Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    Should the Government Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Less is Best

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    6
    Image via Pixabay free images.

    ANALYSIS – Artificial Intelligence (AI) is basically self-learning software (algorithms) that grows smarter over time using the entire world’s ever-growing library of data as its teacher. It can learn to do myriad complex tasks in a fraction of the time humans could.

    It will revolutionize and upend entire economies, and dominate future warfare. It is also developing at an unprecedented rate. 

    Many are concerned AI will take away entire career fields and tens of millions of American jobs. AI advancements could eliminate up to 300 million jobs globally, according to Goldman Sachs.

    Fox News reported: “Up to 30% of hours currently worked across the U.S. economy could become automated by 2030, creating the possibility of around 12 million occupational transitions in the coming years, according to a McKinsey Global Institute study.”

    Others worry that it will make a few corporations extremely rich and powerful. 

    And then, many worry that Al may supersede human intelligence in just a few years and eventually make humans redundant.

    Few would deny that whoever dominates AI may dominate the world. China certainly believes this and is forging ahead to become the world leader in AI.

    The Pentagon is also looking closely at how it can use AI to more quickly make strategic or battlefield assessments and technologically leapfrog over our enemies.

    But what about our government? Should it regulate AI?

    Democrats tend to favor regulating everything. And they have shown the danger of doing so with social media. I recently wrote on how Joe Biden is already using executive power to weaponize Artificial Intelligence to be woke.

    I noted that: “The American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a government watchdog group, recently warned that Team Biden is actively using the federal government’s vast power to regulate AI to promote a “woke” ideology in the basic architecture of this revolutionary, powerful, and dangerous new technology.”

    “That ‘woke’ ideology promotes affirmative action under the guise of ‘anti-racism,’ and transgenderism as gender ‘equity.’”

    And that is a huge concern.

    Republicans tend to be more skeptical of regulation in general, especially in a dynamic, fast-moving technology that few lawmakers understand.

    “Let a bunch of guys up here that are wearing JCPenney leisure suits that still have 8-track tape players in their ’72 Vegas start talking about technology, then you got some problems,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told Fox News when asked about regulation keeping pace with the AI sector.

    “The problem with AI is that it’s advancing so fast,” Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina said. “It’s very difficult to regulate because you don’t know what the next thing is going to be.”

    Republicans, like Burchett and Mace, also worry government regulation will stifle AI innovation and put the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage, especially vis a vis China.

    “I don’t know that we need regulation,” Burchett said. “You want to stifle growth; you start putting laws on it.”

    “If you overregulate, like the government often does, you stifle innovation,” Mace told Fox News. “And if we just stop AI, nothing is stopping China. We want to make sure that we are No. 1 in AI technology in the world and that it stays that way.”

    But we may be losing that race. As Time reported:

    “The country that is able to most rapidly and effectively integrate new technology into war-fighting wins,” Alexandr Wang, the CEO of Scale AI, told lawmakers on a House Armed Services subcommittee. China is spending three times more than the U.S. on developing AI tools, Wang noted. “The Chinese Communist Party deeply understands the potential for AI to disrupt warfare, and is investing heavily to capitalize,” he said. “AI is China’s Apollo project.”

    But Republicans in Congress aren’t doing anything to take away Biden’s power to regulate AI himself. And time is of the essence.

    As a former Democrat Senator, Kent Conrad, and ex-Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss wrote recently in Fox News:

    This comes at a pivotal moment. We are on the precipice of a new tech revolution—one in which a collection of next-generation capabilities—such as AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology—promise to fundamentally upend every facet of society.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: More Quid Pro Quo By Hunter And Joe

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Things are heating up in President Biden’s Department of Justice. The bombshell discovery of classified documents from Biden’s time as vice president at numerous locations months after the FBI raided former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home has ruffled some feathers, to say the least…

    Watch Amanda break down the ongoing scandal below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Pelosi Knew – Tucker Carlson Interviews Capitol Police Chief Again over Jan 6

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Nancy Pelosi via Gage Skidmore flickr

    ANALYSIS – The original interview Tucker Carlson did with former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund about the Capitol Riot never aired on Fox News because Tucker was fired just before. Still, a lot about that interview has leaked. 

