osama bin laden's spiritual advisor was? >> dale watson, can't recall. steve, do you know differences between the religion and shiite and sunni muslims? not technically, no. so again, this is not the pentagon papers or even a case like rich in taking on the white house but i thought it was important and our access to this whistleblower gave us to these videotapes and shed some light on what was going on in the f.b.i. at a critical moment and none of this could have been revealed without a courageous whistleblower, so just in closing, i want to say, just to wrap up, i guess, they can be very difficult, but it's worth it. it is worth the effort that you have to put into it because they can produce some of the most meaningful stories and they are good for our democracy.

>> thank you, very much. i just want to say one thing. i very much appreciate jim's remarks because for the whistleblowers who are going to -- who are listening to this and who'll be listening to this, it is extremely important to understand, you know, how the press viewed you and what you need to do in order to have a credible presentation. i think jim is very, very straightforward analysis of that is -- it really is helpful and i really take my hat off to him. thank you for those words. our next speaker is john solomon. i've known john for a number of years. i consider him the dean of print investigative journalism in washington, d.c. bar none. i've always said that for an investigative journalist, there is kind of like a bug. there is something there that this journalist want to get to the truth and the root of the

story no matter what and charge. from a whistleblower perspective, that's who you want on your case. i think for any investigative journalist, that's the character trait that makes someone into a top-notch world renowned successful investigative journalist but for a whistleblower, that's what you need. john has done just outstanding stories both in cases that we have worked with him on but also just, you know, watching the stories that he has done. it is an absolute honor to have him here. in his biography, he is a former executive editor of "the washington times" and a former -- current a special correspondent for the "washington post" focusing on investigative stories and he is with the packard media group right now. he left "the washington times" a

couple of months ago. john is an award-winning investigative journalist. as the former exiver editor of "the washington times" he won numerous journalism awards. the society of professional journalists 2009 national public service award. he also produced the first joint bronlt cbs "60 minutes" which exposed how the f.b.i. crime lab practiced faulty bullet-lead analysis for decades using the science to convict hundreds of people without informing them of those problems. the series won the robert kennedy jourmism award for domestic television and the society for professional joumplists top award for investigative tv reporting. before joining the "washington post" mr. solomon spent 20 years

as a manager and reporter for the associated press where we won the achievement award for coordinating wire services worldwide and investigating coverage to have 9/11 attacks. mr. solomon was named in 2005 to oversee a seven-member investigative team dedicated to producing high-impact stories that could play smultly on tv, on the web, -- simultaneously on tv, on the web and radio. and exposing the now infamous hurricane katrina video tape showing what president bush had been told before the deadly storm. before creating the team, mr. solomon spent six years overseeing the administration personal finances of a.p.'s 150-member washington bureau as the assistant bureau chief.

in that role he oversaw a.p.'s relationship with major newspapers in the major metropolitan area. today, mr. solomon is with the packard media group. he also is actively engaged, still, in doing topnotch investigative jourm itch. it is my hon -- journalism. it is my honor to have mr. solomon here. >> thank you so much for having me here. it is a great pleasure to be alongside jim and rich whom i have admired throughout my career for doing the type of journalism that they have created time and time again. i've known throughout my career that whistleblowers have been an important part of my career but i didn't really how important until about a year ago a young graduate student called me and said did you know you did 377 stories that involved whistleblowers and i said no, that's not possible and she counted them up and sent me a

stack. her math is pretty good, i guess. over the course of 25 years, i've interacted with whistleblowers almost weekly and for every story i've written, just like jim said and rich saids there is probably three that i passed on because i couldn't validate or verify or trust the information. it is a hit-and-miss proposition duthe value of what whistleblowers do is essential to our democracy and i think journalists when they play the facilitating role add to that process and add value to showing what's right and what's wroing and giving the public some accountability. the first whistleblower i encountered, i was 19 years old. someone called and said there is a big professional fight in madison. the boxer can only see from one eye. sure enough, he was blind in one eye and we exposed the fact that

