Former President Donald Trump's tax records were leaked by an ex-IRS contractor named Charles Littlejohn.
The leak included data about thousands of wealthy individuals, including former presidents and business leaders.
Former President Donald Trump's tax records were leaked to the media by an ex-IRS contractor named Charles Littlejohn. The leak included data about thousands of wealthy individuals, including former presidents and business leaders. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison for his actions.
Charles Edward Littlejohn provided tax information to The New York Times and ProPublica between 2018 and 2020
The leaked tax information included data about former President Donald Trump and thousands of the country's wealthiest people
Littlejohn applied for his position with the intention of obtaining Trump's tax returns, carefully figuring out how to search and extract tax data without triggering internal suspicions
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that U.S District Judge Ana Reyes imposed the maximum sentence and saying it sends a strong message about violating laws intended to protect sensitive tax information.
> The exterior of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building is seen in Washington, D.C., on March 22, 2013. Susan Walsh/AP hide caption toggle caption Susan Walsh/AP <br> WASHINGTON <br> A former contractor for the Internal Revenue Service who pleaded guilty to leaking tax information to news outlets about former President Donald Trump and thousands of the country's wealthiest people was sentenced to five years in prison Monday. Charles Edward Littlejohn, 38, of Washington, D.C., gave data to The New York Times and ProPublica between 2018 and 2020 in leaks that appeared to be <b>unparalleled</b> in the IRS's history.
The possibility it could be published affects his entire family, he said, arguing that Littlejohn should have faced additional criminal charges from the Justice Department for exposing personal information <i>just to harm people.</i>
<br><br> Prosecutors had pushed for the five-year sentence, which is among the longest sentences handed down in a leak investigation, according to the Justice Department. Nicole Argentieri, acting assistant attorney general of the department's criminal division, said the sentence <b>sends a strong message</b> that those who violate laws intended to protect sensitive tax information will face significant punishment.
Charles Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison for leaking former President Trump's tax returns.
The sentence also includes 36 months of supervised release and a $5,000 fine.
Federal prosecutors said Littlejohn sought his job as an IRS consultant specifically for the purpose of leaking Trump's tax returns in 2019.
Littlejohn had done work for Booz Allen from 2008 to 2013, but he returned to the company as an IRS consultant in 2017. Prosecutors say the career move was meant to grant him access to private tax information that would allow him to leak Trump's tax returns.
The DOJ says Littlejohn considered Trump a threat to democracy.
Former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, right, was seen alongside his attorney Monday after a judge sentenced him to five years in prison for leaking the tax returns of former President Donald Trump and other wealthy people.
Littlejohn weaponized his access to unmasked taxpayer data to further his own personal political agenda.
Stealing and leaking private, personal tax information strips individuals of the legal protection of their most sensitive data.
A free press and public engagement with the media are critical to any healthy democracy, but stealing and leaking private, personal tax information violates that principle.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Littlejohn's actions were an intolerable attack on democracy when he leaked Trump's tax returns. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and appears to be a personal opinion of the author rather than a factual analysis of events.
The sentence also includes 36 months of supervised release and a $5,000 fine.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the judge condemned Littlejohn's actions and that the DOJ considers Trump a threat to democracy. Additionally, there is inflammatory rhetoric used when describing Littlejohn as having concocted a long-term plan to violate Trump's privacy. The author also uses an example of dichotomous depiction by stating that
The press tells us Democracy dies in darkness. It also dies in lawlessness,
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Anders Hagstrom and he has a history of bias against President Trump. The sentence includes quotes from Judge Ana Reyes condemning Littlejohn's actions as an intolerable attack on our constitutional democracy. This statement implies that there are other ways to bring things to light, which could be interpreted as suggesting that the leak was not necessary or justified. Additionally, the author uses language such as
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Trump as he leaked his tax returns. The IRS is also mentioned in the topics and it's an organization that may have competing loyalties or obligations.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and tax returns as they are directly related to his work at Booz Allen Hamilton. The article also mentions Charles Littlejohn who is an IRS employee.
Charles Littlejohn leaked information on former President Donald Trump's tax returns and those of thousands of other wealthy individuals to The New York Times and ProPublica.
The judge focused on Littlejohn's decision to release Trump's filings, which she called an attack on our constitutional democracy.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Littlejohn's actions were 'egregious', but fails to provide any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, the author uses loaded language such as 'attack on our constitutional democracy' and 'targeting of our elected officials', which is not supported by the facts presented in the article. Thirdly, Littlejohn was under no legal obligation to release his filings and leaking them could be seen as a violation of privacy rights. Lastly, there are examples where other wealthy individuals have also had their private information published without consent.
The author claims that Littlejohn's actions were 'egregious', but fails to provide any evidence or context for this claim.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it quotes Judge Ana Reyes stating that the leaks were an attack on democracy and our constitutional system of government. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Littlejohn's actions as 'egregious'. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of Trump and his supporters versus those who believe he has a right to privacy.
A district court judge on Monday agreed with the Justice Department that Charles Littlejohn, 38, deserved the maximum statutory sentence for what she called “egregious” crimes.
Noting that Trump was under no legal obligation to release his filings and likening the case to the Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol, Reyes said: “It cannot be open season on our elected officials — it just can’t.”
Relying on the documents, ProPublica published a string of stories showing the strategies some use to reduce or erase their tax bills, including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and George Soros.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Trump and his actions. The language used in the article such as 'egregious crimes' and 'attack on our constitutional democracy' are highly charged words that suggest a strong political bias. Additionally, the comparison made between Littlejohn leaking Trump tax returns to Jan 6 attacks shows an attempt to make this crime seem more serious than it is.
The comparison made between Littlejohn leaking Trump tax returns to Jan 6 attacks
The language used in the article such as 'egregious crimes' and 'attack on our constitutional democracy'
Charles Littlejohn used his position as a contractor with the nation's tax collector to illegally obtain and then disperse financial records of the former president.
He provided tax information to The New York Times and ProPublica between 2018 and 2020
Littlejohn considered Trump a threat to democracy.
Accuracy
The leaked tax information included data about former President Donald Trump and thousands of the country's wealthiest people.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Littlejohn pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax returns and return information. However, the sentence imposed on him was for five years in prison and three years supervised release plus a $5000 fine which indicates that he may have been charged with multiple counts.
The article states that Littlejohn used his position as an IRS contractor to illegally obtain and then disperse the financial records of the former president, resulting in numerous articles based on the information. However, it does not provide any evidence or sources for these claims.
The article states that Littlejohn pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax returns and return information. However, the sentence imposed on him was for five years in prison and three years supervised release plus a $5000 fine which indicates that he may have been charged with multiple counts.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article by Robert Legare does not contain any formal fallacies. However, there are a few instances of informal fallacies and rhetoric that could be improved upon.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Donald Trump as they are reporting on his tax records. The author is also an IRS contractor which could compromise their ability to report objectively.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of Internal Revenue Service and tax records as they are directly related to the article's subject matter. The author also has a personal relationship with Charles Littlejohn who is mentioned in the article.
