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

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.

gdog05,

It doesn’t sound to me like he thought he was above the law. He seemed to know the consequences. He just didn’t think that Trump should be above the law. Or, at the very least, above presidential decorum.

Igloojoe,

Yet the orange buffoon still walks the streets and continues raising hatred.

RarePepeCollector,

“raising hatred” … How did he hurt you and would like to talk about it?

InternetUser2012,

Sir, you must be confused, this isn’t reddit. Take your trolling bullshit and go back there, thanks.

Ashyr,

He knew he wasn’t above the law, he just believed the consequences were worth it. I hope he’s right.

ilovededyoupiggy,
@ilovededyoupiggy@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yup. Dude took one for the team.

frickineh,

If he gets jail time, I’ll contribute to his commissary account.

Skydancer, (edited )

Silly as it sounds, this is exactly how to support him. That and writing letters. It means so much to incarcerated folks to have the few things from commissary that make life just a little less miserable, and what to spend it on is a bit of choice and independence in a system designed to take every bit of those things away as a means of grinding inmates down.

Letters are just as important - a lifeline to the outside. Sometimes literally. Guards know who is in regular contact with people outside, and who doesn’t have anyone to report abuse to. Being able to communicate things like unmet medical needs so someone can set up a call campaign can be life or death.

Grass,

I’ve never heard of this before. Is it common or just a us thing?

sukhmel,

I believe the part about having something to feel connected to life is common. The part where you can write someone about abuse and issues seems more like the US thing

robocall,
@robocall@lemmy.world avatar

OK How do I send this guy a letter? what’s his prison address?

Nastybutler,

He hasn’t been sentenced yet

Skydancer,

He may not be incarcerated yet. He was only sentenced last week, and once he surrenders it may take a few days for his info to show up. Since this was federal, he’ll be going to a federal prison. When he does, you’ll find him here. That will give you his register number, and a link to the prison page where information on how to address mail can be found for the facility he’s in.

IHeartBadCode,
IHeartBadCode avatar

I'm guessing I'm going to have the most hated opinion on this. But fuck that person. I get a lot of people want to celebrate it as "person had to commit a crime so that they could point out crimes being committed by Trump" but ultimately this wrecks public trust of an institution, of which the IRS doesn't exactly enjoy a lot of it to begin with. And if we don't have trust in our government, it's doesn't matter, we're fuck Trump won.

This whole thing, literally proves the argument of "weaponizing Government". This person walked into the IRS, had an agenda, and was absolutely going to abuse their position to make a point that they had zero legal right to make. Did anyone directly tell them to do the thing? No. Was there a lot of talking heads that might have colored this person's opinion about Trump? You better believe it. So no one "directly" weaponized this person, but someone would be hard pressed to convince me it wasn't indirect. Which brings up the question of, are we a nation of laws or vendettas? Do we settle our beef in court without blood or are we just finding out who can sneak the most without getting noticed?

I get it, I don't like Trump either, BUT NOT LIKE THIS. This is too far. This person is no hero, they violated the law and even worse abused public trust. If we don't have public trust, if we're just celebrating when someone takes the piss on an oath to obey the law (which IRS employees take), then we have nothing defensible. We're literally talking about the shit that we're going after Trump for, violations of his oath to defend the Constitution and uphold the law.

If we're violating laws because "trust me bro, it'll be worth it" then the laws mean nothing. I get it, too long have we had our faith in this system forsake us. Too many rich assholes bend the law to their whim to escape actual persecution, so "it's okay to rob from the rich to give to the poor every once and awhile". But that's actually not how we solve things, that's just gasoline to make things even worse.

Acting above the law doesn't always mean, you get away with it. Acting above the law means, that you don't view the law as always being a guiding principal. That sometimes, somethings require operating outside of the law. No matter the consequences. That the ends justify the means. And if we aren't able to hold enough faith to believe that the law will eventually ring out and that we can eventually find enough justice in this world…

Hang it up, we're done here. Because that's all that's holding any democracy together. Faith, blind faith, sometimes dumb faith that we're all going to do the thing we promised to do, and that we're all going to come together when that's violated. It's easy and quick to settle a grudge with fists but a lasting peace and understanding comes from settling it with our minds and voices. Breaking laws to expose Trump's crimes, that's not a victory for democracy, that's just a victory for people who don't like Trump.

dreamer,

Nah, this is not going to get through with people.

