DOJ: Ex-IRS employee who leaked Trump's tax returns intentionally got job to disclose records

[TheCount]

WASHINGTON – A former Internal Revenue Service contractor, who leaked tax information about Donald Trump and other wealthy individuals to news organizations, got his job to intentionally to spread the confidential records, according to Justice Department prosecutors.


Charles Edward Littlejohn, 38, of Washington, pleaded guilty in October to unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information. U.S. District Judge Ana Reye scheduled sentencing for Jan. 29. Prosecutors recommended Tuesday he receive the maximum sentence of five years in prison.


“After applying to work as an IRS consultant with the intention of accessing and disclosing tax returns, Defendant weaponized his access to unmasked taxpayer data to further his own personal, political agenda, believing that he was above the law,” wrote prosecutors Corey Amundson, chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, Jennifer Clarke and Jonathan Jacobson.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ohn-trump-tax-returns-sentencing/72253924007/



Would be a prime candidate for jury nullification if he hadn't pleaded guilty.

 

[asurfaholic]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ohn-trump-tax-returns-sentencing/72253924007/



Would be a prime candidate for jury nullification if he hadn't pleaded guilty.

Do you think it’s not criminal for someone to maliciously leak someone’s private tax returns for personal and political gain? Is your position that using his role to make unauthorized disclosures to media is something that government workers should be doing?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Would be a prime candidate for jury nullification if he hadn't pleaded guilty.

Do you think it’s not criminal for someone to maliciously leak someone’s private tax returns for personal and political gain?

If it's not criminal, then jury nullification can't occur.

Is [making] unauthorized disclosures to media [...] something that government workers should be doing?

Edward Snowden is Exhibit A that at least sometimes it is.

(Technically, Snowden was employed by a government contractor, not the government itself - but that's a distinction that makes no difference.)

 

[TheCount]

Do you think it’s not criminal for someone to maliciously leak someone’s private tax returns for personal and political gain? Is your position that using his role to make unauthorized disclosures to media is something that government workers should be doing?

I think everyone wants government workers to make unauthorized disclosures to media under certain circumstances.


It's just a matter of what circumstances.

 

[Weston White]

Whistle-blowing is a legal status that is of a clear distinction to what this fucktard did--premeditatively.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ex-IRS contractor who leaked Trump's tax returns sentenced to 5 years in prison
The judge said leaking Trump's returns was an attack on 'constitutional democracy'

If it's not criminal, then jury nullification can't occur.

Edward Snowden is Exhibit A that at least sometimes it is.

(Technically, Snowden was employed by a government contractor, not the government itself - but that's a distinction that makes no difference.)

Whistle-blowing is a legal status that is of a clear distinction to what this fucktard did--premeditatively.

Yeah, this guy wouldn't qualify as a whistle-blower. More like employee theft for gain (monetary, political, fame, etc).

 

[nobody's_hero]

Ex-IRS contractor who leaked Trump's tax returns sentenced to 5 years in prison
The judge said leaking Trump's returns was an attack on 'constitutional democracy'

Yeah, this guy wouldn't qualify as a whistle-blower. More like employee theft for gain (monetary, political, fame, etc).

I hold the media culpable as well.

They hyped up those nothing-burger tax returns to the point that someone would even try something like this.

 

[dannno]

I applaud the guy for showing the country that Trump had perfect tax returns.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yeah, this guy wouldn't qualify as a whistle-blower.

Maybe he should.

IMO, so-called "public servants" shouldn't be permitted to keep some things secret from the public. This would have the salubrious effect of deterring would-be secret-keepers from seeking public office - and in the case of taxes, it might incentivize those who did seek office to eliminate those taxes (or at least significantly limit and reduce the reporting requirements).

More like employee theft for gain (monetary, political, fame, etc).

That's where the jury nullification angle comes into play.

A jury can't nullify on a charge unless it thinks "guilty" is the technically correct verdict for that charge.

(Otherwise, a "not guilty" verdict would just be a regular acquittal, not a nullification.)

 

[oyarde]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ohn-trump-tax-returns-sentencing/72253924007/



Would be a prime candidate for jury nullification if he hadn't pleaded guilty.

IRS employees ? LOL , uh , no.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Maybe he should.

IMO, so-called "public servants" shouldn't be permitted to keep some things secret from the public. This would have the salubrious effect of deterring would-be secret-keepers from seeking public office - and in the case of taxes, it might incentivize those who did seek office to eliminate those taxes (or at least significantly limit and reduce the reporting requirements).
...

Except in this case, the privacy and secrecy being violated is that of citizens, not necessarily the government. And in the case where data is stolen and sold, that is obvious theft (for gain).

 

[Occam's Banana]

Except in this case, the privacy and secrecy being violated is that of citizens, not necessarily the government.

If the records of private citizens were involved, then I agree with respect to those particular records,

As for the records of "public" citizens - i.e., politicians and government bureaucrats (especially those involved in the taxing and/or spending of private citizens' money), the disclosure of such records should not only be allowed but also required.

And in the case where data is stolen and sold, that is obvious theft (for gain).

And thus subject to nullification, if a jury saw fit.