Oof. I don’t know why he would stay in Brazil while publishing stuff that embarrassed powerful interests in Brazil. You can do that shit in Canada, in Brazil you’re lucky to not get a bullet.
Journalists (and basically anyone against those in power) are killed routinely in Brazil. It's not even a big deal in these countries. [1]
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.
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.
What a judge does in the course of his work is not his own personal property.
"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.
"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."
(https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-ca...)
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.