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

Your legal system exists to protect itself and the ruling class, it is not just, it is indefensible.

This person sacrificed themselves to bring to light one small part of the injustices you allow to perpetuate. They’re a hero, you’re a problem.

IHeartBadCode,
IHeartBadCode avatar

Your legal system exists to protect itself and the ruling class, it is indefensible

Well the obvious question. What system would you have it replaced with?

This person sacrificed themselves to bring to light one small part of the injustices you allow to perpetuate

And this person has now also made it where everyone will ask, "if this person existed in the IRS, how do we know there are not more?" This is how distrust gets sown. This is how the IRS loses more funding. This is exactly how "ruling class" gets even less oversight. This is how these people, you want to go after, get away with it. This person didn't solve anything, they made it worse.

That person's is absolutely heading to jail on the 29th. Where's Trump at the moment? You think you got some sort of win?

They’re a hero, your a problem

They are going to jail and will likely never have the right to vote ever again in their life. I can still vote for a different world than the one we currently live in.

So if you think this "solved" something, then you didn't understand the problem. I'm just going to tell you, this kind of tit for tat stuff. We won't survive it. Every hero ultimately turns into a Robespierre. We don't solve this with a single person, we solve it together, otherwise we don't solve it period.

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

Replace it with one where people have a say and not a ruling class?

There’s enough anarchist/communist/leftist literature out there discussing these issues, they’re not new.

And the idea that you can vote your way out of this mess is adorable, naive, but adorable.

IHeartBadCode,
IHeartBadCode avatar

Replace it with one where people have a say and not a ruling class?

You want everyone to vote on every issue? Because outside of that, we've already got that system you talk about.

There’s enough anarchist/communist/leftist literature out there discussing these issues, they’re not new

And those systems have flaws in them as well. It's not like rich and powerful means "Oh no, I cannot learn to exploit a new system!"

And the idea that you can vote your way out of this mess is adorable, naive, but adorable

See there's not an "out", that's where you've got it wrong. There's never a point where people stop pushing back on rich and powerful. That's literally the human condition, it's forever, always, until the heat death of the universe, an uphill. There is no top of the hill. There is no "out". Democracy is not a spectator sport, it requires all of us to continually and forever until the last of us is gone, fight the indoctrination with education, fight the power grabs with justice, and fight greed with humility.

At no point do we make progress by breaking laws and further showing how irrelevant that sheet of paper we call the Constitution is and rewriting it to be communist or foregoing it to be anarchist do not make it where suddenly human proclivities cease existing. You cannot do off with the evil side of human nature by adopting some magical means to live one's life and govern one's society. It is only with an enteral effort or the cessation of humanity itself that it can placed in check.

No you have all of this completely wrong. There is never "out".

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

I want everyone to have the ability to vote on every issue if they want too.

You cannot have rich and powerful people under such a system because the means for them to posses such status do not exist.

There is zero biological imperative that rich and powerful people must exist, that’s purely a social construct. Humans are inherently cooperative.

And yes at every point you make progress by breaking laws. What would LGBT rights look like without the Stonewall riots? What would worker rights look like without anarchists kidnapping CEOs and fighting pinkertons, what would black rights look like without a civil war and groups like the black panthers violence.

Our world got to where it is through shedding the blood of tyrants, not asking them nicely.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

IHeartBadCode,
IHeartBadCode avatar

You cannot have rich and powerful people under such a system because the means for them to posses such status do not exist

Disinformation.

There is zero biological imperative that rich and powerful people must exist

There is a finite set of things and a means to obtain significant portions of those finite things.

Humans are inherently cooperative

Humans are complex.

Our world got to where it is through shedding the blood of tyrants, not asking them nicely

Let me ask you, all that blood shed previously. Did it work? Are we winning right now? You mentioned the US Civil War, ask yourself, did the slaves actually get free? Did the blacks actually get rights? Did the people who started the war face justice?

Also, all that those moments in history where there was shedding of blood. You do understand, if we had that today, you and I are pretty much assured to not make it. You do understand that? If we went to bloodshed, a lot of the people on this forum are highly likely the be part of the dead. You know in the Declaration of Independence there's a line:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

And reason why is because they knew, that overthrowing the government means most people die and the rich and power continue on. You do kind of notice how a lot of the folks who signed that document were also very rich and very powerful people and very not dead at the end of the Revolutionary war?