wisconsin was willing to let a boxer try and get in the ring when everyone else rejected him. i thought this whistleblower thing is pretty easy. someone calls you up and you check it out and have a story. a few months later i turned 20 and graduated from college. a teacher said all across wisconsin teachers have been convicted of molesting children. we started a project and sure enough, we found 370 teachers that had molested children and moved to another distribute and started teaching again. again, i thought wow, this is really great. i can gets into this. and then i came to washington and realized wow, whistleblower is a much -- whistingblowing is a much more tricky and dark thing. i was only here for about six months and hasn't figured out the subway system and kept getting lost every day on the routes and this person called and said i've been watching what

you have been reporting and i need you to meet me at 6:30 tomorrow and i'll be wearing x and i'll leave a newspaper behind and you pick it up. i'm nuts and my wife thought i was nuts and 6:00 a.m. there were several homeless folks there and i tried to find a guy that was a little better dressed and there he was. there was a copy of "the "washington post" folded inhalf and inside there was a hand-scribbled note saying i just broke the law giving this to you. but you should read it. the risks and the legal consequences of whistleblowing are much greater. i've come to appreciate the complexities of the great relationship a great lawyer may have, a whistleblower has and we, the media have. i have some seven principles. i won't go through each of them

today but i would like to echo some things that jim and rich said. whistleblowing coverage is one of the most humanized experiences you'll have as a reporter. the range of emotions and pressures that a whistleblower faces can really complicate the communication process. i've seen whistleblowers who suffered from severe depression, paranoia, just post traumatic stress disorder in one case. the ability to get an accurate story is complicated by the things they endure every day. the unbelievable pressure and isolation they endure when they step forward and their colleagues back away from them and leave them in complete isolation. over the years i've tried to develop some principles to make sure at the end of the day that serve the whistleblower and the public with the same quality of journal itch. those are on the sheet today.

the first one is -- journalism. iver seen in many cases that the court of public opinion may be just as important as the court of law for whistleblowers. that is not usually the case in most legal cases where issues are are being fought out. oftentimes they seek protection they may not be able to get under the weak laws that our government provides the whistleblowers today. anybody who is going to represent the whistleblower needs to have some principles to deal with each other but the first principle is you have to be ready as a whistleblower and as a representative to engage the court of public opinion and understand the rules, the pressures of what journalists do when they come together. the second thing thing is when you start that relationship, it is essential. newt gingrich's mother might

remember. remember connie chung said between you and me and i guess mrs. beginning rich thought it was not going to be on camera but it was. on the record, can and will be used with your name attached to it. once it is gone, there is no taking it back. on background. this is important. if you are not using your name but you are providing your name, you want to step forward with the journalist and make sure you get the identity right. if i describe you too accurately you may get in trouble or too inaccurately, i may get the public in trouble. scooter libby tried to be called a congressional source in the judy miller case. getting the source on background is essential. there is a thing called deep background, which is more vague.

off the record, if you tell me something off the record, i can't use it because it came from you. i'm going to go try to find out what that is about. understand that a journalist, when you talk to them off the record, they won't quote you. they build a sense of trust. the third element is trust. you have to be able to build a relationship of trust. i've had whistleblowers. they felt like they were getting divorced from me because we had spent more time with each other than with our wives and kids. you spent a lot of time getting to know the person and their pressures and you have to build trust. one of the things the journalist does to build trust is to verify information. you have to be able to have a candid conversation and say that doesn't seem to check out.

that relationship of trust protects the public's interest of making sure what we report ultimately is accurate and precise and fair and balanced. at the end of the day, if you're a lawyer representing whistleblower, there is really only one thing journalists want more than anything else. facts. accurate facts. real facts. when you're dealing with a media person, know that we deal in the realm of facts. factual relaying back and forth builds trust and ensures that when the story ultimately comes out the public has a factual record to make a judgment about the allegations and the wrongdoing that may be there. the fifth thing is it is entirely a danger to step forward as a whistleblower because as you become more isolated and face more pressures, the allure of the media, the cameras, the town cars that pick you up and take

