Live on Bloomberg TV

00:00HAD MISLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR IN VIETNAM. GREAT TO HAVE YOU WITH US, MR. ELLENSBURG. YOU HAVE SUCH A VIEW ON THE ROLE OF A WHISTLEBLOWER, SO-CALLED, IN A DEMOCRACY SUCH AS OURS. WHAT IS THAT ROLE? > > TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO BE A SOVEREIGN PUBLIC, TO ACT -- FOR CONGRESS TO ACT IN SUCH A WAY MORE IN PEACE, FOR CONGRESS GIVES -- FOR THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THEM THAT POWER. THAT HAS ERODED A GREAT DEAL IN RECENT YEARS, IN FACT IN MY LIFETIME. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO GET BACK TO IT AS POSSIBLE, OR IF YOU FIND THE CONSTITUTION BEING VIOLATED CLEARLY. EVERY OFFICIAL, EVERY MILITARY OFFICER, AS I WAS IN THE MARINE CORPS, EVERY CIVILIAN AND MEMBER OF CONGRESS TAKES THE SAME OATH. IT IS NOT TO THE PRESIDENT. IT IS NOT LOYALTY TO A FUHRER OR A PRESIDENT, IT IS TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. WHEN AN OFFICIAL HERE ' S HIS BOSS, OR THE PRESIDENT IN PARTICULAR MISLEADING THE PUBLIC AND CONGRESS, GETTING THEM INTO A HOPELESS OR ILLEGAL WAR, OR ANY KIND OF WAR, MISLEADING AND LYING THEM INTO WAR, AS I HEARD MY PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON, DOING IN AUGUST 1964. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO? THAT IS NOT AN EASY ONE TO ANSWER, ACTUALLY. WHAT I DID WAS NOT THE BEST RESPONSE. IT WAS LIKE ALL THE OTHER THOUSANDS WHO KNEW WE WERE GOING TO WAR WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID WE WERE NOT. THAT WAS TO KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT AND ROYALLY OBEY THE PRESIDENT, HOWEVER WRONGFUL OR MISLEADING HIS POLICY. THAT WAS WRONG, AND THAT IS WHAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HEARD THIS PRESIDENT , TRUMP, COMMIT A CRIME ON THE PHONE WITH MORE THAN A DOZEN PEOPLE LISTENING IN, NOT ONE OF THEM SO FAR AS WE KNOW YET INFORMED AND OUTSIDE AUTHORITY, OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE AUTHORITY LIKE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EVEN, LET ALONE CONGRESS, ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS WRONG. DAVID: WE ARE TALKING WITH DANIEL ELLSBERG, THE FORMER RAND RESEARCHER AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER WITH THE PENTAGON PAPERS. WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT THE PEOPLE NEEDS TO KNOW? WHEN YOU WERE OPERATING, YOU WENT TO THE NEW YORK TIMES AND HAD EDITORS WHO LOOKED AT THIS AND SAID YES, THE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THIS. THE SUPREME COURT SIDED WITH THEM. NOW WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TO THE GLOBE INSTANTANEOUSLY ONLINE. IS THERE NO GREATER DANGER NOW THERE IS NO CHECK OR BALANCE ON A WHISTLEBLOWER? DANIEL: THIS PARTICULAR WHISTLEBLOWER, HE OR SHE, IT WE DO NOT KNOW YET, DID FOLLOW THE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN RECENT YEARS FOR GETTING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS THAT HE OR SHE FEELS THEY REALLY NEED TO KNOW IS BEING WITHHELD FROM THEM. THAT IS TO GO TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, OR IN OTHER CASES, AN AGENCY LIKE THE CIA, WHICH WAS BROUGHT IN ON THIS, OR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. THOSE RULES DID NOT EXIST FOR PROTECTING A WHISTLEBLOWER IN MY DAY, BUT EVEN NOW -- I AM GLAD THAT THEY USE THEM, THEY SHOULD PROTECT THIS WHISTLEBLOWER FROM PROSECUTION, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN IT PROTECTS THEIR CAREER OR PROTECTS THEM PHYSICALLY. IN THEORY, THEIR ANONYMITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED. IN PRACTICE, WHEN PEOPLE GO THROUGH CHANNELS TO TELL ON THEIR BOSS OR A SYSTEM WITHIN THE AGENCY, THAT GOES BACK TO THEIR BOSS AND THEY DO SUFFER, THEY ARE FIRED OR RETALIATED AGAINST IN VARIOUS WAYS. SECOND, SINCE THE WRONGDOING BEING REVEALED AS WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND MAY EVEN INVOLVE THE PRESIDENT, AS WITHIN THIS CASE, IT DOES NOT GET PASSED OUT