Have with us a professor of Political Science and economics, and theres a whole list of other things that i could go into, very very talented writer, and she has a new book out called whistleblowers, honesty in america from washington to trump, which traces both the support of and the ambivalence towards whistleblowers. Please welcome in please join me in welcoming allison. [applause] thank you. Before we get started, i want you to be aware that there has been some controversy about this event. Some members of our community feel very strongly that it shouldnt go on. We are are an independent bookstore, and we believe very strongly that its our responsibility to make sure that both authors and books are represented, regarded of the ideas or the values that they have. And we hope that if there is disagreement, we can have those discussions in a respectful and civilized manner. Whats the argument against . Well, well get to that. [laughter] anyway, you are no stranger to protests. You got involved in one back in middlebury sometime ago. Thats correct. Does this work . Yeah, just push the button yes, thats correct. Im a fierce defender of freedom of expression. I really believe that part of the problem with this country is that were not having calm, factbased discussions about the important issues facing our country, so i actually was injured for agreeing to engage with Charles Murray, who is an influential figure in republican circles. I thought it was really important that my students hear alternative points of view, and i wound up with whiplash and a concussion, not because i want you to cry a river for me, but i just want you to understand that im a tenured professor. That means that my job is to speak the truth. My job is not to spin. My job is to listen to perspectives and try to say what by my best judgment the truth is, so i hope you can listen to what i have to say here about whistleblowers with that in mind, and if there are people in the community who think what im saying is biased or unfair, well, lets just have a discussion about that. Youve been talking about whistle blowing for sometime and writing about it. What is or what isnt a whistleblower . You have defined it fairly narrowly. Yeah, well theres a lot of confusion about whistleblowers out in the public today. And thats not surprising, given that weve got a 24 7 news cycle, and, you know, theres all sorts of spin. Its really anxiety provoking to really understand whats going on in the contemporary climate, but whistleblowers are actually whistle blowing is not a partisan issue. It is really an american issue. And america had the first whistleblower protection law in the world. It passed in 1778. Thats before the constitution of the United States was ratified. We can talk more about that later, but properly understood, it is definitely not partisan but something that is an attempt to keep our elites honest, to reveal things that need to come to light. In that 1778 Continental Congress decision, they were very clear that this wasnt a right. It was a duty. Thats right. The first law really says it is your duty as a citizen, as a Public Servant to report misconduct when you see it, no matter who is doing it. And thats because the founders felt really strongly that britain was a corrupt democracy, that they believed in things associated to the rule of law, but they were not applying them to the colonies. The colonies were unequal, and so there was a very strong sense, and the founders said they wanted a clean break with corrupt britain and this new republic would be founded in a way that would not let that corruption flourish the way it had there. So thats why they passed this law, which basically stands firmly against using your Public Office for private gain. was bound up in that commercial enterprise. So he purchased british prisoners of war and they blew the whistle on him for that so that was unacceptable even during wartime he was torturing enemies but that is the tip of the iceberg and i did Additional Research to the digital archives on keywords and the real thing going on of equal protection was that hopkins was abusing Public Office for private gain George Washington was sending him to Chesapeake Bay that he would take us navy somewhere else. He took them to the bahamas. [laughter] because it was lucrative for him personally. So the first law that Congress Passed there is an issue that Public Officials are supposed to serve their country and not themselves. If you get confused about that you will not go anyplace so congress wound up passing the law but also got the two Rhode Islanders out of jail they pay the legal fees and pass laws that said all the records have to made available to the public which is why we tell the story today. It is fascinating that it come so early in our history. But despite the long history in the close weaving into our own fabric, whistleblowers today are considered tattle tales at worst they are fakers. Why are we so conflicted about this . There is a number of layers to that question and its important to realize that america is extinct of its only a concept that makes sense in a democracy if you think there are certain ideals you want to see upheld. Many people say that status quo is acceptable but no. You are supposed to believe in this and thats not acceptable and people usually dont agree with them. Its really challenging thing even in the United States where we celebrate whistleblowing but in other countries that are not democracies if you look at the whistleblower countries like the Czech Republic you find there are negative connotations that you are a snitch because if the regime is oppressive