you to dinner to meet a famous tv correspondent can become intoxicating and it is easy sometimes to get caught up in the intoxication of the media limelight. it is important for the journalist and the whistleblower to understand that is the danger. i've seen them get too engaged in all the excitement and attention they were getting and strayed off caurs. it is easy to do when people are trying to wine and dine you. i think that is an important factor and for us as journalists it is very important. six, there are many different twice get information conveyed to a journalist. as someone who has faced the consequences of reporting information that was classified or that someone didn't want out, we have learned there are many different ways that a lawyer or a whistleblower who may be constrained about talking about something, there may be a gag order or a grand jury subpoena or secrecy rules that prevent them from talking. there are ways to point lawyers

to the information that we are looking for that don't violate any of those terms and guide the reporter there. have you looked at the brief information the court case recently? have you checked out the contract? little tidbits that keep us straight. guide us through a story even while one is remaining true to their oath. finally because over the treasures and the range of emotions that a whistleblower goes through, i found repeatedly at the end of a process there is a thing called fair and common process when you go and get the other side of the story the bhib often feel betrayal. we have to have both sides of the story and ensure what you told us is accurate. it doesn't your case if the public opinion believes it is wrong.

i think as -- the art of whistleblowing becomes for dangerous with the fewer legal protections that whistleblowers have for stepping forward, i think it is becoming more and more important. that's what i've -- >> thank you. i really want to thank you, john, for that. it does cover all of his principles, which i'm happy because i was going to ask him to cover. i'm checking them off one by one. i'm going to give the last presentation and this is from an attorney's perspective, who represents whistleblowers. first i would like to say that and i hope that the questions and answers, more of this comes out. one of the very first cases that i won and i actually covered this with my brother, mike, and we actually won it in the press, literally. it was a case of an atomic

weapons whistleblower at savannah. roger wentzel and he blew the whistle on illegal drug use and major safety issues in the construction of atomic weapons. he was the first national whistleblower at an atomic weapons site concerning safety. what we learned very quickly was that the law for atomic safety excluded the weapons industry so he had no rights. but he had an extremely interesting story and a lot of credibility. so we took it to the journalists at the "washington post" and she ran a really good story about his case. it was on page three. excellent story. we were not going to win anything but the contractor overreacted and fired his number one witness. so the firing of the witness then became a page one story in

the "washington post" and then continued coverage because of how outrageous the contractor reacted to the story. so then the journalist confronted the secretary of energy at a press conference about what the secretary of energy was doing, which triggered an inspector general investigation that ordered -- eventually ordered the whistleblowers all to be reinstated with back pay. how do we know it was won in the press? because mike went down to a hearing in south carolina for the whistleblowers. but the hearing was an absolute sham because there were no real legal rights. so mike went into it and he said we want due process. we will not participate in a hearing without due process and the examiners said this is our hearing and we're going to run the rules as we want to run it. will you have your whistleblower come in and tell us what

happened to her and mike said no, goodbye. the whistleblowers never showed up at their own hearing, yet we won the case. true story. they got reinstatement, back pay, because of the public pressure and i will also state, on the record, that even if it is not winning a case, that is the exception to the rule, i must say. don't think you're going to win your case that way. it can put pressure on an intelligent employer or government agency to back off. because it is pretty much what jim said. jim popkin said, for the press to actually run a story, they will do and should do an extensive review and investigation. they have to check the credibility, the the facts. they have to play the devils advocate and the whistleblower has to participate in that process. you have to give them the good, the bad and the ugly and show

them all the warts and weaknesses. if you can't essentially win your case with a journalist, you're not going to win it in court anyway or you're going to have a tough time. so the journalists have to do their job but once they run the story and stand behind ultimately those allegations either implicitly or explicitly but they view it as newsworthy, that can actually save the job of a whistleblower. unlike the contractors at savannah river that they realize the reason it is in the press is because there is probably a lot of issues here they should be dealing with instead of firing and shooting the messenger. there is a second point i want to make, which i think is often lost. in the united states, i like to say that. we know there is no major large whistleblower law and that we often think that whistleblowers lack protections.

