking their facts to match a hidden agenda? I don't.
Edit: That's not to say that he's completely unbiased (especially on Twitter), he is human after all. But generally I have been very happy with his reporting, especially since he dares to report on subjects that other parts of the media ignore completely.
So truth now has another filter. Only what padseeker thinks is fairly presented? /snark
Truth can be communicated many different ways. The interpretation of that truth as non-truth or overvaluing the information or failing to hear out other aspects (because it's presented a specific way) is a failure of the recipient, not the sender. Truth is truth, even if you don't like how it was presented.
Yes, we all remember when the CIA officers responsible for the torture program were prosecuted, or when James Clapper was indicted for lying to Congress, or when the Boeing executives who knowingly sold a plane with safety flaws were brought up on criminal charges. Imagine the threat to the rule of law if we allowed offenders like Greenwald to go unpunished!
Nearly always, commenters who post like this underestimate how large the HN community is, and therefore how divided it is. This causes them to see a huge unexplained hole when comments show up which strike them as outrageously wrong and biased, and then the mind finds it impossible to resist filling in the hole with sinister imaginations: cloak-and-dagger brigades, astroturfing, and all the rest.
When you rush to HN to post those suspicions, you end up undermining and dividing the community even further, as well as changing the topic to something useless, since it's founded on imagination. The solution is not to post such insinuations unless you have objective information that goes beyond how you feel. By "you", of course, I'm not picking on you personally—I mean all of us. This is a bias we all have, and it's super hard to resist when the feeling is strong, because it seems almost impossible that the outrageous comments could be appearing in good faith. In reality, though, what you're experiencing is how intense the underlying social divide is. HN has many users in Brazil. As Brazilian politics is divided, Brazilian politics on HN is divided. And HN has been split down the middle about Greenwald for a long time.
There's an endless stream of prior explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturf&sort=byDat..., because this problem is perennial.
p.s. I wish I didn't have to add this, but probably do: this is not a pro-Bolsonaro or anti-Greenwald comment. It is simply pro-HN, based on what makes threads higher vs. lower quality.
I understand there's a need to enforce some etiquette, however Brazil may be close to a time Germany was in 1933, not sure this is the time to call both sides equal.
He's not arrested, nor his passport.
This might be a political persecution, but saying he is a political prisoner is a bit of stretch.
It will take several years for his case to be appreciate by every last instance (in Brazil we have 3 instances). Even if he is found guilty, he won't be sentenced to jail.
And their influence will continue to expand so long as they are able to shout down, spam and vandalize venues that might have been used to find solutions.
But I just don't think its plausible that the identified Russian activities swung the election. The Russian fake news trolls were a drop in the ocean of social media/news. The russia spend on facebook was 0.05 percent of the candidates (not even going to mention the free posting by individual supporters). FB estimated that 1 out of ~20 thousand pieces of "content" it served related to the election was russian.
In order to believe they had an impact, you have to believe russia ads/fake news are almost infinitely more persuasive than other propaganda, ads, news, etc.
It could easily have been a leak, and the Russia story was simply to deflect from the content of the leak.
It seems a bit like blaming the NBCUniversal for leaking the audio tape of trumps lewd conversation about women, rather than trump.
A big question is how influence the three major leaks had on the election, and from an outside perspective it seems insane that the whole US political direction get decided on embarrassing leaks rather than political subjects.
IDK much about much, but that sure does seem questionable to me.
So, I agree with Greenwald that a broken media environment made it possible. But I disagree with him that that casts doubt on Russian involvement, or invalidates Russian activity as a topic of national concern.
(Correct me if I'm wrong; if he's actually disputing the existence of the meddling he'd go down a few notches in my esteem).