    I wrote about some of Sund’s claims earlier in August. 

    In that piece, I note that the Jan 6 riot was not a false flag operation, and most of the rioters were confirmed Trump supporters. However, in many ways, it was allowed to happen.

    But to put the entire thing on the record, Carlson did the interview again – and posted it to X, formerly known as Twitter. And it is damning to those Democrats who benefited from the Capitol Riot.

    Much of what Sund has said coincides with or dovetails with facts I have written about previously, especially how the Sergeant at Arms for both the House under Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate under Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both declined National Guard support until it was too late.

    The same occurred with the Democrat Mayor of Washington, DC, Muriel Bowser who specifically stated that troops not be deployed unless the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) approved. 

    She added that she believed her police department was “well trained and prepared to lead the way” to ensure Jan. 6 unfolded safely. They weren’t. And they didn’t.

    This despite President Donald Trump offering the National Guard to them more than once.

    *(Note that the graphic above is incorrect in one detail – Officer Brian Sicknick was NOT killed defending the Capitol. He died later of natural causes (a stroke) unrelated to the riot.)

    In the case of Pelosi, Carlson is direct: “So this is an event that Pelosi herself has likened to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 — you know, the worst thing that’s ever happened on American soil — and she’s in charge of allowing the National Guard to come in and respond but she doesn’t for 71 minutes? What is that?”

    But Sund adds more details and perspective to the event that makes the lead up even more damning for the Democrats.

    The Blaze reported:

    In the interview, Sund indicated critical intelligence pertaining to possible threats ahead of the Jan. 6 protest was withheld from the Capitol Police and that the absence of such intelligence was cited by the congressional sergeants at arms — who were reporting to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the time — as cause not to reinforce the Capitol in advance with the National Guard and federal assets.

    However, the outlet added the former Chief now understands that the intelligence was there. It just wasn’t provided to his department:

    According to the former chief, “We now know FBI [and] DHS was swimming in that intelligence. We also know now that the military seemed to have some very concerning intelligence as well,” adding that the FBI field office in Washington and other outfits “didn’t put out a single official document specific to January 6. That’s very unusual.”

    During a conference call on Jan. 5, 2021, with the leaders of the Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI Washington field office along with National Guard, military officials, and others, “not one person on that call talked about any concerns from the intelligence … that was out there.”

    “This was handled differently. … It’s almost like they wanted it to be watered down, the intelligence to be watered down for some reason,” said Sund. “It wasn’t right the way the intelligence was handled and the way we were set up on the Hill.”

    The question is – did these federal security agencies make the decisions not to forward this intelligence on their own, or where they told not to send it?

    In the interview, Sund noted that then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley had “both discussed locking down the city of Washington, D.C., because they were so worried about violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.”

    Sund added: “On Sunday and Monday, they had been discussing locking down the city, revoking permits on Capitol hill because of the concern for violence.” 

    He continued: “You know who issues the permits on Capitol Hill for demonstrations? I do. You know who wasn’t told? Me.”

    This deserves much more investigation. The Jan 6 Committee was a partisan circus and designed only to blame Trump.

    I have argued that the Pentagon leadership was extremely wary of bringing in the National Guard or any federal assets to DC due to the extreme overreaction by Democrats over Trump sending federal officers to quell riots in Portland a few months earlier.

    Democrats also were apoplectic with rage at Trump’s actions to stop violent rioters outside the White House on June 1st. 

    There was also the incessant talk in the media about Trump using the military for a ‘coup,’ which Miller has stated as a constraint several times. These all remain valid explanations for the Pentagon’s preferred inaction. 

    And maybe for the Mayor’s decision to initially reject Guard troops.

    But what about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? What did they know and when did they know it? And why did they veto reinforcing the Capitol till the chaos had already begun?