TO CONGRESS. IT IS NOT TO THEIR INTEREST. SO THE WHISTLEBLOWER FAILS. IN MOST CASES, I WOULD SAY DESPITE THE SUCCESS, A WHISTLEBLOWER WITH THIS KIND OF INFORMATION WOULD BE BETTER, WOULD DO BETTER TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT AND EVEN TO BE ANONYMOUS, TO GO TO CONGRESS DIRECTLY AND TO THE MEDIA. THEY WILL BE KNOWN, THEIR IDENTITY WILL BE KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE THEY WORK WITH, BUT THERE WILL BE SOME EFFORT TO KEEP THEM ANONYMOUS, AND THAT WILL BE MORE RELIABLE THAN GOING THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT CHANNELS. DAVID: ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE SPEAKING WITH DANIEL ELLSBERG, FORMER RAND RESEARCHER AND WEAKER OF THE PENTAGON PAPERS. BUT THERE IS SOME FORM OF LEGITIMACY OF PRIVACY OR SECRECY IN THE GOVERNMENT. HE SAID IN THIS INSTANCE, THE WHISTLEBLOWER WENT THROUGH THE RIGHT CHANNELS. THAT WAS STYMIED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LEGAL COUNSEL, WHO SAID THIS IS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, SO YOU SHOULD NOT DISCLOSE IT. ON THE ONE HAND, THE PRESIDENT CAN HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITHOUT THEM BEING PLASTERED ALL OVER THE INTERNET, OR NOT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? DANIEL: THERE IS THE NEED FOR PRIVACY FOR SOME SECRETS, LIKE FOR FOREIGN ENEMIES. THERE IS LITTLE JUSTIFICATION FOR SECRECY FROM THE RIGHT COMMUNITIES OF CONGRESS AND THE CLOSED SESSIONS IN CONGRESS, AND THAT IS INVOKED ALL THE TIME. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OF KEEPING SECRET CONSPIRACY ON A CRIME, DISCUSSIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. IT IS LIKE THE THE MAFIA. -- THE MAFIA. THEY NEED SECRECY, BUT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT. THAT IS NOT TRUE FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BUT IT MEANS WHEN THEY PLAN SOMETHING ILLEGAL, AS IN THIS CASE THE USE OF FOREIGN FUNDS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE TRUMP ' S CHANCES OF AN ELECTION BY DEFAMING HIS MAIN OPPONENT, IN THAT CASE YOU CAN BE SURE THE SECRECY SYSTEM WILL BE USED, AND IN THEORY IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR THAT PRACTICE OR PURPOSE, BUT IN PRACTICE, THAT IS THE MAIN REASON FOR KEEPING MOST SECRETS BEYOND TWO OR THREE YEARS. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ARE FROM 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, OR 40 YEARS OLD. THERE IS NO NATIONAL SECURITY INVOLVED IN KEEPING THAT SECRET. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT MAY BE EMBARRASSING IN THE FUTURE, WHAT PROMISES WILL NOT BE CAPPED, WHAT PREDICTIONS WILL PROVE TO BE FALSE. WHAT WILL APPEAR TO BE CRIMINAL OR WRONGFUL, DISASTROUS. SO YOU KEEP IT ALL SECRET, AND THAT IS REALLY THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE SECRECY SYSTEM. IT IS NOT AN ABUSE, OF COURSE IT HAS A PURPOSE, TO KEEP LEGITIMATE SECRETS LEGITIMATELY FROM ENEMIES OR FOREIGN RIVALS, BUT THAT IS A MINOR, MINOR PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY KEPT SECRET. WE ARE SEEING TWO FLAWS, I WOULD SAY, IN OUR SECRECY SYSTEM IN THIS INSTANCE. ONE IS THE FAMILIAR REGULAR ABUSE OF CLASSIFICATION TO HIDE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. THE OTHER IS, THERE IS CURRENTLY NO WAY FOR A WHISTLEBLOWER TO REVEAL CRIMES THAT ARE CLASSIFIED WITHOUT RISKING PROSECUTION. THAT REQUIRES LEGISLATION TO CHANGE IT. IT IS UP TO CONGRESS TO CHANGE THAT. DAVID: MR. ELLSBERG, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. MR. DANIEL

No schedule data available.

BTV Channel FinderWatch BTV in your area

Daniel Ellsberg on the Role of a Whistle-Blower in the U.S.

Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistle-blower and former Rand Corp. researcher, discusses the role of a whistle-blower in a democracy and reflects on the Pentagon Papers nearly 50 years later. He speaks with Bloomberg's David Westin on "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)