system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: whoever leaks the Mueller report or Trump's IRS filings would be committing career suicide and going to prison, but would become national hero(es) by letting the American people know what they deserve to know.

>"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

Anyone who does not expect and demand scrutiny of the government are not patriotic. The biggest patriots to the USA are the ones who shine a light, even at great personal risk, on the parts powerful people want kept dark, probably because they have something terrible to hide. To deflect such scrutiny is not patriotic, and is only the work of stooges in an unjust system or blind followers in a cult.

The topic is obviously partisan but that's part of the problem: issues of law abidance are partisan nowadays. It should never be a partisan question. Love Trump or hate him he should not be above the law. If you are willing to rationalize why or how Trump does not deserve the same scrutiny as anyone else in his position, then you are part of the problem because he obviously owes us that. Anyone in power does.

And when we make the law a partisan issue, we all lose, because it shows that power is more important than playing fair. When people see those in power as illegitimate, social stability is the victim: why do I have to follow the rules if the guy with power and money doesn't have to? For those who take the cynical view that it has always been that way, then they are simply admitting America is not a meritocracy.

But should be.

And those who really love this country and its principles are those who make that so, by divulging what the powerful want hidden, no matter how large the personal sacrifice. Which makes them the greatest kind of national hero, by definition.
gpt
Have you considered the question of admissibility of evidence?

Suppose there is evidence contained in the report / returns that could lead to criminal charges. To make those charges stick, there needs to be a proper court process, where defending lawyers have an opportunity to review prosecution's evidence. Admissibility of evidence needs to be discussed, and decided in closed court hearings. 

Now, suppose the report / returns are leaked. One consequence is that some inadmissible evidence is now known to the public, and will sway any potential jury. It provides additional avenues for the defense to argue for delays, and makes it harder for the prosecution to convict the guilty. 

&#x200B;