Many are criticizing James Comey for his brutal honesty about “leaking” Trump’s comments about Michael Flynn to a news outlet. Yet, the history of the Trump administration teaches us one thing–improprieties are covered up until the public is outraged. This has been shown over and over again.

According to the New York Times, the investigation into Mike Flynn’s ties to foreign governments was brought to Trump’s attention weeks before his inauguration, yet Flynn was still named national security adviser. Even President Barack Obama cautioned Trump against hiring Flynn. A week after the inauguration, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates warned White House Counsel that Flynn lied to Vice President Pence about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and that Flynn was susceptible to blackmail. But Trump fired Yates, not Flynn. It wasn’t until this information was leaked to the press and public outrage occurred that Trump was forced to take action was against Flynn.

Similarly, leaks have emerged showing that Trump made inappropriate statements to Mexican President Enrique Pena Neito and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Presumably, once again, the leakers believed that Trump’s advisers would not stand up to Trump and, therefore, public outrage is the only correctional tool.

In fact, an official at the White House found it necessary to leak Trump’s leaks of classified information to Russian officials. How, ironic, the leaking of a leak. Seemingly, at least this White House official believed that the only way to meaningfully change Trump’s behavior regarding the dissemination of classified information was to call him on the carpet in front of the entire country. Perhaps, the White House official thought that Trump would not understand the seriousness of his actions if privately reprimanded.

Finally, the staffer that leaked Trump calling Comey a “nut-job” and telling the Russian ambassador “I just fired the head of the FBI…I faced great pressure because of Russia…that’s taken off” certainly sheds light on why the leaks appear to be necessary for the administration of justice. If that conversation had not been leaked, it seems once again that the motivation behind Trump’s actions would have been swept under the rug.

In my opinion, White House advisers and staffers believe the leaks are necessary and are, in fact, justified as whistleblowing. Why? Because Trump will not take any constructive criticism. He doesn’t want advice from his advisers. And if he receives advice, he doesn’t follow it. Advisers and staffers seem to believe that the only way to make a difference is to leak the story and hope that the intense blowback leads to change. The President responds to the press when he doesn’t respond to his advisers. This leads to the classic chicken and the egg situation. Trump doesn’t listen to his advisers so, as a result, they leak to the press in an attempt to bring about action. And then Trump responds to the press–often blaming his advisers for not advising him.

In fact, this week alone, Trump’s friend Chris Ruddy suggested publicly that Trump was thinking about terminating Robert Mueller from his position as special counsel. In response, Paul Ryan stated on the “Hugh Hewitt Show” that he would advise Trump not to fire Mueller but to “let him do his job independently.” Representative Charles Dent also publicly told the President to “let Mr. Mueller complete his work.” Why have Trump’s friends and allies gone to the press with advice for Trump? Why didn’t they go directly to Trump? Because he wouldn’t listen. However, if Trump sees it on the news, he might react.

Trump has set up the administration so that the only way for his advisers to advise is to leak to the press. And then he wonders why there are so many leaks.