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.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        121
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        All Cops are Bastards, All Judges are Bastards, All Prosecutors are Bastards.

        The entire fucking “justice” system is tilted towards forgiving and enabling right-wing violence while labeling left-wing protest as “terrorism” that justifies lethal force.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The entire system is tilted and reforms are needed.

          Do you anticipate broad generalizations to overlook individual nuances & undermine constructive discussion?

          Or is it important to cast blame upon each and every member of a broken system, regardless of whether they may personally be activists for our cause?

        • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Snot Flickerman

          All Cops are Bastards, All Judges are Bastards, All Prosecutors are Bastards.

          The entire fucking “justice” system is tilted towards forgiving and enabling right-wing violence while labeling left-wing protest as “terrorism” that justifies lethal force.

          Sweet Jesus the amount of extremist propaganda that’s gets peddled these days is mind boggling. To think people like this think they’re better than the people brainwashed by Fox and friends…

          Then again… We’re on Lemmy lmfao.

    • Deello@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      10 months ago

      Adding to this. The judge said “It engenders the same fear that January 6 does.” So if this crime is just as bad Jan 6, shouldn’t he be getting the same punishment as other Jan 6 traitors. Like you said, a shorter sentence. Not saying I agree with the judge but pick a side.

      • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        To a rich person, losing some (not even all) of their money is the most terrifying thing imaginable.

  • DharkStare@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    296
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.”

    Because stealing and releasing tax documents is the same thing as attempting to violently overthrow the government.

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      116
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      “your actions were also a threat to our democracy.”

      This is one of those exciting sentences where you have to substitute ‘democracy’ for ‘rich people’s yacht money’.

      • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I disagree. As commendable as his actions are, he clearly broke a law that is there for a good reason.

        • Kiwi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          But how did it endanger democracy? Every president ever has willingly released the documents he leaked. How were his actions dangerous?

          • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            “Trust in the system” is a resource that needs managing. If the contractor got off lightly, it would erode the trust people have that the IRS will manage their information.

            Let alone the fact that a light sentence for a guy who leaked the administration’s foe’s information would be incredibly corrupt

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      So the judge is in with trump. Hope none of his cases go that guys way.

      Like yeah, he broke the law and needed to be punished. But it wasn’t government secrets, which i’m pretty sure is already legally coded separately from this guys crimes, and also neither of which are treason, which would be the capital attack.

      So the guy blatantly spoke against his own legal experience for a political swing.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        She was appointed by Joe Biden and is an immigrant to this country from Uruguay. I don’t think she’s a Trump sycophant, I think she’s just a lawful pedant and a fan of hyperbole.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I was going to argue that the attack on the Capitol (though your spelling may more accurately reflect real life) was not treason. No enemies were afforded aid or comfort.

        Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.” [emphasis mine]

        Now I’m rethinking my life. How could I have been so wrong about such a pivotal event in my life?!

        (For any of your assholes thinking I’m a 01/06 sympathizer or apologist, I doubt you personally know anymore more angry. Given my druthers, I’d ask the court to impose the death penalty and carry it out personally. And I’m not some angry, young, keyboard warrior talking. I’ve thought on this much.)

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      10 months ago

      Apparently Norway must hate democracy since all of their tax returns are public.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      10 months ago

      Fucking judges are blowhards stuck up their own ass wanting to make the judgments they hand down sound more important than they are.

      It’s all about feeding their giant fucking egos.

    • SaltySalamander@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      10 months ago

      Friend of mine recently was busted with an ounce of pot, he was compared to Al Capone in court by the judge. Judges can be straight sociopathic.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    166
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s RIGHT! Releasing Tax Returns gets you MORE Jail Time then trying to violently overthrow the United States Government and HANG the Vice President! That will teach Hostile Countries to MESS with US!

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      The way we turned our backs on Afghani interpreters who tried to get asylum here should have shown Charles Littlejohn what happens to people who fight for America

      • jeremyparker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        He probably knew. There are more stories of bad outcomes for that kind of shit than good ones. The fact that he did it anyway is why his actions are so admirable and heroic.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yet holding onto classified documents, then hiding them and lying about it to investigators for months gets nothing but a very stern finger-wagging?

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      It may still come to bite him in the ass. The trial is actually scheduled to May this year but the scheduling will be looked at in March. The charges themselves are pretty serious, I think it was something like 30 charges under the espionage act and 10 charges for obstruction of justice or false statements.