there are no ideals to be upheld by whistleblowing but if you have something youre trying to protect this distinctly american but we have trouble with whistleblowers even here. We do. [laughter] despite a lot of those protections the price they end up paying is terribly high. They are unique people driven by conscience but also a certain naivete. You are absolutely right that occurs again and again in my book that whistleblowers start out believing if they report the wrongdoing to the superior that person will say oh my god i cannot believe thats going on that we do something about that. If the leader hears that Company Norms are principles and they dont want to deal with that internally but the powerful dont want to hear this is what they find for a variety of reasons. They start off idealistic and then they are jaded because they lose everything in time and time again we really do celebrate them in theory that is why both democrats and republicans unanimously agreed to turn the whistleblower complaint over to congress the practice is another matter entirely if our attention goes elsewhere thats when they lose everything. Their career, job, family that they are retaliated against and it occurs again and again we have to do better by our whistleblowers. You basically finish the manuscript of the book and then you get to post 9 11 and then its back to the drawing board. Its almost an earlier and simple her world thats now more complicated post snowden so what is different xp make a couple of things. And weve got to figure it out. With hundreds of pages. But back to your question that to divide this book to two parts before the internet and after the internet but the other thing is that National Security state develops with the enormous National Security state and any other free nation thats and you have a National Security whistleblower. In order to uphold the rule of law and thats very complicated. With that old line out of the vietnam war but the whistleblowers have to criminalize themselves and the constitution. So the other thing that changes is the whole issue of support of the National Security system that further clouds the issue. Thats right because and one nation under contract. That contractors increasingly of all realms of National Security. Of nonpartisan issue. There was a real belief that would be better on every front to be more efficient. And it turns out not necessarily to be true but we in the United States have really blurred the line between business and government in the unusual way with outsourcing. And that led to the influence economy and the revolving door. If you left for the private sector 30 years ago what used to be called selling out but now its called cashing in. [laughter] and it is completely acceptable. This is problematic because if you blur the line too much and you lose your sense even Milton Friedman so we need government you need schools and all these things. Because you cannot turn the clock back you cannot Nationalize Industries in the United States. So what do you do . Every trusting behind closed doors to do the right thing for the American People what the founders would have done that. This ambition to counter ambition. And in that privatized world thats why come to the topic of whistleblowers. To be honest when the system is functioning. But the issue it raises that they are not protected. So that in itself discourages further whistleblowing. Doesnt it quick. Yes. That creates additional problems because i dont want to bore you with the survey. But i will tell you we have a Patchwork Quilt developing over time because its such an old concept you need a lawyer if you are a whistleblower to navigate. But the contractors Edward Snowden is a contractor at the time. They dont have protection they are doing the work of government but not government so this is proprietary trade secrets. And problematic mix. And then to keep us safe and oversight to ensure that happens. And by that pervasiveness. And irrespective of when they were involved. Thats what he revealed if you follow the story. I interviewed all nsa whistleblowers including Edward Snowden but also the entire Senior Leadership of the nsa. And then to understand but in that we try to let the official speak for themselves. When out of those two competing narratives. And then to judge for yourself but snowden is an interesting case because if it violates the law he really show the nsa after 9 11 adopted emergency procedures because we were attacked on american soil. World trade center. The plane in pennsylvania. The pentagon. Those are justified in my view. We want to prevent another attack. But what happened it became business as usual without any public discussion over what the American People wanted. So in this sense and that he may be consider the first trader patriot. He provided a Public Service but also he broke the law to do it. One of the issues seems to be that technology is moving so quickly the normal democratic process simply dont have the ability. Thats a good observation because what you see with Technology Today to know that has outstripped our laws. Theyre doing whats permitted. But thats what the nsa was doing. They were breaking the law but exploiting the rules. And what you write about is predictive in terms of the norms to jettison those traditional ways . It seems as if this was predetermined given the way things were flowing. Yes this book went into Production One year ago. And i really wrote it as an exercise trying to understand what was going on in the trump years with some type of context. And it was very clear to me given my experience with the Intelligence Community and the