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Is ‘The Fix In’ Again? What’s Up With Hunter Biden’s Legal Case?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    5
    President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

    ANALYSIS – Federal prosecutors are seeking a grand jury indictment of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. And while the investigation is a fresh setback to his father’s 2024 re-election bid, some believe ‘the fix could still be in.’

    It is unclear what charges the U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss plans to file against Hunter. 

    But, according to court papers, the newly named ‘special counsel’ said he expects an indictment before September 29, which is just before the statute of limitations runs out on Hunter’s felony gun charge.

    Of course, the time has almost run out because Weiss took years to complete the hyper simple investigation — and is still stalling.

    And Weiss didn’t have to announce the grand jury indictment is coming. He could have just done it instead.

    The court filing is related to a felony gun charge alleging that Hunter Biden illegally possessed a firearm in October 2018 while he was a drug user. He is also under federal investigation for his business dealings and failing to pay taxes on tens of millions of dollars earned mostly from shady foreign sources in 2017 and 2018.

    In June, Hunter Biden agreed to a sweetheart plea deal where he would plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offences, and separately get a ‘diversion’ program for the gun charge. The plea agreement fell apart after U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, appointed by President Donald Trump, correctly questioned it during a court appearance in July.

    It turned out Hunter Biden believed the deal would give him blanket immunity from any future prosecution. Federal prosecutors were forced to admit that wasn’t really the case. 

    Weiss didn’t have the authority to give global blanket immunity then. But as ‘special counsel’ appointed by Joe Biden, Weiss does now.

    Due to foot dragging and failures to cooperate by the FBI and other federal agencies, congressional Republicans are considering launching an impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, alleging that he had played a role in his son’s shady foreign business affairs and influence peddling scheme.

    The inquiry would give the Congress full authority to force the reluctant, partisan bureaucrats to pony up all records requested.

    In July, the House of Representatives oversight committee said bank records showed Joe Biden’s family and associates received $20 million from oligarchs in Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine during his vice presidency from 2009-2017.

    “If you look at all the information we have been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy recently said on Fox News.

    That’s why the actions of Weiss are concerning. Many legal experts, and Republican opponents, see Weiss using the gun charge as leverage to get Hunter to renegotiate another, similarly weak, plea deal.

    As the New York Post reported:

    David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, told The Post that an indictment on that gun charge is “not that significant” and could be merely “a placeholder” — meaning Weiss could still potentially bring a case against Biden related to any potential illegal foreign dealings or felony tax charges.

    “It’s holding in place the ability to use his leverage — a felony gun charge — in negotiations with Hunter Biden to resolve his global criminal exposure,” Weinstein said.

    Cornell Law Professor Robert Hockett told The Post he agreed that an indictment on the gun charge could be used to bring about a larger settlement to shut all this down.

    Weinstein added that he doesn’t believe Weiss “is going to end up playing hardball” in potential negotiations with Hunter’s legal team.

    But Hockett said that Weiss would be cautious to avoid the appearance of going easy on the president’s son, especially given the barrage of criticism Weiss received on the prior plea deal.

    Still, the GOP-led Congress should move ahead forcefully on an impeachment inquiry. It may be the only way to finally get to the truth about the Bidens’ shady deals.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    UN Legal Body Normalizes Sex With Children – Crimes Against Humanity Next?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    U.S. Department of State from United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – No, this isn’t a story of a wacky conspiracy theory about global elites and pedophilia, it is real news. And this time the truth is close to the mark.

    According to a shocking report produced by legal experts backed by the United Nations, children can consent to sex with adults.

    This is not only despicable; it violates the very UN principles that protect children from sexual violence. 

    The widespread raping of women and children is an especially serious concern in the world’s war zones, where the heinous acts are considered war crimes. 

    And in other UN documents, allowing sex with children “may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law.”

    The findings of these supposedly enlightened jurists only blurs the lines of perverse criminal behavior and will embolden those animals who abuse children.

