- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
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.
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.
Man, another zinger, so amazing.
You got beat at your own game, and are now whining that I played it. Lol