Skip Navigation

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

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

The IRS consultant who released Donald Trump's tax returns, Charles Littlejohn, got the job to intentionally disclose the records, prosecutors said.

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.

92

You're viewing a single thread.

92 comments
  • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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]
92 comments