      There’s a reason Trump wants to postpone it until after the election. His only shot at wiggling out of it is by becoming president.

  • mildlyusedbrain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Lol check out this bs: "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.”

    “It engenders the same fear that January 6 does,” Reyes added."

  • callouscomic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Leak a billionaires tax records: 5 years.

    Literally rape while a billionaire: 0 years.

    • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      …because the leaker plead guilty. If he went to trial this would have taken longer.

      Does no one read the article or understand basic legal processes?

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Technically the pleading guilty part is also in the footer below the post for users on desktop, but I was making a statement about due processes rather than complaining Charles case was too quick. Kind of akin to how a person mentions the beauty of the colors of clouds or the dread incurred by a coming storm just for somebody else to come along and yell “…Obviously. Does nobody watch the forecast or understand basic meteorology?”

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        A lot of people just want to be mad. This thread is full of people saying he should just be released, without realizing that if we release him because we happen to like the outcome, what’s that saying for the next person who wants to break the same law.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m as happy as everyone else that he did release the documents, but he broke the law to do it and knew the consequences when he did so. He knew this was a possibility.

      • MrModule@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        So let me ask you something. What do you get out of this? Hanging around in places where you believe that all the people are wrong and foolish? Waiting for some comment that’s just low enough hanging fruit for you to know enough to have a basic response to, does this satisfy you? Your statement is no shit and your question is rhetorical. Do you just like standing in the middle of a crowd and screaming, denoting yourself separate and superior? Is this what you do online?

        • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I like to have a diversity of thought and thought the Fediverse of all places would be promoting that. Instead everyone lumps into tribes and follows groupthink without question.

          I’ve been here since LW started and belong here just as much as anyone else.

  • raynethackery@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you declare you are running for President, it should trigger an automatic disclosure of your entire tax record.

    • jeremyparker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you try to get any supervisory position in the federal government, they do a thorough background check, including checking on your debts. It’s important to know whether someone at any level of management is susceptible to pressure or bribery. This goes for a LOT of non-management federal positions, too.

      But the president? No, we’ll just trust him. What’s a political candidate going to do, get up on a stage and lie?? Don’t be ridiculous.

  • bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Aight, I mean sure. It was wrong, but 5 years? I understand that not all judges sentence in the same way but 5 years? Insurrection gets basically gets butt pats and this guy gets 5 years?

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        10 months ago

        To be fair in Epsteins case his testifying could’ve probably put some people behind bars. This guy won’t have anymore information now that he’s been pulled away from the system.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you mess with wealthy people, they’ll come at you fast with prison time. See also Elisabeth Holmes and SBF (I don’t necessarily disagree with their sentences, but you don’t see someone that scammed a bunch of poor people get the same sentences).

    • Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unfortunately a presidential pardon would be as blatant a political act as they come. Or at least that’s how it would be perceived.

      He’ll be OK. There’ll be employers lining up to give him a job afterwards.

      • jeremyparker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        You’re not wrong but I feel you might be being overly specific. It’s not just the US that protects their wealthy – this would happen anywhere – some places maybe a little less harshly, but plenty would be more harsh, too. The Panama Papers journalist was killed “extrajudicially”

  • CodeName@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    He was providing a public service since trump refused to release them like every other presidential candidate has done for decades. This should be considered the same as whistle blowing.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why? No legal requirement to do so, it was literally something that started when a candidate did it to show how honest and transparent he was and caught on. It’s not illegal activity to refuse, so whistleblower laws don’t apply.

      Also, even if they did for Trump’s returns, he released a lot more than just Trump’s returns so he’d still be in the hot seat.

      • sndmn
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        He deserves the gallows.

      • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        There is a law which requires the IRS to turn over tax records for high government officials when asked by Congress, and Trump ordered his head of the IRS to ignore the orders.

        Now admittedly this is not the same as being public, but I don’t think that there are rules preventing Congress from publishing this information once received, so it is in practice public.

        Plus Trump promised to publish his tax returns, so basically he should be thanking this patriot for saving him the trouble.

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The guy is a government employee, but he’s not Congress. In fact, we should be able to trust that the government won’t publish our records to the public because some guy who works there feels like it.

          You allow it in this case, who knows whose records get leaked next time?

          • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            You’re correct, the leaker is not Congress. Congress was denied the ability to see the President’s returns because President Trump and his subordinate broke the law and refused to supply his returns to Congress when asked.

            This law does not apply to everyone, just high government officials. I’m the worst case anyone in a high position in the US government would be forced to have financial transparency, and I’m okay with that.