nsa whistleblowers that they were behaving in an unusual way with this. And because they saw the president and the National Security threats. They dont normally behave this way. Your friends and family in the Intelligence Community they really believed it could be that missing jigsaw puzzle piece that would allow them to put something together to undermine the National Security of the United States so for them to be leaking as they are doing but they swore an oath to protect and deserve and defend the constitution of the United States. They see his behavior because if you are in government you can make a lot more money somewhere else. And their job is to provide the unvarnished truth than the politicians decide what to do with it. Knots whats turned on its head when Campaign Officials with russian operatives. They have the law called the two hop rule. But if you are interacting with an enemy of the United States and you are two steps removed you are a legitimate candidate i pass the one hop rule. Im a candidate for surveillance. Interacting with Edward Snowden who is charged with the espionage act. We have long as they have a legitimate right to spy on me. Go ahead im not that interested interesting. So with those Campaign Officials meeting with operatives they want to investigate. It sounds partisan but it isnt they are trying to uphold republicans and democrats we have some republicans in the audience who think that sounds partisan im happy to elaborate but thats the way i see it. In a democracy we think of secrets and antithetical but yet necessary. How do you balance whistleblowers and with the needs for secrecy. That is an issue to not be seen as a team player. And not their personality. Some of the most interesting people but the most ordinary and look at the content so what is it they are revealing . Then you have to investigate the fast overwhelming majority of those complaints and thats in the whistleblowers favor. Its not something that is easy to do and when it rises to the level somebody says this is incredible congress is obligated to investigate. Space. But how we deal with this moore moment will determine that. I am optimistic and then to understand the history and Historical Context or comparative context comparing to other countries you are very hopeful because you see time and time again that we have been in the circumstances before of abusive power and we have righted the ship this is the first gilded age for example. Those are totally corrupt democrats who basically is just skimming money and handing it out and had the whistleblowing on him for that. So things were getting done but he was completely corrupt. When that was exposed there was an outcry. He was thrown in jail and died in jail. He didnt try to defend what he did. In my view we are confused what is shameful and what is not what is corrupt and what is not but it is this privatization to be confused about how you serve your country you serve it by creating many and making chops but not through a Public Service then you are serving yourself. Thinking about the country and the american good at large. Its something we can get back in with the Inspector General to be miraculous with the complaints because believe me its a miracle this came forward. This is a bill in response to Richard Nixons abuse of power. What happened people look around and say how do we prevent that from happening again . What laws can we pass . Thats why they passed a series of reforms after watergate to prevent a recurrence of the same thing. There so many things we can learn from this to make our country better. I am optimistic. There is a magnificent little play called enemy of the people and it tells the story of a whistleblower who in the end loses everything where the final statement is but i was right. That doesnt seem to make a difference. Right. That is so tragic and beautiful if you ask whistleblowers why they do it its interesting. Because it was wrong. I didnt have a choice. A lot of people are not like that. I will send you to the audience. You can ask me anything. Did you have whistleblowers because people think it must be unlawful. Thats a really good question. It is revealing improper conduct. That what you have seen is wrong. People can be wrong about that you dont hear about those whistleblowers because the cases are investigated you never hear anything more you only hear about whistleblowers if it turns out to be right so in a sense people think they know something is wrong but its not you dont hear about them because we are humans. And some people are just plain difficult. Defining what a whistleblower is and isnt to be connected to the american tradition which is rooted in the rule of law which means with truth and falsehood in the interview that is unconstitutional. If you were writing the book would you write it any differently quick. At such a great question. This book was seven years in the making if you can believe that. And thats a very painful thing i call that may exercise in redemption through suffering. [laughter] but im very happy with how that turned out. You have to read it and tell me what you think. Because i wrote the last chapter of the trumpet era in the past tense. And i make some suggestions about what we can do. Its funny because i could see Something Like this coming because i know the deep state is partisan and the variously plotting to overthrow American Interest but thats not who i encountered in my research so i thought what is going on . What is james comey doing . And i was writing all of these panels and pegs on the wall and connecting lines. [laughter] but what made the big difference is i was talking