Yup. If he wants 'em.
You mean like someone asking Wikileaks to hack an opponent’s email?
So we can say at the quilting bee “We should do something to stop coal from being exported to China” … no specific crime, can’t be readily accomplished and no immediate capacity to act …
“We should throw these [blanks] into [blanks] and see if they’re too big to fail” … specific crime, materials in hand, ability to jump right up and start … being quilters has no bearing …
I’m going to have to keep that in mind from now on …
It’s fortunate for Mr. Kristof that he used the formulation “that you’d like to leak”.
No. Trump’s statement lacked the requisite specificity. There is a specific crime involved, as cited above, for an IRS employee to divulge tax returns. I used the word specific in describing the crime.
Trump said, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” which can be interpreted legally, and in any event does not describe a specific crime.
Absolutely.
I’m not sure. What are the “blanks?” What’s the relevance of quilting to the blanks?
Filling in the blanks would violate SDMB rules about promoting crimes, and they hold all the 1st Amendment rights here.
However the second part is the more important … I walk into a room of 60 or 70 year old women sitting around a quilting frame and say “I have the gasoline, let’s go burn down City Hall right now.” … I’ve always thought that was protected speech … as a reasonably prudent person would believe it is unlikely that a group of elderly matrons would immediately jump up, grab the gasoline and run down to City Hall and do the deed.
From what you’re saying this isn’t protected speech and if one of these ladies happens to be a police officer … she can arrest me and charge me with felony solicitation …
I think it’s important to distinguish between some concepts here.
In order to be convicted of a crime, you must encounter a prosecutor willing to bring charges and a finder of fact at trial who believes that the facts adduced amount to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s extremely unlikely that your foray into Molotov quilting would end thusly.
But if we’re talking about legal sufficiency, then the question simply becomes: could a reasonable finder of fact, on that record, legally return a guilty verdict?
The scenario you describe may well qualify as legally sufficient, but in real life the defense would undoubtedly advance additional uncontested facts that would scuttle a finding of guilt. But if you want the bare-bones answer of legal sufficiency: yes. Assuming City Hall is close by, and assuming no other facts make the deed impossible, “I have the gasoline, let’s go burn down City Hall right now,” is solicitation even if delivered to quilters.
The finder of fact would most likely conclude that you did not actually have the intent for them to go burn anything, because they were old ladies and quilters, and especially if you testified that you were joking. But the finder of fact does not have to conclude this – they may legally disbelieve you and conclude that you intended the result of your literal words, and nothing was stopping the ladies from doing as you urge. It’s legally sufficient.
The plain language of 6103(a)(3) is that it applies to any “other person… who has or had access to returns or return information under” [various subsections].
Even without bothering to look up the subsections, it’s clear that it would be a ludicrous reading of the regulations to say that the intent was that “any person” meant anyone in the world who happened to come across the information in a public area. If it applies universally, why would the regulation start out by specifically identifying subsets of people in (1) and (2), and why would the regulation make it clear that it only applies to “information obtained by him (sic) in any manner in connection with his service…”? The obvious intent is to apply to federal government employees and other government employees or contractors granted access to tax returns, NOT to general private citizens.
So the NYT publishing a leaked tax return doesn’t appear to violate 26 USC 6103 (a). Still a violation by the IRS leaker, of course.
If he wants them. But, since he’s an officer of the United States and got your return as a part of his employment, he can’t tell anyone what’s in them without violating 26 USC 6103 (a), unless for a reason specifically authorized by regulation.
Q: If President Ryan then pardons Kristof of all Federal charges, wouldn’t that pull the rug out from under the states case? 
Agreed. And of course I was already on board with the idea they could legally publish 
No. The crime is complete the moment the solicitation happens.
Moderating
This is not a General Question. Off to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator