• downpunxx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    littlejohn is what a patriot looks like because what he did is what patriots are supposed to do in the face of fascism

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well …

      In addition to the former president’s tax documents, Littlejohn is also accused of stealing IRS information on “thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, including returns and return information dating back more than 15 years.” Littlejohn then sent that tax information to a second unnamed news organization.

      If it was only Trump’s tax returns, then I might agree with you. It wasn’t targeted specifically and only at Trump; it was an extremely wide net that was cast, and we don’t know who the rest of the people are. Based on the information publicly available, this appears more like an attempt to sell the information, or act illegally based on some fringe principle.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I get it, that’s fair. But justice means protecting the rights of people you don’t like, or of people who are exercising their rights in ways you don’t like.

          Does that run counter to my saying I might agree if it was only Trump’s tax returns? Maybe it does a little bit. I feel comfortable leaning on that Trump was openly fraudulent, corrupt, and criminal by the time Littlejohn swiped the records.

          But it definitely runs counter to being okay with someone making off with tax returns of people only described as “thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people,” with no other context. I have far fewer mitigating factors (really only one, wealth) to lean on there, even if I have my suspicions about the integrity of "thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people.

          It’s a very fuzzy area, and I think that reasonable people can make sound arguments either way. I suppose what I can do is be pleased with the results of Littlejohn’s actions, and believe that his being criminally charged for them, and think that his motivations were probably unrelated to patriotism.

          Shit’s complicated, yo.

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A person can do something wrong but you can still appreciate that someone did it. Like that guy who shot the YouTube harasser or people who punch Nazis. I don’t want to live in a nation where that kind of lawlessness is commonplace or accepted, but I’d buy those folks a beer after they are released. And if I were interviewing to hire someone who had a criminal record but it was for punching Nazis I think that would be neutral at worst.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sounds like was planning on exposing tax crimes by wealthy people. If he was trying to sell it etc he wouldn’t be sending it to a news organization, right?

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Highly unlikely that a contractor would have actual reason to believe that each of thousands of people had committed tax crimes so heinous that a justifiable action was to purloin each of their tax returns going back fifteen years, and then deliver that information to media outlets.

          • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you’ve not heard of the Panama papers, or are just wilfully ignoring evidence that it’s pretty much proven fact that they do commit tax crimes.

          • squiblet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            What do you mean? Why do you think it’s unlikely? Apparently this guy thought and did exactly that.

            • Nougat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What do you mean? Why do you think it’s unlikely?

              In the same way that it’s highly unlikely that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election, even if people who have no evidence of it very strongly express that they think there was. When those people then attempt to subvert the election in order to install into power the person they say they think actually won (again, without any evidence of fraud), those people are committing crimes.

              Based on the information at hand, we don’t have any indication whatsoever of why Littlejohn purloined those tax returns and delivered them to media outlets, both contrary to existing law. Let’s imagine he does say that he possesses evidence which suggests that each of those thousands of people had committed tax crimes so heinous that committing a crime and subverting the justice system is justifiable.

              If those crimes were so heinous as to justify that, it would be the last thing you would do, not the first. First, you would report these heinous crimes - and the evidence you already have - to the very government agency you are contracted with. Second, you would report these heinous crimes, and the evidence you already have, and the IRS declining to investigate them to another agency, like the Justice Department, or to your Senators or Representative in Congress. Third, you would report the heinous crimes, and the evidence you already have, and the IRS declining to investigate, and higher federal departments and Congresspeople ignoring the whole thing to the media. (Never mind that all of those people willfully ignoring what has to be evidence of heinous tax crime is a textbook conspiracy theory.)

              Then, when your “evidence” has shown to be nothing to the IRS, and the Justice Department, and your Senators and Congresspeople, and the media - then you commit a crime and steal thousands of peoples tax returns, and deliver those to … yeah first you deliver them to the IRS, or maybe the next steps higher than that, not to the media first.

              BUT THEN, THEN!! Then you can take the stolen tax returns and deliver them to the media. On the really off chance that you were actually right, and those tax returns demonstrate heinous tax crimes that so so many people in goverment actively swept under the rug, and that nobody else could see, without having those tax returns in their hands, it will all be worth it.

              None of that happened. Littlejohn stole thousands of tax records and turned them over to media outlets. The end. If Littlejohn thinks that taking evidence to any or all of those other people and organizations shouldn’t be the first step, and stealing the data and shoving it over to media outlets should be first, that’s a conspiracy theorist.

              But we don’t know what Littlejohn thinks. We don’t (yet?) know why he did what he did.

              Maybe he tried to sell them, and wasn’t having any luck, and decided to go for notoriety. Maybe he did sell some, and we just don’t know about that yet. Maybe he was trying to get at Trump’s returns specifically, and it made the most logistical sense to pull a ton of data along with Trump’s - either to obscure the targeting of Trump specifically, or to be more likely to catch Trump’s return inside of the data gathered up (if the desired data couldn’t be located any other way). Maybe he didn’t even know he had Trump’s returns until after he collected this data. Maybe he never intended to “make off” with the data, but it ended up on a computer he had access to, or a backup, then he looked at it, then he realized he had Trump’s returns. Maybe he was a conspiracy theorist.

              All of those are “maybe,” because they’re all speculation. As is the speculation that

              A contractor would have actual reason to believe that each of thousands of people had committed tax crimes so heinous that a justifiable action was to purloin each of their tax returns going back fifteen years, and then deliver that information to media outlets.

              And every single one of those “maybes” is way more likely than a textbook conspiracy theory being true.

              Apparently this guy thought and did exactly that.

              If he “thought and did exactly that,” he’s a conspiracy theorist.

              • squiblet@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It seems to me that he had the information in his hands that clearly demonstrated something. It’s not a conspiracy theory if he has these people’s tax returns and can read them.

                As far as widespread financial wrongdoing by wealthy people… remember the Panama Papers?

                • Nougat@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What evidence did he have before stealing the returns, which would justify stealing the returns, even though that action is a crime?

                  • squiblet@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    My impression was that he accessed the returns through his position as a co tractor for the IRS, which couldn’t really be described as stealing. So what evidence did he have before reading the returns? I don’t know. It could be described as improper access. Sharing them with 3rd parties isn’t really something I’d call stealing either (since the concept of stealing is depriving another of their property). But sure, he wasn’t supposed to do that. One could view it as being a whistleblower.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who cares what rich people think. We are constantly bombarded by propaganda meant to divide the pleebs and keep them from realizing the ruling class is robing us blind.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Justice means the wealth would be more equitably distributed, imo, and nothing indicates the data was sold.

        Also, people really need to skip the NYT. Propublica got it right.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Assuming you’re referring to this:

          But justice means protecting the rights of people you don’t like, or of people who are exercising their rights in ways you don’t like.

          Yup, it means both. Those are not mutually exclusive.

          And:

          this appears more like an attempt to sell the information, or act illegally based on some fringe principle.

      • solstice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        He should’ve posted them all online. As a cpa with a bit of rare downtime on my hands I’d love to volunteer to review returns for the irs. I know all the errors and omissions, tricks and and gimmicks, goofs, fuckups, whoopsies, you name it. 20% commission for the recovered taxes seems fair compensation.

        • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          damn, like a vigilante accountants equivalent to the justice league. Would you be wearing a costume in this hypothetical?

          • solstice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What makes you think I don’t already wear a crime fighting suit to work? There was a documentary about it and everything, The Accountant. I specialize in espionage, intrusion/counter intrusion, taking some CPE next week for long range assault weaponry, the usual.

      • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tax returns in US should be public to anyone and everyone, like they are in many countries.

          • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Here in Finland it is public. Reality is that nobody actually cares how much normal people make.

            If you want to know how much your CEO or boss pockets money, why is it a bad thing. It is good for income equality.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s one thing to not be “confidential” and another to be made “public” though. I wouldn’t want the government disclosing my info publicly.

                • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I dunno - I don’t know anything about Finnish taxes but In the US there can be personal information beyond just income. Like deductions for children, loans, child support, marriage status, etc.

                  It’s a question of privacy. Like how does this not violate the GDPR?

                  • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    GDPR cannot override Finnish law (or any EU nations law). And Finnish law states that tax info is public.

                    Included infos are:

                    • Person’s name, year of birth, and province

                    • Income and capital income taxed in state taxation

                    • Income taxed in municipal taxation

                    • Income tax

                    • Municipal tax

                    • Total amount of taxed and charged fees

                    • Total amount of prepayments

                    • Amount to be paid or refunded in tax collection, i.e., remaining tax or tax refund

                    Edit: maybe wrote poorly, GDPR on course override any Finnish privacy laws, but GDPR has exceptions if local nations law has requirements for data, i.e. police, security, military and government.

          • solstice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I read once that maybe Sweden or Norway has publicly available tax returns. BUT, the person whose return you look at gets notified when you view it, so you can’t just go around subtly snooping on your friends and neighbors without being noticed. Idk if that’s true though.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The reporting by ProPublica based on those records is definitely in the public interest, though.

        Everyone’s tax returns should be public, IMHO.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It says he gave it to a second news org. I think this is still about exposing cheats and the 1% are notorious cheats who need exposing if we’re going to fix the inequality problem.