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Which is why I'm curious about you quoting Thomas Jefferson in his letter to John Adam's son-in-law. For me a real quote is:

It is the privilege of the gods to want nothing, and of godlike men to want little.

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

Let me ask you, all that blood shed previously. Did it work?

Yes, we are undeniably slightly better off than at any other period. Go ask how many women, queers, or PoC would rather go back to the '50s.

Can you not even recognize such a simple reality?

Promethiel,
@Promethiel@lemmy.world avatar

You seem very well spoken but clearly convicted in seeing the shining and just world you may have thought you were building towards go dark and twisted the way the History books noted should be history.

That’s a presumption on my part of course and I’ll never truly know, but it rings right.

But this is a topic where your enthusiasm for the recovery of a dream that never was is making you say some seriously ignorant takes, in the dehumanize others for my point sort of way.

There is a small cadre of lovely good old people who don’t realize the realities being lived in those they have spent their lives seeing as allies–or at least being non-antagonistic towards.

A terrifying thing to see people who were there or learned first hand from those who were living through the bloody acquisition of the rights of marginalized group after marginalized group.

And how even those rights that were bled for are being eroded, within the same lifetime.

If they still can recognize such a simple reality, that recognition comes with a price that is often decided as not worth paying for those people, for whatever reasons they tell themselves.

I fear you may have with all the best intentions, gelled there as one of those people.

But my God. I have never in my life of being of color and all of the hardships and obstacles that’s brought the thought:

“Hmmm, did my ancestors really get freedom? Was the Civil War worth it, for our country’s Unity? Wouldn’t it be better to still remain chattel while trying to think of how to solve this all amicably”.

The ignorance is so staggering I can’t manage to be offended.

IHeartBadCode,
IHeartBadCode avatar

If they still can recognize such a simple reality, that recognition comes with a price that is often decided as not worth paying for those people, for whatever reasons they tell themselves

Let me quote you something:

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

— Judge Learned Hand (1944)

The fight of a right is indeed one thing, but it does not win the hearts of people. An injustice revealed at a cost of another injustice does not win the hearts of people. The US Civil War won us the 13th amendment but it did not win the hearts of the people. Law is a piece of paper and means only that which people extend to it and no more. Law protects the people to the extent that law is enforced by the people and no less.

Out of the Civil War came share cropping, Jim Crow laws, and disenfranchisement of those who were formerly enslaved. The evil didn't abate, it evolved. It was not the blood shed there that gave salvation, it was the blood there that began the march.

Wouldn’t it be better to still remain chattel while trying to think of how to solve this all amicably

Absolutely not, but at the same time it's foolish to think it was settled. And that's the point I am making, no win is absolute, but every loss is an erosion. This "win" that the other person believes it to be is not such. It is a win if you are of the mindset that the crimes or Trump require a person who took an oath to uphold the law in bad faith was justified.

In your life you've likely wanted this world to be different, to be equal. But that can only be found not by law onto others but by mindset by others. And if law requires equality and the minds of people have not change, no sheet of paper can protect us unless we have faith in that sheet of paper. No document can prevent evil unless we maintain faith in the people who have sworn an oath to do such.

Is that not the problem we see? People who wear uniforms who swear to serve and protect in constant violation of that? People who have taken oath to hold those in violation of that promise who fail to uphold their end of the bargain?

I would say, people taken it upon themselves to believe that ends justify the means is the root of the problem, not the solution. That is why I ask do we believe we got the win in the Civil War? With the 19th Amendment? And the answer is what I've said to the other person.

There is no top of the hill. There is no "out". Democracy is not a spectator sport, it requires all of us to continually and forever until the last of us is gone, fight the indoctrination with education, fight the power grabs with justice, and fight greed with humility.

The events I speak about are not a conclusion of things, but the start of things. They are not wins, they events that direct us. Change us and show our resolve to continue. Evil sinks back because they believe we are resolute and when we show that we are not, then our struggle becomes more difficult.

