He exposed evidence of criminal behavior by a judge that was trying to conceal his activities which are subject to public scrutiny via using his personal phone.
What a judge does in the course of his work is not his own personal property.
back
2 comments
Actually, he didn't expose any criminal evidence. After all is said and done, nothing found in the conversations he [ilegally] acquired that demonstrates wrongdoing by the judge.
>nothing found in the conversations he [ilegally] acquired that demonstrates wrongdoing by the judge.
"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?
These conversations happened in the clear. It was well known and disclosed at the time of the investigations that this judge (and a few others) were exchanging information about the case with prosecutors and defenders.
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.
I made no reference to 'he'. I asked a rhetorical question about the limits of theft and information.
"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.