If you worked in the IRS, would you risk your job / jail time to leak Trump's tax returns?

[TheDonnasRule]

I would risk it.

[MFM008]

1. yes

I would.
I cant of course, I can barely guess whats wrong with my PC on a good day.
BUT if there was a non homicidal method to keep him out of the white house I would do it.

[politicaljunkie41910]

50. Someone who has inside knowledge but doesn't work for the IRS could do so. In fact the IRS pays

anonymous informants who rat out people who cheat on their taxes, a percentage of the amount recovered by the IRS. Perhaps if more people knew that they can profit from turning in The Donald, someone would do so. Trump always brags about how 'big' his returns are. Someone knows what's in those returns. Everyone that has seen his returns are not bound by privacy laws. For instance, if someone is committing fraud, for instance on a loan application, and the loan officer has reason to believe that the information submitted in their tax returns in support of obtaining the loan is fraudulent, the loan officer can report them to the IRS without violating privacy laws as they can claim that his intention was to defraud them (the loan company) in their loan application. Since the loan officer may also have in person or telephone conversations with the person seeking the loan besides the tax returns submitted in support of the loan application and in the course of those conversations, he could come to the conclusion that the information is fraudulent.

[tinrobot]

63. Someone who works for Trump's accountant...

That's the best avenue for a leak.

[glennward]

2. Yes. Hard copy sent to a trusted news source...nothing electronic.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. But how do you obtain a hard copy in the first place?

Just hazarding a guess, but taxpayer records are electronic and access to them is restricted. There's logs kept of who accesses what and any unauthorised access would be flagged.

It'd not only be illegal to do so, but it's a massive breach of trust and would severely damage public trust in the agency. doesnt matter whether I think the taxpayer is a massive dangerous wanker or not. I'd never do it and anyone who would shouldn't be in any job where there's a responsibility to protect sensitive information collected from the public.

[EffieBlack]

22. ^ This

[glennward]

51. Ever heard of a flash drive and a printer? nt

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Strangely enough I have.

Have you ever heard of audit logs?

[brooklynite]

61. I trust that anyone who supports this kind of activity also supports the WikiLeaks dumps on Clinton?

Because the argument is exactly the same: "we" believe that the other candidate should never be President, so anything that will derail his/her campaign is fair game.

[MohRokTah]

3. Never in a million years.

You have a public trust with the IRS and once broken, it can never be repaired.

That's far more important than some moron politician's tax returns could ever be.

[SCantiGOP]

4. No

It would be immoral and unethical, not just illegal. Matters between the IRS and citizens are protected as confidential.

It would be no different than leaking medical information on a Democratic candidate.

[MichiganVote]

5. Nope.

[CBGLuthier]

6. Know but then again I am ethical.

[grossproffit]

7. No. eom

[scscholar]

8. We shouldn't talk about this because...

it implies there isn't anything in them worth ruining your career over.

[Travis_0004]

9. No

Im a CPA, I believe in a standard of ethics.

[TheDonnasRule]

10. To save this nation, I would violate IRS ethics rules and risk my job and jail.

[mucifer]

11. Prison, I could never handle prison. Nope.

[TheDonnasRule]

13. Being a non-violent crime, I think they'd put to offender in a minimum security type deal...

...not the hard core prisons.

[mucifer]

18. I'm not so sure. I'm a scardy cat. Plus I volunteer sending

books to women in prison and most are not violent criminals. There are lots of non violent drug offenders there who live in awful conditions.

[Red Mountain]

12. It would take this nation further down the road to corruption

So no.....we need our civil servants to be above the political turmoil.

Or else what the Rebumblicans claim is true will actually become true.

[Mz Pip]

14. Nope.

I draw the line at illegal activity.

[TheDonnasRule]

15. Remember when that judge released Bill Cosby's previously sealed deposition?

The judge released those records because Cosby was outright lying in public. I kind of view my hypothetical in the same way.

[Koinos]

17. Nope.

But I wonder if there are hard paper copies or electronic copies lying around in places other than the IRS. An associate, employee, or family member might see fit to "send them" to the New York Times and The Washington Post. I'm sure there are former and present staff persons he has dissed and are willing to expose him. Of course, Russian oligarchs and other involved parties might react harshly to negative publicity.

[tammywammy]

19. No, that would be unethical.

[trueblue2007]

20. i would too. tHEY PROBABLY WOULD NOT KNOW YOU DID IT!!

the IRS is in such a mess, how would they know who leaked his taxes??

[TheDebbieDee]

31. The IRS is NOT a mess! Don't buy into the "bumbling" tax collector

image that right-wing media is trying to sell you!

[tammywammy]

58. They would know who accessed his records. n/t

[LAS14]

21. It depends on what they revealed.

If it was just that he's a millionaire, not a billionaire, then no.

If it revealed that he's tightly tied up with Russian oligarchs, then I hope I would have the guts to do it.

But I think the powers that be should prosecute me if they caught me. I also believe in preserving the integrity of our system.

[mourningdove92]

23. I don't think I could stop myself.

As long as there was something in them to make him squirm!

[bottomofthehill]

24. Absolutely not, you do not get to pick and choose

Neither Romney or Trump. If they choose to release them, it is up to them. Until then, kick the shit out of them for not doing it. Once they release them, kick the shit out of them even more.

[KT2000]

25. No - as a fed employee in the past

I and probably most others in federal employment felt a serious responsibility to follow the law.
Maybe contractors don't feel that way - just don't know.

[Freethinker65]

26. No. nt

[saidsimplesimon]

27. I disagree.

Leaking, hacking Federal data is not my cuppa, more like "Morning Blow".

We must draw the line for the safety of all Americans. I never "risk my life" or others for the sake of an election.