And to quote:

What I fear about many of these observances is that they tend to enact historical closures. They are represented as historical high points on a road to an ultimately triumphant democracy

— Angela Davis (Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Closures and Continuities)

In short, the idea that "freedom" continues with the shedding of blood is incorrect or in the best of light, short sighted. Freedom is maintained in the minds and hearts of the people and when ephemeral wins come at the cost of holding no faith to an oath to protect and uphold the law. Then it is no real win, it is an erosion. There are too many examples of how bad faith poisoned the US in the Reconstruction Era that followed the US Civil War. Of how bad faith fueled hate groups to win the hearts and minds of the people at that time.

Perhaps that won't be the case with this revelation. I honestly hope you all are correct and I am incorrect, to me that would be best for me to be incorrect on this event. I would want nothing more. But any weakness in our resolve to be a nation of laws is a strength to authoritarianism. Any action of bad faith courts more of the like and makes repulsion that more difficult.

Promethiel,
@Promethiel@lemmy.world avatar

I have read all of your comment reply. I don’t agree with all of it, but I have read it and I appreciate your time in writing it.

The extra nuance you took to further clarify your point so that your strongly emotive comparisons were not misconstrued as ignorance was a particularly welcome touch.

As to a retort of any kind; Within the framework of the world you describe, you are correct and I would almost be swayed.

I just can’t bring myself to believe it can still be true, that it isn’t simply the idealism of an age gone by.

If bad faith in kind breeds more bad faith and our own good faith is weaponized against the public good, then what?

If it is erosion, then I personally can only hope that the good intentions on the road to hell will also erode the structures from underneath evil as well as the good.

It is short sighted, but just what else am I supposed to see beyond the cliff we’re hurtling towards?

IHeartBadCode,
IHeartBadCode avatar

that it isn’t simply the idealism of an age gone by

It is always this. I mentioned Angela Davis' book and in it she makes the point that we celebrate these monumental moments because they tell us a story. A story of democracy triumphant. But those events they weren't in reality 100% monumental, they were big yes, but always the details paint a complex story.

It isn't an age gone by because it is an age that hasn't come. And it's not an age to ever come. It's an idea, a dream, a thing for us to work towards always. If you ever look at the Great Seal of the United States you'll notice an incomplete pyramid. It's to symbolize that our work is never done. Because the people who created this nation knew, democracy was never going to be a government that could ever be a one and done situation.

The generation which commences a revolution rarely completes it.

— Thomas Jefferson

American history is not something dead and over. It is always alive, always growing, always unfinished.

— John F. Kennedy

The unfinished work of perfecting our union falls to each of us.

— Barack Obama

If bad faith in kind breeds more bad faith and our own good faith is weaponized against the public good, then what?

The young. For all the ills and failures of society that old people seem to mete out, it is routinely the young that cure it.

It is short sighted, but just what else am I supposed to see beyond the cliff we’re hurtling towards?

That is perhaps the most beautiful thing about all of this. You cannot see beyond the cliff, it's not short sighted, it's being pragmatic. Big ideas like equality and democracy these are things that ask us to look past what's in front of us.

And for that reasons is why it is faith in each other that we're going to make this world better for the younger generations, that we will somehow provide the children of this world the tools that they need to continue onward with this unfinished work. There's a saying, I'm likely to butcher it, but it goes "nothing of value was obtained with ease." I know that faith is routinely shaken in this world, but though you cannot see it we must hold faith that we will keep going.

And I am no person of religion so faith in something isn't something that I just peg as ordained or providence will see us though. The faith I speak of is found in people. I have seen people come together in common cause to set off change. Heck, we've mentioned a few in our previous comments. People are strong and that strength is what strikes fear in all those who bring the ills we're talking about in this world.

That's how you know it's true, if there was no strength, they would not spend so much energy trying to divide us. They, the ruling class and rich, know this already and sometimes it's difficult for us to believe.

I see younger kids these days and goddamn are they clever as hell. Young and unbridled at times yes, but they seems to be keenly aware of the shoddy situation they've been placed into and seem more than ever willing to address it. Sometimes a bit misguided, but that's just inexperience not malice.

You know sometimes I listen to that song by Louis Armstrong, What A Wonderful World. The man lived through two world wars and segregation, what wonderful world could he have been talking about? And I am starting to see it now. He's talking about potential in this world. He lived in the "the worse" for him and the children he sees are born ahead of that with all the unseen possibilities ahead of them.

