I mean you can't just copy and paste text from an article and expect it to be accepted as proof of anything other than the fact that you have access to notepad.exe, you have to actually supply a link to whatever it is you're quoting from, or more preferably an archive of it.
copy/paste isn't sufficient to allay skepticism. Something more substantive is needed.
What "more substantive"? Greenwald just writes about what he actually did in 2019.
If you really missed it: https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-prosecution-of-lula-could-be-compromised-intercept-leaks-show/a-49131944 etc. (It wasn't "leaks", as in the url, it was a hacked content dump according to Greenwald himself, and which is why Bolso wanted him arrested for hacking: https://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-corruption-greenwald-idUKL1N29Q0SD and so on. Really tons of articles have been written about it even in English, he's not fantasying about it now for a book as you seem to think or something.)
I mean you can't just copy and paste text from an article and expect it to be accepted as proof of anything other than the fact that you have access to notepad.exe, you have to actually supply a link to whatever it is you're quoting from, or more preferably an archive of it.
I told you what was the whatever (Al Jazeera).
Glenn Greenwald explores how journalism can stop authoritarianism in Bolsonaro's Brazil
https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/1428
(There's, of course, no "Bolsonaro's Brazil" now 1 year later.)