The dissent and disservice of the whistleblower is the fundamental fact on which the state must orient itself, otherwise it lacks the capacity to follow through the logic of its power. Bringing any high ranking official to his knees (such as Nixon) weakens the the state and forces it to become brutish and insidious. Honor is of the greatest importance.
If you’re going to address the power of the state at all, you have to recognize that you’re addressing a fiction that’s been agreed upon as the modus operandi. The state is always “absurd” in its self-defense. After all, who is going to protect the authority of a supreme court if this court does not protect the authority of the branch that protects it? You can’t address power, which is nothing besides the will to enact itself and never receptive to lesser power, with appeals to laws, it will just change or reinterpret the laws. A revolutionary movement that appeals to laws is thus often damaging to the legislation, as it causes a struggle over the legitimacy of these laws. If a revolution does not kill the old system it will make it stronger for better or worse.
So my natural answer to this conundrum is that to influence the state, the citizen has only one option – appeal to the values as they live within the current population, and not to the document of the law. The law is a derivative of values. It can not create value or manifest them where other values have proven to be more important to the momentum of whatever is in play at any given moment. Laws can facilitate the production and propagation of the value genus they derive from, but time erodes the significance of laws, so contra-entropic forces have to be applied to government to restore its beneficial effect. To American standards, I am conservative toward the spirit of the law and retro-progressive toward the letter.