I hear babies cry, I watch them grow, They'll learn much more than I'll ever know. And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

I know that there's going to be a world I cannot even imagine, that's going to make the world I live in feel shameful. And I know that, because I have faith that it will come to pass. Maybe it is false hope, maybe we will not turn the wheel before we get to the cliff. But buying into the notion that it is a false hope seems to sell short the limitless possibilities this world can be made into and the great strength of the people who inhabit this world.

Promethiel,
@Promethiel@lemmy.world avatar

Thank you for taking the time and for your words once more. You’ve given much to think we the shakiness in hope can be chalked simply to less experiences; Armstrong was already 90 when I came into this world.

But I can conceptualize what you mean about his message; it resonated enough it’s been covered by other musicians I’ve listened to.

I still fear the bounds of faith in our shared humanity and the meaning of the social contract may be tested, but while I have the conviction I certainly do not wish for that.

I’ll take your words in and accept them as a truth for the world.

A world I’d rather live in even if I don’t see how to square the sins of the figurative fathers of the past with any actions I could do for the children of today, starting with my literal one.

Mayhap the hope of the past and faith in common humanity will mingle with youthful vision somewhere down the line and I’ll have done my part that way, even as I contemplate and rightly fear the alternatives.

DougHolland,
@DougHolland@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, you’ve identified the real crux of the issue. All Americans have great trust and respect for the IRS, and Mr Littlejohn’s actions might erode some fraction of some fraction of that undeserved trust and respect. Oh, the humanity.

jjjalljs,

And this person has now also made it where everyone will ask, “if this person existed in the IRS, how do we know there are not more?” This is how distrust gets sown. This is how the IRS loses more funding

The kind of people who meaningfully distrust the IRS aren’t interested in facts. The kind of people who want to defund the IRS also have a tenuous connection to truth, justice, and good ideas.

In general I agree that we shouldn’t willy-nilly break the laws. But specific beats general in my mind. I don’t think the costs of this will be very high.

Also like how do you feel about jury nullification?

IHeartBadCode,
IHeartBadCode avatar

I don’t think the costs of this will be very high

You know what? I'll give you that. I'm hopeful enough this blows over without much ado. But IDK, I've seen smaller mole hills turn mountains.

The kind of people who meaningfully distrust the IRS aren’t interested in facts

The thing is, it isn't binary. It's a range of folks. And I would rather us not lose ranks. It's easier to indicate trust in something if there's not an actual reason to distrust.

Also like how do you feel about jury nullification?

Aw man! Complicated. Because you can really start going all kinds of dark places if you start thinking a Judge willingly could hand out bad instructions to the jury. A not guilty is a lot harder to have an appellate review and if you try to fix it that way, do you want to have not guilty become easier to appeal?

Like we could have a big old day about that topic. Wooo. That's a can and it is marked "Oops all worms".

SnotFlickerman, (edited )
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Shockingly, history shows us that when the people entrusted with upholding and enforcing the law themselves become lawless, you generally end up with society “taking matters into their own hands.”

Considering elected officials and unelected officials blatantly getting away with wrongdoing has been happening since before I was born and I am officially a fucking old person, the idea that this is just about Trump and not about a legal system that is so broken that it has turned into the early Legalism phase of Fascism just reeks of missing the point, the historical examples, and how long this has been happening.

We let war criminals off the hook less than twenty years ago, and that’s not even the half of it, going all the way back to Nixon, at the very least.

It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that the chance to fix things “within the system” flew the coop decades ago. Clarence Thomas and Gini Thomas are proof enough alone of that, let alone the three Justices who served on the legal team that helped get George W. Bush (cough War Criminal cough) get elected who all somehow ended up on the Supreme Court.

I will say, the parts that do have to do with Trump are pretty damning, though, too. Merrick Garland’s hand was practically forced to bring charges against Trump. It literally took the classified documents case and Trump being so belligerently stupid with classified information that they could no longer look the other way. Why did he wait so long? To “not look political?” All it did was make him look political. A guy hiding behind politics so he wouldn’t have to hold the political hot potato of indicting a former President. Ended up having to anyway because this guy in particular is so criminally insane.

IHeartBadCode,
IHeartBadCode avatar

It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that the chance to fix things “within the system” flew the coop decades ago

I don't disagree with the rest of your comment. But I see the younger generation of our time and I have hope. Maybe foolish hope. Myself being part of the fucking old person crew. I don't think we're yet too far gone, but my goodness you're right, if it hasn't flown the coop yet, it's already got it's boarding pass.