what i like to state is i just got information, believe it or not, congress met in session. this is true and passed a sweeping whistleblower law covering and protecting americans to blow the whistle to the press. they did it unanimously and they had such faith in our system they presented it to all the states to back it up too. 3/4 did it very quickly and they all signed up. the number one whistleblower law in the world and in our country, the number one whistleblower law. congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or press. that is the law to have land. in 1968, the u.s. supreme court

found if you are a whistleblower working for the government and you blow the whist toll the press, you have constitutional protections and cannot be fired or retaliated against. now the gasp between the constitutional principle and the decisions and the reality is like the grand canyon. only a twisted lawyer loving the most difficult arguments would think it is as beautiful as the grand canyon but the gap is as wide as the grarned canyon. the -- grand canyon. the right and the implementation of that right. you have to hike down and hike back and hope you have enough water and hope you are well-supplied because there is a right. if you think that right is just going to come to you because the founding fathers wrote it in an important document, you are not living in the united states of america today. retaliation is the norm.

government officials who swear an allegiance to the constitution forgot about the first amendment, period. that's the reality but because those rights exist, you will be surprised how far you can go. for example, in 1995, we surprised a significant sector of the national news media and most lawyers in washington when we had an active duty f.b.i. agent with top secret clearances that were so top secret he could not tell me what the clearances were. who was responsible for managing the crime scene in the first terrorist attack on the world trade center. who had detailed information about the oklahoma city bombing case and who was a superadvisory

agent with the f.b.i. working there on those cases and we asserted his first amendment rights and eventually got permission for him to speak on television, criticizing the f.b.i. on those terrorist cases and keep his job. why? because when push comes to shove, the first amendment actually does exist. and it may -- you may have to go to court. you may have to get an injunction but there is such a thing as the first amendment and it does apply. how many government officials have the aweds aity to assert those rights publicly? very few. you can probably count them on your hand. that is a shame because the public's right to know is harmed. in the private sector, most courts will view blowing the whistle to the news media as a protected activity and try to

get protection under statute. unfortunately, just recently in february of 2010, a court in an unpublished decision went the other way. it was the first decision in a federal court that i saw going the other way. i think it is an outliner. i think it should be repealed and reversed. it is a district course. obviously there is now differences of opinion in the court system but the good law and the majority of courts and agency that have looked at it have found going to the news media to be protected turned normal whistleblower statutes. all of that being said, going the press as a whistleblower is always, in my view, a radical step. because you have gone -- you have a chain of command and did you exhaust it? there are government agencies often designed to get the

information. did you use them? going to the press will open you up to heightened scrutiny and it will open you up to the types of leakses, to the types of counterpunch that you heard from our speakers that a whistleblower can expect. going to the news media is often the very end of the line. not the beginning of the line. that doesn't mean in law there is a difference but in reality there is. there is an important decision from the united states department of labor that it is still a good law within the labor department and it analyzed whether going to the press should be protected in the private sector, as we say under the first amendment, it should be protected for government workers but should it be protected in the private sector? the analysis was this. a whistleblower who goes to the government with an allegation of wrongdoing is protected.

what about a whistleblower who goes to the press? should they be protected? and the statute is silent. the statute says going to the government is protected. and what the analysis was, how do you get the government to take an allegation seriously? how do you actually make change in the united states? how do you force a bureaucracy to be responsive and the analysis was by going to the press. a politician or a bureaucrat may ignore allegation of a whistleblower for years but when they hit the newspapers, they have to take it seriously, often. that's what happened in that case we did in 1986. the issues raised at savannah

river had been raised for at least two years. this guy had been hammered down. the department of energy had originally thrown this case out. the department of energy had lobbied against him. i mean, looking at his case in 1986, he was a loser. because there was -- the contractor fired him and the local d.o.e. office had slammed him down but once the facts got out through the national news media and a new light was shined on it and the pressure was put on the secretary of energy, it was all reopened, all reinvestigated. so it is clear, but had that whistleblower shown up to the "washington post" day one, there probably wouldn't have even be been a story because he wouldn't have had a track record to back it up. so i think the good law is going to the press is protected. but the reality of the law is

it's risky. in the private sector, unfortunately, you can't say with a certainty anymore whether it is protected or not, although the good law says it is. in the government sector, it should be but reality is very different. i also want to state that no whistleblower laws currently protect the disclosure of secret or classified information to an unauthorized source. so even though the first amendment says freedom of speech, that does not mean that that gives a whistleblower immunity for violating other law that may be in effect. that could also include in the private sector rules on confidential business information, secrecy grems, nondisclosure agreements, etc. there is a host of