Charles Littlejohn: Man who stole and leaked Trump tax records sentenced to 5 years in prison
Charles Littlejohn: Man who stole and leaked Trump tax records sentenced to 5 years in prison
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.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
Five years is literally the worst sentence you can get for the crime he pled guilty to. From how it's worded, the most recommended penalty for that crime appears to be a $5000 fine and maybe a little jail time.
They "threw the book at him" by all definitions of the word.
So, they gave him the maximum sentence, and the pro-Trump judge was pissed the sentence couldn't be any higher? What a piece of shit.
Apparently Ana Reyes was appointed by Joe Biden. You can't really call her a fascist, but her delusional liberal view of the world make her an indirect but effective supporter of fascism: If the inequality caused by the insane concentration of wealth and the resulting systemic corruption and injustice is not addressed, it causes degradation of material conditions and creates a fertile ground for fascism. But this they don't want to hear.
In my view the wealth inequality violates the intent of the constitution and Littlejon is a political prisoner.
I can't speak for whether the judge was pro-Trump. It doesn't sound (from other replies) like that was the case.
I think it's more that the everyone in the System (from prosecutors to judges) have a strong dislike for whistleblower crimes.
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.
I believe the tax records for large corporations and the upper class should fax higher scrutiny without having to be publicly leaked.
Could have done worse. Whistleblowers generally deserve significant leniency though I feel. Especially for a crime where no one was injured.
He got the maximum sentence under §7213
I mean, they could have disappeared him or thrown in a bunch of bullshit charges. But for what he did, he got as bad as it gets. The DOJ page even said they sentenced him so harshly to send a warning to people who consider repeating his behavior.
Whistleblowers are always punished harshly on purpose.
Whistleblowers are always punished harshly on purpose.
yeah we gotta fix that.
Wait. Was this a felony? Okay, then I guess he's not getting off lightly. Sure, he's in prison for only 5 years, but after he gets out he's still a felon. That means no voting, no gun ownership, no passport so he can't leave the country, ever.
Wait, felons can't get a passport so they leave the US? That kind of makes them political prisoners.
I thought the same as you, but it seems it's not so bad. You can vote after a felony sentence in the US, but maybe not right away and sometimes you have to settle court fines first.
Guns take longer and maybe never if your crime was violent or involved gun laws.
For passports, it seems most certain to be a no if your crime involved trafficking, smuggling, or anything to do with another country.
I think this guy can expect these rights restored after his sentence. But you're still right that the conviction will likely be a continuing problem in other ways. I doubt he could be hired as CPA or anywhere else involving confidential records.
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.
No the judge was far more extreme then that:
“What you did in attacking the sitting president of the United States was an attack on our constitutional democracy,” Reyes said. “We’re talking about someone who … pulled off the biggest heist in IRS history.” The judge compared Littlejohn’s actions to those of the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, noting that, “your actions were also a threat to our democracy.” “The fact that he did what he did and he’s facing one felony count, I have no words for,”
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.
Just like the sentencing for the insurrectionists right? Oh wait...
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.
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.
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.
They don't give maximum sentences to those who force entry and batter federal employees during an insurrection....
Bologna this is about keeping peace.
Honestly I think they should slip something into the law
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?
The recommended penalty for unauthorized disclosure is something more like a $5000 fine. The maximum allowable penalty for the offense is 5 years in prison.
"Wanting to do the right thing" is apparently an aggrivating circumstance.
Thanks for actually addressing the point. Where did you get this information from? Not that I don't trust you, I'm just curious to read more.
Weird. I SWORE I linked this. Maybe it was a different reply.
As for the exact terminology, I got the crime he pleaded guilty of from the propaganda press junket from the DOJ on the matter.
Thanks appreciate it. Considering he got the harsher end of the spectrum, I'm going to look into this further.
He got the maximum sentence because he was unrepentant of the crime, and because anything less than that would seem biased. I didn't see any mention of fines, maybe he got off easy there?
If you check the original article there's a bit at the bottom where the prosecution wanted to charge him for much more than just one Unauthorized Disclosure
E:switch Prosecution for Judge
I thought when I read the article that the judge was upset that the prosecution didn't go for more.
You're right
When you do, you'll find out he did more things (more folks' tax returns, though he didn't publish those AFAIR). I'm sure he pled to this crime because of those other things. But that doesn't really justify maximum sentence for what he was found guilty of.
But that doesn’t really justify maximum sentence for what he was found guilty of.
Considering I was planning on looking into this, can you explain your reasoning? I could easily be convinced one way or another.
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.
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"
"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."
Because it's like a traffic jam when you're already late. Or a no smoking sign on your cigarette break. Obviously.
That makes sense. Pretty similar to rain on your wedding day as well
Do you know what allegories are
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.