SnotFlickerman,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I have a lot of hope in the youth as well! However, I try not to let that cloud me to the reality of a government that was never really created to represent all its citizens. America has had its good times, and it has had its time when its been a leader, hell it’s still a leader in many ways, but so much of the power is so entrenched, I also worry for the youth’s future.

I don’t think your opinion is really unpopular per se, as much as many of us wonder if it’s even possible anymore. God, if only we could still live in that world! If I could have faith that the people around me were participating in the systems therein in good faith, I wouldn’t feel the way I do about the whole situation.

Cheers, mate. Thanks, by the way, for being willing to hear my perspective. It’s nice when folks can find their common ground.

Enkers, (edited )

You are looking at this completely backwards. Civil disobedience is absolutely necessary to help create just laws. Do not confuse civil disobedience and vigilantism.

Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law.

  • Martin Luther King Jr. [Source]
ryathal,

This wasn’t an unjust law though. No one wants the IRS publicizing their tax return details. It happened to a guy you don’t like, but that doesn’t make the action a good thing.

Schmoo,

The injustice I see this as highlighting is not the existence of a law preventing the disclosure of confidential tax information, but the lack of a law requiring the President to disclose their tax information.

Presidents releasing their tax returns has been a historical precedent, but has not been codified into law. Trump promised to release his tax returns but then refused.

lolcatnip,

I can’t believe the prosecutor is talking about nobody being above the law with a straight face.

homesweethomeMrL,

Prosecutors for the Department of Justice’s “public integrity” section are complete fucking twats. They’ve been 1000% blind to anything trump has done, oh but this guy? Yeah “five years in jail”!

Fuckers. I hope they fear the truth that their lives are being wasted to serve their pinheaded idiot masters.

And we’re not doing the “but it’s against the law” thing when it comes to dealing with trump. The convicted fraudster rapist who stage a coup to stay in power? Motherfucker we’re about to go Thomas Jefferson on that demented greasy fuck if he keeps threatening the Constitution and, well, everybody else. Because the pinheads at the Department of Justice’s “public integrity” unit are busy stuffing their heads up their butts. Time’s up, Merrick. You got shit done.

Hey while we got ya Merrick, you got that unredacted Mueller Report we paid 15 million for? No? Still deciding on that are ya? Fuckhead republiQan stooge.

fiat_lux,

It sounds like Charles Edward Littlejohn is a fucking badass and overall rad dude worth celebrating. Additionally, if he gets the maximum sentence of 5 years, that will be drastically longer than many of the January 6th rioters. I can't change the outcome for him, but I do wish him luck.

CosmicTurtle,

He needs to be pardoned or at least have his sentence commuted. But I highly doubt that Biden would do it.

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

Biden wouldn’t want to risk setting a precedent where his sides shortcomings might be also exposed.

It is in this way that the ruling class is bipartisan in upholding its privileges.

Zoboomafoo,

You heard it here folks, avoiding the appearance of impropriety is the most partisan thing you can do

dacreator,

That seems like a rational take and I agree with you. Curious why the down votes? Because you’re alluding to Biden having shortcomings at all? Or because it’s perceived as a both sides are the same argument?

It’s hard to accept we’re living in such a tribal world. There’s no more nuance or middle ground in the majority it seems.

diffcalculus,

He’s getting down voted because most people in this thread are foaming at the mouth.

I hate trump as much as the next guy. What this guy did, tho, is currently against the law. Should the law be changed? Should he have gone through a whistle blower process? Questions to be asked.

But as of today, you can’t purposely get a job at the IRS to leak information that the IRS wasn’t ready/allowed to release. Full stop.

The folks arguing here that he should be pardoned or who are enraged that he is even being charged are presenting childish arguments. There’s a theme on Lemmy that I’ve noticed. Tribalism is strong as fuck.

RememberTheApollo,

A precedent where your followers break the law in your name can be a dangerous war of escalation between opponents.

grue,

Trump already set that precedent when he pardoned Roger Stone.

RememberTheApollo, (edited )

That’s exactly my point. Now people want more. Escalate it. Same bullshit as Israel/palestine. Well the first guy did “x” first, then the other guy says but you did the other thing first, etc., etc…

The height of stupidity, there is no end of the blame game of grievances, manufactured or real.