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I’m saying for all the people defending the leaker, that wasn’t the correct way to do it. Sue in court and see what comes out of it.

      • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        51
        ·
        10 months ago

        You’re not allowed to say that here.

        Breaking federal law is only bad if you’re on the right.

        Its insane how hypocritical many LW posters are while claiming they want to save our democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. Laws only apply to people you disagree with.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          He got a longer sentence than many of the January 6th rioters. The reality is he committed a crime against billionaires and the Jan 6th dumbasses only committed crimes against public officials despite the latter criminals being more violent.

          But I guess crimes only count when they affect the ultra wealthy plutocrats.

          • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            10 months ago

            He got a longer sentence than many of the January 6th rioters.

            That’s not the topic of any of my comments at all.

            Many posters are ignoring basic facts of law and how courts work, just because they feel wronged.

            Do I think the difference in length of sentence is fair for this leak vs jan 6 rioters? No it’s not fair, but that’s an opinion unrelated to the speediness of this trial entirely.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Many posters are ignoring basic facts of law and how courts work, just because they feel wronged.

              So what you’re saying is that the commenters here are humans with biases and feelings about perceived injustice?! This is a travesty. People should really strive to be as robotic as possible! If a serial killer gets off on a technicality, welp guys that’s just how shit works sometimes and you aren’t allowed to express feelings about that.

              • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Sure, but those same commenters also ridicule the other side for being uneducated and not understanding the law or operating based on feelings rather than facts.

                Pot, meet kettle.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Right yeah the problem we have is then expressing feelings about Hillary Clinton. Not that they are objectively wrong about most of what they think about her and other dems. /s

                  If they had their facts straight they’d be well within their rights to want her and others locked up

        • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          You’re not allowed to say that here.

          And yet they did. Shocking. How does that fit in your narrative?

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Of all the laws to pick and choose on, I’ll happily pardon this one.

          Trump literally said he’d do it and then didn’t.

          Every other president in recent history has done it.

          It’s not like someone forced him to eat his hat. He was forced to follow a convention that he’d already told people he intended to follow.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Trump (like the bulk of the right) believe and act as though laws and norms are used solely to protect yourself and punish those they don’t like. Much like the paradox of tolerance, allowing these people to hide behind rules and norms they won’t respect themselves isn’t healthy for democracy, freedom, or the rule of law - the best way to protect those things is to keep the likes of Trump out of power. You’ve already seen what he’ll do with democracy given half a chance.

          • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            10 months ago

            Keep him out how? By any means necessary, even illegal and unamerican ways?

            Is this the “paradox of democracy” now?

            The only way to save law and order is to not follow law and order? Do you realize how Fascist that sounds?

            • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              No - I mean actually have him face consequences.

              Biden has treated him with kid gloves for multiple reasons - mostly because he doesn’t want to be seen as uncivil or disturbing the status quo. There’s massive scope to do more without getting into illegal territory.

              How fascist does it sound, exactly - please enlighten us.

              Of course, if we took Trump’s recent insistence that nothing the President does can be seen as illegal, Biden could just send SEAL Team 6 to kill him - but this is the attitude we’re defending the democracy against.

              What does “unamerican” mean to you?

        • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Depends which laws, doesn’t it? There are different ones you see (give him a break, guys he’s learning)

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sucks that leaking those returns moved the needle exactly 0% in the fight against Trump.

    • j4k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 months ago

      Selling classified documents to Russian and Chinese interests is standard practice for the oligarchy though. Some petty serf peasant slapping a few feudal lords, that is a real crime in Neo Feudal America.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Could have done worse. Whistleblowers generally deserve significant leniency though I feel. Especially for a crime where no one was injured.

        • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              Wait, felons can’t get a passport so they leave the US? That kind of makes them political prisoners.

            • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

      • doricub@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

    • Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Honestly I think they should slip something into the law

      Remind me again who are “they” exactly, and what are their incentives?

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        They are lawmakers.

        Incentives would be to engage whistleblowers, forcing all to be more transparent in cases where no one is physically harmed.

        • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Okay. Now pretend for a moment we are talking about the real planet Earth with the existing legislators of it’s actual countries.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      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?

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Thanks appreciate it. Considering he got the harsher end of the spectrum, I’m going to look into this further.

              • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

              • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I thought when I read the article that the judge was upset that the prosecution didn’t go for more.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      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”

      • beardown@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        “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.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.