B. The CONTENT of Podesta’s emails were the problem for Clinton. How much money she took from Wall Street, her public and private opinions depending who she was talking to, the very real pay-to-play “Donations” to her fund while she was Secretary. Her collusion with the media, including asking Trump to be propped up with coverage as a pied piper she “knew” she could beat. Russia didn’t make her do things that looked bad when made public, or make her skip campaigning in key states. I’m a little shocked at how all the hate is directed to the assumed-Russian messenger, when the real problem was she truly was a bad candidate who did bad things. she is responsible for Trump in many ways, yet, people years later still defending her. Makes no sense.
Edit: ok, hide the truth, don’t thank Clinton for Trump even though that’s what happened.
This same person recently founded a company that publicly boasted its tech could "sway" the 2020 election. 
But we can do a lot more to ensure our elections are free from foreign influence in the future.
One way might be to do something about the guy going on TV to ask foreign countries to dig up dirt on a rival.
Hillary deleted 30,000 emails after a subpoena was issued. Trump suggested that since other countries had hacked her server they probably had the 30,000 deleted emails and they could turn them over to help the investigation.
“The reality is that for three years there has been a conspiracy theory that has dominated our political and media discourse, which is that Donald Trump conspired with Russia over the 2016 election and that he’s an agent of the Russian government along with many of his associates," he continued.
He's been very outspoken that he thinks the Russian interference is bs. His angle seems to be the Democrats aren't liberal enough.
"Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities"
Seems pretty cut and dry.
Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined. However, the report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations. Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".
- in sweeping and systematic fashion
- was welcomed by the Trump campaign
- links between
- ties to
- connected to
Granted, communicating the complexities of reality is very difficult, but I sincerely do not believe that a serious effort has been made in this case (or is in other cases, in general) to as accurately and clearly as possible communicate(!) that which is "known" (including the degree of certainty), versus that which is suspected, etc.
Psychologists and neurologists have very little understanding of the underlying mechanisms by which people form beliefs, but they do know that it is extremely complex, and can easily be demonstrated to be highly prone to error or manipulation.
Considering this, in a serious political system (as seems to be the common claim of what we have in Western democratic nations), I would expect more bi-partisan (among politicians and citizens) acknowledgement of these shortcomings, and support for a process of continuous improvement in the manner in which the public is informed of affairs. But instead, I rarely see this idea discussed, and it seems to me the aggregate manner in which reality is being described to us is becoming more chaotic/uncertain/indecipherable, not less.
My intuition tells me this is not accidental, but of course there is no way of knowing if that is true or not. But, I think it would be beneficial for the public to become more aware of this phenomenon, and start drawing attention to this attribute of public discussions on a regular basis - in doing so, perhaps the quality of discourse could be improved.
A nuanced report that concluded the existence of foreign interference, of campaign links to that foreign interference, and also of not significant enough evidence to conclude coordination between the two groups is going to include a lot of nuance in the phrasing of its conclusion.
I suspect we differ on what my intuition is. If I'm not mistaken, you seem to believe this style of language is because of the nuanced nature of the issue, whereas my intuition is that the style of language is chosen to ~muddy the waters and sow confusion. We're each entitled to our respective opinions, but neither of us knows what the reality is.
Various issues in this drama are "known", with varying degrees of certainty. Something important to keep in mind though, is that degree of certainty on complex, subjective (indeterminate) matters often varies significantly per person. Reality is often a lot messier than people like to acknowledge.
My point is roughly: there is a tremendous range of public opinion on this matter (and many others), with each individual likely being extremely confident that their belief is the correct one. It also seems fairly reasonable that hardly anyone on either side has actually read the report in question.
This seems like an undesirable state of affairs in a democratic nation. It seems to me that, at the very least, it would be possible and beneficial for an alternative, non-narrative based, summary of "just the discrete facts" (with accompanying certainty declarations, etc) document to be produced that would facilitate greater effective transparency, as well as improve the public's ability form beliefs that are more consistent with reality (and presumably in turn, decrease the variance/polarization in beliefs).