    And, in an insult to all women, the report was released on March 8 ‘in recognition of International Women’s Day,’ suggesting some sort of connection between women’s rights and the age of consent.

    While the report does not specifically call for decriminalizing sex between adults and minors and doesn’t define an age of sexual consent, it states that children have both the mental ability and legal right to make sexual decisions.

    We should note that while there is a difference between mature, sexually active older teenagers, and young children, these experts appear to simply reference all minors under age 18.

    Listed under Principle 16 – ‘Consensual Sexual Conduct,’ the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, aided by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote: “Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.” 

    If that is true, then how long before the UN and ‘global elites’ do in fact decriminalize adults having sex with children?

    Well, the commission answers that question when it added in its report, “In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.”

    According to Influencer Ian Miles Chong, “This has been the plan all along.”

    https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1647416022637629440

    The perverse findings which seem to open the door to normalize sex with minors appears in a report with the esoteric and convoluted title: “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.”

    The report is posted prominently on the Commission’s website.

    Its deranged conclusions also clash directly with the reality the UN Human Rights Commission reports on the ground in many countries.

    As noted by the UN’s own organization “Children and Armed Conflict:

    Sexual violence against children during conflict is one of the six grave violations identified and condemned by the UN Security Council .  The six grave violations form the basis of the Council’s architecture to monitor, report and respond to abuses suffered by children in times of war. Ending and preventing these violations is also the focus of the Special Representative’s work and advocacy.

    Sexual violence is increasingly a characteristic of conflict and is often perpetrated against girls and boys in a rule of law vacuum. In some instances sexual violence has been used as a tactic of war designed to humiliate a population or to force displacement.

    The UN group clearly states:

    Rape and other forms of sexual violence against children are human rights violations, and may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law. If committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, sexual violence can constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

    So, which is it, UN? Where do you draw the line? If children can consent to sex, when is it a humanitarian or war crime and when is it just fine?

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Huge Milestone for Conservative Films

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Liberals aren’t happy about this…

    The new movie “Sound of Freedom” is dominating the box office and Democrats are scratching their heads as to why…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Ben & Jerry Have Always Been Commies

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    Their latest stunt isn’t new to the woke ice cream brand…

    On the Fourth of July Ben and Jerry’s ice cream released a statement bashing America’s heritage.

    Watch Amanda explain the latest controversy below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Mass Shooter Still on the Run is Previously Deported Illegal Alien

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Image via Pixabay images

    ALERT – It has now been confirmed – the Mexican national who murdered five other migrants ‘execution-style’ over a noise complaint is here illegally. 

    And he was previously deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) three times.

    We have been waiting for this shoe to drop, and for the media to ignore or spin away, ever since he was reported as a ‘Mexican national,’ but his immigration status was unknown or went unreported.

    Texas Governor Greg Abbott sparked outrage on the Left by simply referring to the five victims of the deadly mass shooting as “illegal immigrants,” which they were.

    And as we now know, so is the alleged killer, who also illegally possessed numerous firearms.

    You don’t have to be here illegally to commit violent crimes, but when the entire community where these murders occurred consists primarily of illegal immigrants, their immigration status matters.

    The drunken gunman, 38-year-old Francisco Oropesa Perez-Torres, was first arrested and removed by ICE in September 2009, but he returned to the U.S. illegally at an unknown time and location.

    This is according to an ICE spokesperson who confirmed it to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

    The killer (who is still on the run three days later) was then arrested and removed by ICE in January 2012 and July 2016.

    In 2012 the murder suspect was also sentenced and jailed for driving while intoxicated. 

    Oropesa went on his murderous rampage Friday evening when neighbor Wilson Garcia asked him to stop shooting his rifle so his baby could sleep.

    Oropesa had been drinking when Garcia asked him to stop firing his gun. According to the local Sheriff, Oropesa responded, “I’ll do what I want to in my front yard.

    Rene Arevalo Sr., a nearby neighbor, said he heard gunshots around midnight but was unfazed, as gunfire is normal in this mostly migrant neighborhood.