[Doodley]

37. It isn't for "the sake of an election" but for the future of world peace.

[Agschmid]

28. No.

But it wouldn't be about the risk to my job, it's just not the right thing to do.

[enid602]

29. RBG

Ruth Bader Ginsberg risked her cushy job to come out against Rump. I doubt that she made this decision without careful cosideration.

[yeoman6987]

30. And the next day said it was not the right thing to do and regretted it.

[enid602]

44. Ruth

She knew exactly what she was doing at the time. She can't undo the message. It took courage.

[Vaughn Tom]

32. If the Donald Wins, the Internal Revenue Service won't EXIST a Year from Now

Sure, there might be an IRS, but the initials will mean Institute for Radioactivity Survivors.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

33. No. His refusal to release opens him to speculation

Is he not as rich as he says he is? Does he pay any taxes at all? Is he getting corporate welfare? What are his financial relationships with the Russians?

[Hekate]

34. Interesting that 2 brand new DUers are urging civil servants to break the law & go to federal prison

One just now chimed in but the OP is really into this idea. Almost like a provocation.

Donnas, I hate to tell you this, but the days when employees could just browse through confidential paper files with no one else being the wiser are long long gone.

I live in SoCal and get the Los Angeles Times, which covers the UCLA Medical Center, which has many high profile/famous patients. Several years ago an employee at the Medical Center sold some private info about a movie star to a tabloid. Not only was the employee almost immediately caught and fired, but further investigation showed she had been roaming through all kinds of confidential electronic files she had no business reading. The same investigation turned up one or two other similarly nosy people, because every time they accessed a file, any file, they left behind their electronic fingerprints. They were also fired.

You are urging what is certainly a breach of civil service ethics and what is almost certainly a federal crime.

I'm not amused.

[TheBlackAdder]

35. Those suckers are on restricted access and audit trailed.

[Doodley]

36. Yes. IMO it would be immoral not to if you think Trump should not have his finger on nuclear button

[bluestateguy]

38. Obama could always issue a pardon on the way out of the White House on January 19

[OhioBlue]

39. No. It would be unethical.

What would one hope to accomplish other than harming public trust in civil servants? If his tax returns were "leaked" rather than "released", the political spin could negate anything that is seen as unfavorable to the Teflon Don. When you are entrusted with a position that requires confidentiality, you should honor it. If you uncover or are witness to something illegal or immoral that would harm people and become a whistle blower, that is one thing, but the question you pose does not rise to that level. One may see themselves as a hero to save our Nation from a horrible, awful person as President, but leaking his tax returns does not rise to that level. It is impossible to know what the effect would be.

[Doodley]

40. Do you think leaking Trump's tax returns is worse than Trump becoming leader of the free world?

[OhioBlue]

42. I don't think leaking his tax returns would necessarily have an effect.

At this point, I think we are in a good position and I have no idea what his tax returns contain. It could potentially benefit his campaign. If you're asking if I would do something professionally unethical to serve a greater good, that is one question. The question the poster posed doesn't rise to that level.

[jberryhill]

41. No

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Liberal_in_LA]

43. No.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. No. It would be unethical and I would never do it.

[DrDan]

46. absolutely not - this is not the cause that should jeopardize one's reputation or put one's family

at risk

He is breaking no laws - only tradition

[randome]

47. Not to worry. Ed Snowden and Julian Assange and Wikileaks and Anonymous will save us!

Oh. Wait. Never mind.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[book_worm]

48. No--that is against the law.

[Adrahil]

49. I'd be tempted, but no.

My promises mean something.

[doc03]

52. I think if it was information that would prevent Trump from

being president I would risk it.

[OnDoutside]

53. As President Obama said

When they go low, we go high. Never sink to their level.

[ArcticFox]

54. no

Those are very private.

But as a voter, I would not vote for a person who would not disclose them.

[jmowreader]

55. Hell Fucking No!

Come on, guys: Trump has the brains to hire "little short guys who wear yarmulkes" who are smart enough to structure Trump's finances so any of the nefarious shit he's into never has to go on his taxes. The IRS isn't going to crawl too far up the ass of a casino that loses money, now are they?

There are, as far as I can see, three things Trump is embarrassed enough about to conceal.

The first is how little money he makes - and how his income decreases year-to-year.

Second - and most important - is the source of that income. Trump sells himself as one of the greatest real estate minds of our time. The reality is, Trump earns most of his money in three business sectors:
1) The entertainment business - casinos, reality TV, pro wrestling.
2) Licensing his trade dress - his name and image. He has two successful lines of licensed products: menswear and buildings. (http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-means-put-trump-on-front-building/) Except for clothes, his efforts to license consumer goods haven't gone all that well.
3) A form of corporate welfare called Passive Loss. Most leased commercial real estate loses money. You make your coin by deducting the losses from your taxes. Real estate requires little "active participation" from the owner (as opposed to something like owning a food truck, where you have to flip burgers seven days a week to survive) so the IRS calls it a "passive" business.

And finally is his Line 31a problem - the alimony he is paying to Marla Maples. It may be more than he'll make as president, which will call into immediate question exactly how he plans to meet his financial obligations.

[ailsagirl]

57. Never

[karadax]

59. No. But if I did..

It wouldn't just be Trumps. Everyone that has over $50 million would be leaked too. If we want transparency for Trump we should expect it from all of the wealthy. If it hurts more than it helps so what. At least it's out there for us to know.

[LiberalFighter]

60. No

[yurbud]

62. it depends on what's in it. that he's worth less than he says? No. Indebtedness to Russian mob?

Yes.

[Jamaal510]

64. My family is too broke for that,

and jobs aren't exactly easy to come by even as a college-grad.