But here's another example that shows the dangers that lurk behind the presumption that "whistleblowers" should have some kind of legal protection . . .
A "journalist" for CNN has no evidence of any kind of fraud, but concocts a story of "big-time fraud" with quotes from anonymous sources with ties to an elected official. Providing legal protection to sources makes it impossible to distinguish between legitimate and fictitious sources.
Someone who is called to testify in a civil or criminal court case has no choice but to testify, except in some very narrowly-defined cases (spousal protection, Fifth Amendment, and lawyer confidentiality). Anyone else is simply out of luck -- regardless of what kind of sanctimonious view they have of their profession.
True, but no legal protection makes it far more difficult to discover government or corporate fraud.
I don't trust the press, but I trust the government even less. Bush won't be President forever. Now that we have some actual conservative news outlets, we need a protected conservative press in case Hillary becomes President.