with the screenwriter who made the zero dark 30 screenplay because he was working on a Television Series im not revealing anything secret. But russian intervention in our elections. And i was asked it was fun for me as an academic to write for a tv show. Doesnt it feel like we are in a tv show . [laughter] with and put it into two pages who are the main characters what is the overarching narrative and then it crystallized what it was about. And how we arrived at the present moment and what we should do about it. Im happy with how it came out im not a good model dont polish the pros before you know the structure is right. [laughter] how do we keep whistleblowers safe quick. Thats an important question. It is frightening because the president is basically incited his supporters to retaliate we are not worried about trump or his advisors. Its just their supporters in the internet age which changes everything. People that take justice into their own hands harm the whistleblower, terrorize their family. So what we need to do so the American People realize whistleblowing is part of the American Experience to keep democracy alive and dishonest then congress will respond whistleblowers will be protecte protected. But what you see we may not need a whistleblower to testify because former officials are coming forward now. Thats in my book also. Nobody in an essay will let you go on the record with their name but if you interview them after they leave the position they can say things on the record they could not say otherwise and thats the same with all these people or those that are subpoenaed to testify. What is odd with this incitement is like henry the second. [laughter] are we reliving history quick. We dont talk about enemies of the people. Im aware of soviet studies im intimately aware of the Russian Police state so thats the language you see in dictatorships you dont typically see that in a democracy the other thing is damaging that it doesnt really matter. My question professor i heard you describe some of the federal agencies. You have an affinity for that culture than i do but i thought i heard you describe people that were making conscious based not such as legal tells as whistleblowing i dont think we should be conferring sympathy with this license to break the law which is a think i heard you say. Thats a great question and youre getting to the heart of what is difficult about this question because you are right. We dont want Intelligence Community behaving in this way. My argument is because of an emergency situation. After this has passed we do not celebrate the leakers. But instead realize it is a Necessary Evil if you will to do with the emergency we dont want them behaving in this way. We want to suggest it is acceptable in the emergency situation. You should read my book and tell me what you think. [laughter] but Winston Churchill after world war ii dishonored Arthur Harris. Anybody know who he is . Bomber harris. He did the bombing but if you go to Westminster Abbey today you will not find his name or the name of the bomber pilot inscribed on the walls of Westminster Abbey. You will find Fighter Pilots but not bomber pilots because when churchill need them to do these nasty things, because democracy in britain was at stake but after the war he would dishonored Arthur Harris to restore the moral unit on does universe that was upended by the war and to move forward and that will require both parties on both sides to shake hands and say this is for the American People and for the rule of law and for free market and democracy we will do better in the future and not acknowledge his past behavior. So we can make a symbolic break to dishonor the behavior that was necessary but should not be acceptable in ordinary times. Does that make sense . Are you comfortable with the term whistleblower as it applies to the person who discussed the conversation between the president of ukraine and President Trump in regards from what i have heard it is mostly secondhand information and the person is anonymous. Regardless of what the future people are discussing it may bring down the president. Does the term whistleblower applies in this case quick. Thats a really great question im so glad you asked that. There has been a lot of claims of whistleblower i think there it is really important to focus on what the law says and what President Trumps own intelligence ig has said. If you go to the end diligence Community Report you will see a letter from Michael Atkinson who is a trump appointee who says officially the person is a whistleblower has to go to the proper channels liquid doesnt matter firsthand are secondhand but the content of the complaint. But the complaint so they may not even to testify to have formal officials that they were onto something important but thats a very good question. Did you hear about whistleblowers before a couple weeks ago . A little bit. But not in the national Intelligence Community. It is legitimately confusing but i think my book provides a great context to understand and i want it to be readable is under the pages of the bibliography and footnotes its only 200 pages long and the reader needs to be the judge if i succeeded if it has any use or entertainment value. [laughter] President Trump has claimed the fifth amendment right should allow him to confront his whistleblower if he is in the impeachment proceeding how does that apply quick. I dont even know what that means. Ive never heard of a fifth amendment right. Face your accusers be made but we are not in a court of law they are just gathering information to see if there should be a trial. Thats why impeachment would