It is questionable whether the whistleblower laws apply to intelligence community staffers when reporting a complaint against the President of the U.S. The laws were meant to allow one to complain about a boss or co-worker without being retaliated against in your job. But complaining about the President’s phone call with another world leader, by definition a classified call, seems outside the scope of the law.
Misusing the law in this way could result in severe unintended consequences. Will any future White House employee be able to file a whistleblower complaint that triggers an investigation and protection for anything a future president says? Is the president going to be forced to respond to complaints such as “hostile work environment” because he makes an off-color joke or uses an expletive? Will employees be able to file grievances if they get fired “without cause”?
The presidential position is unique. He not only works in the White House, he lives there. He is allowed to freely mix government and politics. Why? Because you can’t separate someone personally from their job when they have this dual role. Trump is personally both the president and a candidate for re-election. He is allowed to “campaign” anytime he wants. Rules like this don’t apply to others. So taking normal work laws and applying them to the President causes problems.
As far as the second whistleblower is concerned, I also don’t see how he can jump on the bandwagon. The contents of the call have been released. He wasn’t the complainant. Is he merely trying to file a complaint after the fact because he is afraid of being discovered as the White House leaker? Whoever spoke to the first whistleblower faces legal jeopardy. Is this second whistleblower just trying to find a legal loophole to cover his or her…gluteus maximus?
This article makes a lot of a confirmation for something we already have the transcript about. Seems like overkill and partisan zealousness to convince people that this is an important development. How many spies are in the White House? Maybe they will all seek refuse in our “whistleblower” laws.
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!