• StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

« John XXIII: A Saint for Social Justice | Main | Planting the Seeds of a Real "Green Revolution" »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Michael C. Duff

More like the "discovery" standard in litigation but even there discovery requests must be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and the boundaries in any event will have been set by the filing of a concrete case able to withstand a preliminary motion to dismiss.

Michael C. Duff

And as a former federal attorney I doubt very much that former federal employees were free to blow the whistle. (For example,, on separation from service there was a lot of paperwork I had to sign reaffirming and even extending prior vows of confidentiality I had taken). In truth, I don't think it was whistleblowing at all - someone in the present Gov't doubtless gave the green light to confirm, to what end I'm not sure. Maybe in an attempt to reduce the stench of utter lawlessness to "mere" systemic and "rational" lawlessness - a "standard" possibly more acceptable to the WSJ crowd.

Steve Shiffrin

Thanks for the insights Michael.As to the latter, at least some of the sources who spoke with the Journal were critical of the court ruling, so they in a sense were at least confirming and blowing the whistle.

The comments to this entry are closed.