be. That doesnt apply to the whistleblower. But does that change anything with the proceedings if there is a court trial quick. Know thats not a court trial either c would go on precedent. The sixth amendment issue versus the senate and the actual trial but thats not a legal proceeding either. But our legal proceeding is interesting the tax returns have been subpoenaed and we are entering and interesting moment where a lot can be revealed but a piece will come out in the next couple of days in whistleblowing in europe. Its relevant to the United States because there International Networks that they pass the most comprehensive whistleblower protection law anywhere that exceeds the United States all sorts of ways. There were crushing cases in europe that led to the death of two investigative journalist who were investigating the corruption. One was killed in malta by a car bomb. Malta is a centerpiece for all kinds of corruption for the passports and guess who buys the passports and then they travel them through europe nothing was done to prosecute the murder and then in czechoslovakia a young man was murdered with his fiancee and then there was a huge public outcry with enormous demonstrations that led to the government and the election of slovakias first Prime Minister female. So europe is interesting because International Corruption networks that there could be a european whistleblower that can be relative to the situation here in the United States because the rule of law and anticorruption are two sides of the same coin. Its not that free market america celebrates. We pride ourselves on Small Business entrepreneurship we dont have that. So thats why we support Small Business of anticorruption and the rule of law that makes it possible. Are these real at all quick. Cultural differences come out with research that is fascinating. In 2013 there was a report on whistleblowing in europe and they went through all the countries in almost all of them were negative so they said this is an american thing because they just have the wealth of expertise and experience. But it is really seen as an american concept to adopt laws in 1998 or that angloamerican concept and now its a democratic concept across europe and its important because if you keep democracy alive we really do need a coalition of Civil Society organizations. So precisely that brought about the whistleblower protection directive in europe. And to keep democracy vibrant in the United States. And in that situation to be criticized by both the left and the right for failing to serve and whistleblowers have the information we need to confront that. So with the corporation you take it to the higher up if its resolved what do you do then and what protection do you have . I know there was a big tobacco case many years ago. That is in my book. [laughter] what protections do they have quick. This is whats interesting. To be connected between the First Amendment and whistleblowing. How you see there is a connection quick so with corporations the whistleblower typically goes to the press and as a company that something you should not want you want that internally because enron and worldcom if those companies had whistleblowers inside their organization if you are smart ceo you want to culture that people are comfortable to tell you what they see. You have to be pretty selfconfident to take that criticism but there are leaders like that and they are extraordinary. Im from chicago. What about the Metoo Movement . That is true and i open the book talking about that because they are whistleblowers with the Metoo Movement because what was happening there there are all these laws on the books but sometimes the powerful dont want to enforce the rules that is in their interest. So it forced society to confront the hypocrisy they got between their ideals and their behavior and we all have blind spot but its useful to think about what your blind spots are with those alternative points of view and thats what me to movement did. There are ideological folks on the left and on the right that american constitution democracy is not ideological but committed to the free and open discussion went from all walks of life to deliberate where the country should go. That whistleblowers serve a purpose and that movement regardless of what you think i dont think its important we have differences of opinion politically. The very expensive poison that includes a whistleblower in russia and he was poisoned. Is that in your book . I speak russian and i have studied russian actually im speak on soviet Foreign Policy and in three months later there was no soviet Foreign Policy. [laughter] so i have a new area of expertise. But i will say that its true they are the best in the business they have had a police state for a long time. And thats why immediately when i see the Trump Campaign meeting with these russians im thinking oh my god you are in trouble now. Thats why the Intelligence Community was alarmed. But yes it is dangerous. These networks are dangerous. Thats why we want the rule of all because the alternative is a mafia contract enforcement to have the mafia enforce contracts when nobody trust institutions. I dont think we are at that point where we have mob rule. We could resuscitate the rule of law. With the khashoggi situation was he considered a whistleblower or do we have enough information. Are you pointing to the connection of First Amendment and journalist and whistleblowers. He is a journalist who wrote things that saudi arabia did not like. And he was killed. And obviously i dont support the killing of journalist to try to bring the truth to light. So thats why this was