    ‘It’s a normal thing people do around here, especially on Fridays after work,’ Arevalo said.

    ‘They get home and start drinking in their backyards and shooting out there.’

    A couple of questions I have is – why did this illegal alien have firearms, and why is it considered ‘normal’ for illegal migrants to illegally fire their illegal weapons in their yards?

    The New York Times (NYT) reported that Oropesa then allegedly walked to Garcia’s home and fatally shot Garcia’s wife, son, and the three other victims with his AR-15 before fleeing.

    Mr. Garcia miraculously escaped.

    Most, if not all, of his victims, were also reportedly here illegally from Honduras. The victims included an eight-year-old child, an 18-year-old boy, and three women.

    Two of the women were killed while maternally protecting Garcia’s baby and 2-year-old daughter by embracing them and covering them with clothing. 

    The baby and toddler thankfully survived.

    “We do not know where he is,” James Smith, the special agent in charge of the F.B.I. in the Houston area, told reporters at a news conference. “We do not have any tips right now as to where he may be. Right now, we have zero leads.”

    More than 200 officers, including state troopers, are looking for Oropesa. Authorities have offered an $80,000 reward for information leading to his capture.

    The horrible murders come as U.S. border agents brace for an expected surge of illegal migrants in the coming weeks following the May 11 expiration of Title 42, a pandemic-era rule that granted agents power to turn away migrants for health concerns.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    False AP Report About Russian Missiles Hitting Poland Could’ve Triggered WWIII

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Main Directorate of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in Kyiv, CC BY 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Last week the world was hit by the purported news of a Russian missile strike into NATO member country, Poland. 

    And now the award-winning AP reporter who wrote it has been fired.

    Based only on a single, unnamed ‘senior U.S. intelligence official,’ the initial Associated Press (AP) story by James LaPorta, a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan, was widely disseminated and quickly caused a barrage of other reporting.

    Most of it was alarmist and panic-causing, with many in the news media and blogosphere quickly demanding harsh action against Russia.

    As the Blaze reports:

    Fox News and the Daily Mail similarly carried the AP reporter’s suggestion, the former running a piece entitled, “Russian missiles cross into NATO member Poland, kill 2: senior US intelligence official,” and the latter stating, “‘Russian bombs’ kill two in POLAND.”

    CBS Evening News tweeted “RUSSIAN MISSILE STRIKE: Two Russian missiles crossed over the Ukrainian border into Poland, a NATO country, killing two civilians.”

    A Russian attack on Poland could have triggered articles 4 and 5 of the NATO charter, potentially putting the U.S. into direct conflict with nuclear power.

    Article 4 requires full consultation at the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s political decision-making body, while Article 5 requires joint NATO action to repel an attack.

    As MSN explains: “Article 5 states that the parties to the NATO treaty ‘agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.’”

    Article 5 also states that each NATO member must take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

    This of course would make the U.S. a direct combatant in this war and could escalate to a nuclear exchange.

    As such, I wrote about the ‘errant’ strike the same day, albeit in more careful ways.

    My headline was more matter-of-fact and far less alarming, and it didn’t mention a direct Russian missile strike: “Escalation in Russia-Ukraine War Leads to Emergency Crisis Meeting.”

    In the piece I did note the ramifications of any foreign missiles crashing into Poland, writing: “In what might be the greatest (albeit perhaps accidental) escalation since Russia invaded Ukraine, the war just crossed the border into a NATO country.”

    And, yes, I like to say ‘albeit.’

    I added:

    According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, as Russia pounded Ukraine’s energy facilities Tuesday with the largest barrage of missile strikes to date, some reportedly ‘stray’ Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland and struck a site in Poland about 15 miles from the Ukrainian border.

    The allegedly errant strike killed two persons in the Polish village of Przewodów and provoked an emergency crisis meeting of Poland’s national security team, which will be held Tuesday evening.

