Whistleblower Attorney in 2018 NYT Op-Ed Advised Mueller to Become Whistleblower If Trump Fired Him

Nick Kangadis | October 14, 2019

It’s not clear what a story like this says about the “whistleblower” currently at the center of the impeachment movement surrounding President Donald Trump. However, a story in which an attorney co-authors a New York Times (NYT) op-ed suggesting that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller become a whistleblower himself if Trump had fired him could say a lot about said attorney.

As reported by Breitbart, “activist” attorney Mark S. Zaid co-wrote an April 2018 op-ed for the NYT calling on Mueller “and his staff” to “become lawful whistleblowers” should Trump have fired him and “dismantle the Office of Special Counsel.”

Here’s a portion of what Zaid and co-author John N. Tye wrote:

We hope that such a constitutional crisis is unlikely. But if it does come to pass, there is a way that Mr. Mueller and his staff could prevent their important work from being permanently buried: They could become lawful whistle-blowers.

Many people think that exposing classified misconduct requires breaking the law. Not necessarily. If Mr. Mueller is fired, he and his team would not have to do anything illegal to disclose classified information and ensure that the American people learned the truth.

Not only did Zaid and Tye make the suggestion to Mueller and his team, but they also laid out the steps that would enable them to disclose classified information to the public and members of Congress.


“The moment he was dismissed, Mr. Mueller could lawfully take all the evidence he had collected — even the most highly classified materials — straight to Congress,” Zaid and Tye laid out. “If he personally lost access to the evidence, a remaining member of the Office of Special Counsel could do the same.”

Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t this a conflict of interest for Zaid concerning his representation of the current alleged whistleblower? How can you advocate for high ranking officials to divulge classified information stemming from sour grapes that didn’t, in reality, actually happen, only to go on to represent a supposed whistleblower who allegedly had some kind of damning information on Trump?