In a letter to Judge Ana Reyes, the judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who is handling the case of the IRS leaker behind the Trump tax leak, GOP members of the House Committee on Ways and Means demanded that the leaker face the maximum penalty allowed by the law. Their voice is influential because the Ways and Means Committee oversees the IRS, among other things.
The letter was sent by all of the Republican members of the committee. In it, they point to the magnitude of the crime, as Mr. Charles Edward Littlejohn committed the stunning crime of leaking the private IRS data of President Donald Trump, along with numerous other Americans. The data was leaked to both the New York Times and ProPublica.
Despite the shocking nature of the crime, the Biden Department of Justice went soft on Mr. Littlejohn, charging him with just one count of unauthorized disclosure of private tax information. That single charge despite the fact that he disclosed the private data of thousands of Americans, including President Trump, to two different news organizations.
Beginning the letter, the representatives noted that the expected sentencing is far less harsh than the maximum allowable sentencing and argued that the maximum would be more appropriate. Doing so, they wrote, “We write today to encourage you to sentence Mr. Charles Littlejohn above the anticipated sentencing guidelines range of 8 to 14 months and to the maximum of five years. We make this request respectfully and with complete deference for your role in deciding the appropriate sentence in this case.“
After noting the importance of the committee in overseeing the IRS, the Republican members then noted that violations of the law must be punished to a degree that creates a deterrence effect and that not going with the maximum allowable sentence would not create that deterrence. Beginning that argument, they noted, “Individuals who may be inclined to take the law into their own hands, as Mr. Littlejohn did, must know that they will be caught and that they will face severe consequences.“
Continuing the argument in favor of a harsher, more pro-deterrence sentence, they wrote, “We worry that a sentence of only 8 to 14 months does not comport with the seriousness of the crimes committed and we are concerned that a sentence in that range will fail to have the deterrent effect needed to prevent such a theft and disclosure from happening again.”
Explaining why that is so important in this case specifically, they also noted, “Mr. Littlejohn took the law into his own hands and decided he knew what was best. As you are aware, Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code contains a process by which Congress can obtain otherwise confidential tax information and release it under certain circumstances. Mr. Littlejohn’s actions showed disdain for the rule of law and American confidence in our voluntary tax system.”
And, reminding the judge that she has the power to recognize the seriousness of the crime, they wrote, “While we wish that prosecutors had pleaded him to additional counts, you still can impose a more serious sentence than the anticipated 8-to-14-month guideline range. In our view, the seriousness of the crimes and the context surrounding them justify an upward variance. So that similar conduct is deterred in the future, we respectfully ask that you sentence Mr. Littlejohn to the maximum sentence of five years.”
"*" indicates required fields