    While I did refer to a Ukrainian Air Force spokesman who said Russia used X-101 and X-555 cruise missiles in the latest attacks against Ukraine, and reports that expressed the belief that “one or more of these cruise missiles were the ones that struck Poland,” I was very careful in how I reported all this.

    Note the extensive use of the words “accidental,” “allegedly,” “reportedly,” “errant,” and “stray” missiles in my report. I also explained that the incident had provoked an “emergency crisis meeting” in Poland.

    The rest of my piece focused on the confirmed, massive Russian barrage of missile strikes against Ukrainian energy and infrastructure targets throughout the country.

    In the end it appears that the missile that struck Poland was a Russian-made Ukrainian air defense missile that missed its mark and fell back to earth rather than self-destructs.

    And even after its country of manufacture was known, outlets like CNN kept calling it a ‘Russian-made missile’ without adding that Ukraine uses lots of Russian-made missiles.

    Of course, in my view, Russia is still to blame for this, albeit indirectly, since no one would be firing armed missiles near a NATO country if it weren’t for the unprovoked Russian invasion, and its reckless and dangerous strikes near NATO’s borders.

    The Blaze added that:

    After having updated the initial report several times, the AP indicated [November 16] that a new assessment from three U.S. officials “contradicts information” in the original article. Shortly thereafter, the article was reportedly taken offline.

    The AP issued a retraction later that day…

    On Nov. 21, LaPorta was fired.

    But let’s use this incident as a teachable moment. 

    Lesson one – as sophisticated news consumers, be circumspect with the news you read until it is fully verified.

    Lesson two – be wary of reports using only one or two anonymous sources.

    And lesson three – journalists, and social media posters, should use words like ‘reportedly’ a lot more, and make it clear that there is room for doubt or questions when the reports are still fresh and early.

    The most important rule I’ve learned in journalism, and in intelligence, and also during my stint on Wall Street, is that – it’s never as good (or as bad) as first reported. 

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    This Man Stole Trump’s Tax Returns And Illegally Leaked Them. So Why Is DOJ Letting Him Off Easy?

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    8
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A former IRS consultant who stole the tax returns of President Donald Trump and thousands of wealthy individuals, then leaked them to liberal media outlets to campaign for tax hikes, has pleaded guilty to a single count of “unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information,” despite confessing in court to committing the crime thousands of times.

    The decision to charge Charles Littlejohn with a single minor crime, while seeking decades in prison for Trump and many of his supporters, has many claiming it is yet another example of a politicized Justice Department.

    Littlejohn faces a maximum of five years in prison, but will almost certainly serve far less than that, if any, time.

    Littlejohn used his access to confidential information to steal the tax returns of Trump and wealthy individuals, often saving the electronic files to personal devices like an iPad, then leaking the documents to the New York Times and the liberal activist outlet ProPublica.

    The illegal leaks set off a feeding frenzy in the media, who used the illicit disclosures to attack Trump and falsely campaign for tax hikes.

    The DOJ’s decision to give Littlejohn a sweetheart plea deal, while targeting Trump supporters with harsh charges, has some in Congress calling out what they see as a biased and two-tier justice system.

    “The defendant admitted to making two separate disclosures to two separate news outlets impacting over a thousand taxpayers, and further admitted to impeding or obstructing the investigation — yet the Department of Justice inexplicably only pursued one count of unauthorized disclosure,” the House Committee on Ways and Means Committee fumed in a statement.

    “Ways and Means Committee Republicans have pushed federal investigators for years to get to the bottom of who stole and leaked the taxpayer information of thousands of Americans – including those of former President Donald Trump. Finally, the thief has been identified, charged, and now has pled guilty to this unprecedented crime,” said Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.).

    “Unfortunately, the Department of Justice elected to charge only one count despite the more than a thousand disclosures he admitted to in open court. To restore trust in the justice system and the IRS – and to deter future thefts – there need to be significant consequences for this type of illegal, politically motivated activity,” Smith added.

    123...41Page 1 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022