- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
The man who stole and leaked former President Donald Trump and thousands of other’s tax records has been sentenced to five years in prison.
In October, Charles Littlejohn, 38, pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized disclosures of income tax returns. According to his plea agreement, he stole Trump’s tax returns along with the tax data of “thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people,” while working for a consulting firm with contracts with the Internal Revenue Service.
Littlejohn leaked the information to two news outlets and deleted the documents from his IRS-assigned laptop before returning it and covered the rest of his digital tracks by deleting places where he initially stored the information.
Judge Ana Reyes highlighted the gravity of the crime, saying multiple times that it amounted to an attack against the US and its legal foundation.
They made an example of them. That judge is well enough off to be thoroughly upset that somebody might release their crooked tax documents.
Honestly I think they should slip something into the law, for this type of leak if the person was lying and you release the document proving them lying that you get a slap on the wrist.
I think he was given the maximum to keep the peace and not allow the dimwits to say he was a Dem puppet.
I have a feeling that in the background he’ll likely be treated ok.
deleted by creator
So if his sentence is altered by possible violence, ie ‘keep the peace’ then that means terrorism works on the government. File that one away for later, could come in handy.
Let’s not give them ideas. Uh… I mean validate their previous behaviours.
Yeah. I mean, considering what they could have done, though, I’d say 5 years is less of a slap on the wrist, and more of a whack with a yardstick.
Could have done worse. Whistleblowers generally deserve significant leniency though I feel. Especially for a crime where no one was injured.
I mean, in the eyes of the judge and the lawyers, the crime was premeditated, covered up, and the defendant is remorseless. Pretty clear grounds to give the maximum penalty allowed by law.
I believe the tax records for large corporations and the upper class should fax higher scrutiny without having to be publicly leaked.
Just like the sentencing for the insurrectionists right? Oh wait…
No the judge was far more extreme then that:
She practically admitted that her thinking was politically motivated. And that even though democracy in the US was and still is in danger and wealth inequality severely undermines the democratic vote of citizens, there is absolutely no excuse to resist against tyranny using illegal means. She’s not a fascist, but she’d make an excellent nazi. Yes Godwin’s law but that is how that worked. If Trump wins again democracy in the US could literally end but she sees no morally justifiable reason to resist.
PS: Or she just doesn’t understand that extreme wealth inequality and rise of fascism are linked, and you cannot fight the one without fighting the other.
True, however, power concedes nothing without a demand. The only thing the powerful fear is losing that power. You can call for higher scrutiny of the upper class and corporations all you like, but they won’t do it unless forced to. And they’re also the ones who write national policy, so good luck writing a law to force them to do anything. It will be shoved into a shredder the second it enters the DC city limits.
Remind me again who are “they” exactly, and what are their incentives?
They are lawmakers.
Incentives would be to engage whistleblowers, forcing all to be more transparent in cases where no one is physically harmed.
Okay. Now pretend for a moment we are talking about the real planet Earth with the existing legislators of it’s actual countries.
You get approximately 0% of the change you never seek.
Can you cite anything that the judge has gone outside of the recommended punishment for this type of crime? Or is this just an idea that all of these powerful government officials are conspiring to scare people into not doing something like this? Any evidence that this judge is rich and corrupt? Or is it just that it fits the narrative that you want to be true so you’ll assume it’s true?
I can cite a shit ton of the uber wealthy that get off scott free for a hell of a lot worse. But that won’t support your point any better.
So, no, you don’t have any evidence that this judge has done anything wrong, nor do you know that the ruling was especially harsh. Figured.
Does professional trolling pay well these days?
No argument, empty ad hominem. It’s amazing that people still don’t realize how much this reveals how little faith they have in their own argument.
Wow, you just keep going, it’s truly impressive at this point.
Don’t be too impressed as it’s easy to keep going when you argue the facts and the other person can’t do anything but sling insults. This is especially true when they aren’t even good at slinging insults.
Man, another zinger, so amazing.
That is like saying if you break into someone’s house and steal something that was stolen already then your crime is ok? “Two wrongs don’t make a right”
The utter irony of saying this.
The defendant’s last name is “LittleJohn.”
Little John was the sidekick of Robin Hood.
Robin Hood is the embodiment of the idea that, actually, two wrongs can very much make a right - stealing from the corrupt rich and giving to the poor is a good thing, actually. And breaking the law is good when the law only protects and empowers the corrupt and the wealthy
And that is exactly what this defendant did. Much like his coincidental namesake, he stole from the corrupt rich and shared what he took with everyone else. And much like the “Outlaw” Robin Hood, he was punished for it.
The only problem is that the United States isn’t waiting for the Good King Richard to return and right all of our society’s wrongs. Because, unlike Merry Old England, we don’t have such a Good King coming to save us.
The irony of basing your comment on a fictional character
Please elaborate on how that meets the definition of “irony.”
Nah, I’m saying that sometimes someone does the wrong thing for the right reasons and they deserve leniency
I’m saying I’d like to see him tried and sentenced like he’s a billionaire.
Right and Wrong are human concepts that change and adapt depending on the the motive of the story teller.
Is killing another human being wrong? What if we call it Murder? What if we call it Self Defense? What if we call it Sacrifice? What if we call it War?
All these words we use to describe the same thing, but whether its a Right or Wrong highly depends on the era, local, and values of the story teller.
Was it wrong for Americans to help slaves escape to the north before the Civil War? That was illegal. Our hiding Jews during the Holocaust? That was also illegal.
Would it be ok to break into my neighbor’s house if I saw them drag another human being against their will, but the cops wont do anything because I can’t prove it? Pretty sure a jury wouldn’t fault me Breaking and Entry for that.