Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

"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.

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.

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.

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.