No, I’m not saying “both sides”, one side is objectively better (even if marginally), I’m saying a war of escalating tit-for-tat justifications is useless.

E: in comparison, according the following comments who apparently haven’t a clue and completely misrepresent my intent and argument: Biden should release any democrats from prison or reinstate democrats in positions after they left due to any impropriety. That’s the war of escalation I’m talking about, not simply following the law.

collapse_already,

So only the one side should abuse their power? They are not going to stop abusing it just because their opponents took the high ground.

RememberTheApollo,

So everyone should abuse their power? Are you willfully blind to where that goes?

collapse_already,

Are you willfully blind to what happens if you let your opponents oppress and abuse you without fighting back in kind? I am not going to the gulag. Have fun there.

RememberTheApollo,

Your methodology ends up with a dictator seizing power to put all their opponents in the gulag. All you’re saying is that you hope your dictator wins first. You’re absolutely clueless about geopolitical history if you don’t understand how this works.

collapse_already,

I don’t see you offering a viable alternative. Your method is to just acquiesce? The rule of law has already failed. Trump is not in jail. The Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) is on the take from conservative billionaires. Congressional corruption put Gorsuch on the Court rather than Garland (longest vacancy by 3x the next longest), then turned around and replaced Ginsberg with an extremely quick turnaround.

The failure to act in kind has already weakened this country irreparably. Let’s keep letting them do what they do. It’s worked out terribly so far.

So yeah, I would rather my dictator than their’s, but I am going to get their’s.

RememberTheApollo,

The viable alternative is to follow the law and vote the assholes out. If you cannot manage that and/or it fails, and still wish to maintain some semblance of democracy, you’re fucked. I think that’s painfully obvious. You try to do the right thing, and if you choose the same path as the shitheads you hate you’re just the same. You just twisted the needle from a christo-fascist autocracy to a Stalinist communist autocracy.

collapse_already,

Even if we vote him out, he is going to claim he won and run a rebellion. Probably better planned and more successful this time. His opposition is largely a bunch of pussies that let him and his ilk trample the rule of law. There is no outcome to this coming election that is not a disaster.

pinkdrunkenelephants,

It doesn’t matter if it’s your point or not, it’s still a wrong-headed way of thinking about the situation because the world doesn’t revolve around fearing what Republicans will do if a Democrat pardons a righteous man. He should be pardoned regardless.

You are creating the us vs. them situation you’re accusing you opponent of engaging in specifically by making that argument. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We do not simply stop doing what is right because some assholes might pardon evil people in retaliation. We do what is right regardless, because that’s the whole point of righteousness.

Republicans will pardon their own anyway so it doesn’t even matter. We need to do the same.

RememberTheApollo, (edited )

My point doesn’t matter? So you discard my point to make yours? What the heck kind of argument is that? My point wasn’t about right vs wrong, it was about taking knee-jerk retaliatory action devoid of nuance or reason.

You accused me of making it about fear of republicans, that’s doing what you accused me of doing by “creating” the argument. I said nothing about appeasement or letting them have their way to avoid trouble.

In no way shape or form do I think actual and real harm should remain unaddressed. Bullshit must be met head on, but with measured and real responses. But just knee-jerk reaction? No.

pinkdrunkenelephants,

Your point is irrelevant, because it is a fundamental misrepresentation of the situation you are imposing because you have an ideological agenda. One which we will not be bullied or manipulated into submitting to.

You’re not even really reading or thinking about what I’m saying, you’re just repeating what you said before like a robot. And I don’t argue with robots.

RememberTheApollo,

Misrepresentation of the situation I’m imposing…wow. Way to twist my words. I make a point, stick to it, and you accuse me of bullying because you’d rather I bend a knee to you? Fine. Feel free to engage in your tit-for-tat war. I’ll just hang over here to you finally set each other on fire while screaming “the other guy did it first”. What a fucking waste of time.

Kecessa,

“your followers”

More like “those who hate the other guy”

mindbleach,

There was a failed coup.

alienanimals,

Everyone’s taxes should be public information. There are too many rich assholes hiding the fact that they don’t pay their fair share.