so unsettling because i teach american policy and the one thing i know is that i see a foreign student in the audience which is great. We need to Work Together and its very disastrous to have a shadow Foreign Policy and that is what has happened because ukraine met the complaint part of that the United States had official anticorruption foreignpolicy which was being applied and Rudy Giuliani and the attorney general and the president were running shadow Foreign Policy in direct contradiction to the Foreign Policy of the United States the matter what you give it it is very dangerous if the stated policy is different from what the actual policy is and damaging to the anticorruption efforts around the world because corruption flourishes if the United States is not on the side of anticorruption. For example with this terrible corruption in malta that was revealed through the Panama Papers this place was pondering all this money they manage to keep right on laundering until the United States stood up then the bank gets closed. This is why its important for what we do with corruption because if the United States doesnt stand against it the cost globally is damaged so thats with the ukraine issue why you see so many Public Servants willing to come forward to say have never seen anything like this. This is something i feel compelled to speak out about. Thank you for the question. You commented that you were hopeful but could you elaborate . [laughter] im looking at you and i am feeling hopeful. Face it. We are all in some sense provincial and coming from communities let me put it this way. Each person may think the middle of the country but they also dont freeze that they are provincial but the difference in the middle of the country and the coast is that you really have something distinctive here. The east coast believes they are not provincial it is universal. So why am i hopeful that may seem abstract and i dont know if you agree. I really think at new america which is the think tank in washington we believe if you are going to renew america it will not be from the coast but from the bottom up from the heartland out. And i really believe that americans know what is right and wrong and what corruption is. And when someone is serving themselves rather than their country. And that pressure can make a big difference. I also think as a parent is pretty obvious any parent in the room could say do you want your children to have this president as a role model . Do you want them to be solely out for themselves over Everything Else . I realize this is how capitalism works. But hes just doing things everybody else does but in the assertive way and speaks the truth. But its clear he is selfish. I dont think americans are selfish. They want to revive their communities and contribute to them. They dont enjoy the polarized climate. I guess what makes me hopeful , i dont know your political persuasions but take someone out to breakfast you disagree and discuss the future of the country. I think small acts like that can make a difference and understanding history that we have been in tough times before and have gotten out make me optimistic. Dont give up. You seem to be pretty optimistic of the free marketplace of ideas in our marketplace can you square that with the recent facebook and their position of the new advertisement thats about all i know on the subject of trumps new advertisement. Do those concrete facts, it seems like we are in a more subjective era. From counting on your optimism a little bit for that. Jack is my former student and he is really smart. [laughter] this is a great question because thats my next book. s i want to think about this so check back with me in a year. This one will be more quickly i will do it the right way this time. But i am an optimistic person by nature. And until the very last minute until the Charles Murray fiasco i was just convinced if i could explain to people why it was important they engage with people they do not disagree i thought up to the very last minute i would persuade people that is the case. I was unsuccessful. So we have some real challenges in our country. But that something we as individuals attend to in my view. But those are pretty inspiring places if you see people from all walks of life and income levels and political persuasions coming together to realize what they have in common. In my church in vermont, Congregational Church we have the government of vermont, the republican governor who vetoed gay marriage and the two lesbians who filed the suit that resulted in the overturning of the defense of marriage act. And they said in the same church and talk at coffee hour and they could be deeply antagonistic but they are not. So we have within us to reach out to people who are different to focus on what it is that unites us. This is a great country it is so exceptional. It is worth preserving. And its in our hands to do so. Thats why i am optimistic. [applause] we dont pay our authors to come but we dont want them to go home emptyhanded. Thank you so much. I love it. You can have your copy signed at the table. Thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] senator rand paul youre one of the most interesting people in american politics i was a fan of yours long before i got a chance to meet you and work with you here in congress for go here to chat about your book but first lets reflect on the role that you have within congres congress, our party as an independent voice and someone is willing to strike out on issues. Sometimes i think i am a lonely voice to be believed in balance budgets or if we should spend less to have a constitutional government