Although, based on my observations of social media discussions and voting patterns, I not only see little support for this sort of idea, but instead rather strong opposition to it. It seems like most people, on either side of the divide, desire certain things to be true, as opposed to desiring to know the truth of what has actually happened. If my intuition is correct, this seems like a harmful mindset for voters in a democracy to hold, not to mention the second order harm in areas such as general public harmony, and willingness to cooperate on other important initiatives such as climate change.
That doesn't mean there wasn't evidence to be found. Bear in mind that there was obstruction to the investigation.
How can anyone ever clear their name with a mentality like this? They investigated and didn't find sufficient evidence. Saying, "yeah, but there could be evidence" means nothing will convince you.
I was trying to be polite because this is getting political. I could counter your question with one of my own:
How can you convict someone when his supporters won't believe any evidence they don't like?
There was active obstruction into the investigation. From the Mueller investigation itself.
“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
It’s the only story I’ve ever experienced first hand that seems to represent an actual instance of mass hysteria.
Persuasive discussion with people on the “other side” on this topic appears to be absolutely impossible.
Ive just given up on Americans who believe this Russian collusion narrative. It’s like talking to people in a cult or who are insane.
I know liberals exist who don’t fall prey to this thinking- but they’re not well represented in mainstream and social media universe.
It is such a sad development.
Really? It's my understanding that the Russians were sowing controversy for all parties and all kinds of people. Intelligence officers have testified that this was the case during the impeachment hearings.
If you want more explanation, I posted elsewhere in the thread about a similar case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22110856
The election where 200M people vote will be a record. By a large large margin. I think the highest turnout has been 120M.
American news media firms are always prepared to blame others for their own actions.
It was clear this was going to be a problem after the 2000 Presidential election came down to a few semi-literate Floridians. One definition of "chaos" is a system involving large numbers with sensitive dependence on very small margins, and that's what we have here.
Edit: Well, I guess we're still hearing from the semi-literate Floridians. What are the high schools teaching kids about that election, anyway?
First, a big reason you didn't mention is that Nader running as a third party syphoned votes primarily from Gore.
Second, the butterfly ballots are a bad design. If you were to design a software interface in the same way and with the same failure modes as a butterfly ballot then you can't blame the user for not understanding it. Those ballots were not designed with usabilty in mind - calling people who failed to use them properly 'illiterate' is placing the blame in the wrong place.
Third, a plausable implication from your above comment is that you believe that people who didn't vote for the candidate you prefer are somehow less intelligent than you. I'm not saying that was your intent, but I can see how somebody might draw that conclusion from your comment.
Technically, it's incredibly easy to "say" whether any one factor had nothing to do with the outcome - in fact, this seems to be the overwhelmingly normal behavior of individuals, the media, and government officials.
What's impossible is to know whether any one factor had nothing to do with the outcome. More interestingly, it also seems nigh impossible for people on either side of the dispute to simply acknowledge that great certainty exists everywhere within the complexity of life, that we simply do not know what has taken place in this situation, or in the thousands of others that people argue about, with many of these arguments having a lifespan of decades if not longer.
It may seem like a trite idea, but I believe that if we could have more widespread realization and acceptance of this fundamental truth, perhaps we could move beyond this increasingly deep rut of partisan bickering we seem to find ourselves in.
His involvement was to put the weight of his name to defend his husband's actions. And yes, I look down on Greenwald now, while I used to look up to him when I read 'No Place to Hide', for a variety of reasons.
Bolsonaro is a Trump-like clown but make a little research why people voted on the clown first.
That is according to Greenwald. Judges and prosecutors talk all the time in private. This is your opinion. Many in Brazil and abroad don't think such practice configures collusion. Especially if you read the transcripts, it is far from being damming to Mr Moro and the prosecutors.
The level of corruption in Brazil now adays (as a product of the nearly 4 mandates under Lula) is extreme. It was enough of an extreme that the people decided to elect an almost unknown, highly polarizing figure such as Bolsonaro...
Politicians and underwear should be changed often imo!
He is a very credible journalist and his story was widely well-received, his methods of procuring the information aside. If you have disagreements you should state them instead of just stating that you 'have them'