Copernican,

How does making it public stop that problem? If anything that would probably just screw people over if potential employers could see exactly how much money you make. Let’s make it illegal for an employer to ask how much you currently make, but then let employers just query a DB of your income? That doesn’t make any sense.

stalfoss,

Ok but you could also see how much they are paying other people which I feel like would even things out.

“We see you currently make 50k, so we’re gonna offer you 60k”

“I see you are paying everyone else 80k for the same job, so I won’t take any less”

Copernican,

That’s just going to drive down labor. And some titles have pay ranges of line 75k to 100k based on experience. And the employee is at a disadvantage since they don’t have the list of all employees to do the research themselves.

GoodEye8,

Well for starters you can spread awareness of how much the ultra rich steal. If you’re in the eroding middle class and see that you pay more taxes than the ultra rich you might be more incline to raise taxes on them.

If anything that would probably just screw people over if potential employers could see exactly how much money you make.

That actually goes both ways. That in a sense makes wages public which means the employers can’t screw over employees because most employees don’t know how much others make. And I don’t know how employers really benefit from it. If you’re in a position to demand more pay it doesn’t matter how much you currently make, what matters is how much they’re willing to pay to hire you. If they think less of you because of how much you make then you probably don’t want to work there anyway.

Copernican,

It doesn’t go both ways. That is why states like New York have banned employers from being able to ask current salary. And made it mandatory to post pay ranges on postings. And those ranges are huge.

You are right employees are better off knowing what others make, but once the employer knows what you make you are screwed. It can be a game of chicken where the employee loses. If current prospect employee makes 60k but asks for 90k, the employer can still just offer 75 or 80k assuming you will not be willing to walk away from a 15k raise.

WildPalmTree,

Sweden. It’s not for the current year but the previously declared incomes. Anyone can get them. Seems to work just fine.

alienzx,

Does he have a go fund me?

ohlaph,

That’s rather hilarious, actually.

june,

I suspect he never believed he was above the law, but that the law was broken.

Snapz,

This is probably one of the hardest things to do in the era we live in - go against our social engineering to sacrifice a relatively comfortable life in defiance of this moment.

Collectively, we’re frogs in the pot, especially as we move towards the end of this year and the worldwide elections as an accelerator to societal collapse. It’s so hard to know what to do that might make a difference today, at least this person tried, I hope society persists beyond this garbage moment and for long enough to allow history to look back on people like this as heros who at least tried.

aesthelete,

Collectively, we’re frogs in the pot, especially as we move towards the end of this year and the worldwide elections as an accelerator to societal collapse.

Comparing us to frogs does a disservice to frogs. They tried to slowly boil frogs and the frogs jumped out.

We’re more like people sitting in a hot tub while people pee in it. When will we notice that the hot tub is mostly pee and get the fuck out?

MisterSteve,

Obviously, with a name like “Littlejohn,” he’s a good guy in league with Robin Hood and Friar Tuck and all the other Merry Men. In his defense, Trump did (repeatedly) promise to disclose his IRS tax returns to the public. The man only helped Trump keep a campaign promise. Littlejohn ought to get an award and an all-expense paid vacation at Mar-a-Lago!

pigup,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f6691f98-8a63-4aa5-bb02-6ffbb859b8bc.jpeg

doctorcrimson,

Cool Story DOJ, now fuck off.

doctorcrimson,

DOJ: “This man committed a crime and we’re going to persecute him for it.”

Audience: “OMG We Love That Guy! Wooooo!”

lledrtx,

Why wasn’t he protected as a whistleblower? Or why isn’t Biden pardoning him?

Maggoty,

A. Probably because he took the specifically to do this.

B. They don’t usually pardon someone before sentencing.

Natanael,

There’s often a limits to whistleblower protections, usually you’re only protected if you report it internally, and publishing private information is often not protected at all, and whenever there’s protections available for publishing it then it’s usually only protected if it’s limited to what’s necessary to inform the public about a sufficiently severe issue (like newsworthy major fraud).

june,

It would be a pretty bad look for Biden to pardon him IMO. I think it would be a mistake for him to do so.

Copernican,

What did he whistle blow on? A whistle blower is blowing the whistle on their own company they work for for malfeasance. Leaking documents that are not tied to wrong doing by the IRS is not blowing the whistle.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • news@lemmy.world
  • slotface
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • everett
  • tacticalgear
  • rosin
  • Durango
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • JUstTest
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cisconetworking
  • modclub
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •