Replies

I'm particularly fond of the rebuttal of the "investigate the leaker" Dem talking point:

The whistleblower (leaker), if any, is protected by the First Amendment (which dems are so fond of -- unless it is used against them).

1. Speech which discloses any evidence of corruption, impropriety or other malfeasance on the part of [elected officials], in terms of content, clearly concerns “matters of public import”. Pandolfi de Rinaldis v. Varela Llavona, 62 F. Supp. 2d 426, 436 n.18 (D.C. P.R. 1999), citing, e.g., Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 796 (10th Cir. 1988); Breuer v. Hart, 909 F.2d 1035, 1038 (7th Cir. 1990); Brawner v. City of Richardson, 855 F.2d 187, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1988).
2. Abuse of public office is a matter traditionally occupying "the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983).
3. The public has a significant interest in encouraging legitimate whistleblowing so that it may receive and evaluate information concerning the alleged abuses of these public officials. O'Donnell v. Yanchulis, 875 F.2d 1059, 1062 (3d Cir. 1989).
4. Therefore, the leaker/whistleblower’s First Amendment right to freely speak about Senator Rockefeller’s abuse of office – by making the memo public – can be clearly established.