this guy had been hammered down. the department of energy had originally thrown his case out. the department of energy had lobbied against -- i mean, looking at his case in 19 6, he was a loser, because 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 shed on it and pressure was put on the secretary of energy, it was all reopened, all reinvestigated. so it's clear, but had that whistle blower shown up to the washington post day one, there probably wouldn't have even been a story because he wouldn't have had a track record to back it up. so a good law is going to the press, but the reality of the law is it's risky.

the private sector, unfortunately, you can't say with a certain anymore whether it's protected or not, although a good law says it is. in the government sector, it should be, but reality is very different. i also want to state that no whistle blower 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 whistle blower immunity for violating other laws that may be in effect. that could also include in the private sector rules on confidential business information, secrecy agreements, nondisclosure agreements, etc. there's a host of land mines, especially when you're going to

the press. landmines, especially when you're going to the press. why? because if you blow the whistle and the letters say to an auditor, no one actually see the letter. your managers may know you are protesting a certain safety practice, but they may not know it seikaly what you said. but if something goes in the press, they can breed what you said. they can refer it to the security office. they can refer to their lawyers on trademarks events and if your name is associated with it, you may just have signed your employment death warrant. so going to the press has a lot of downsides, a lot of difficulties. it also can be the way to vindication or actually get the change. the bottom line is there are legal protections if you need to

go to the press and those have to be carefully studied and implemented on a case-by-case recess with a lot of review and care. finally, if i do say and all the journalists they meet this bill, but you have to work with the journalist that understands the seven -- six rules that mr. solomon typed about. that is professional to understand what a whistleblower goes through in both the vetting process and in their own personalized. and there are a lot of journalists he do that. i'm honored to have three of them here. so that is the legal summary and what we'll do is when i'll open it up for questions. i have a whole slew of written down, but before doing going to open it up to the floor. so any questions? >> steve, when we're talking about dr. waiters and the fbi

and when push came to shove, and you are able to get a sitting fbi agent top-secret clearance to be able to talk to the news media. now, what's missing from the discussion is the meetings that you have had with your partners before that happened, where you had to go over the risk of whether you were simply practicing law when you were done with this process and what would we do if push came to shove. so i think maybe when you're talking push comes to shove him into her not really putting the full deck of cards on the table as the risk factors that avoid years enter into when they deal with whistleblowing at the highest level. >> i think any of the panelists can respond. i'll respond first.

in dealing with a whistleblower with high-level information and you know the whistleblower has classified information and you're trying to make sure no classified information is ever disclosed, everyone who's participating in that process has a risk. and i know mr. solomon has personally had some of those issues and he can talk about them with some of the searches. but yeah, when you're on, when you are standing up for a client and that client is very controversial, not because they're good or bad person, but the information they had his electric, is radio act did and can cause change. there are risks both to everyone who's involved in that process and that has to be weighed. and again, if you are a whistleblower, you need to partner up with lawyers and with journalists who are willing to take that risk.

if they're not, you know, they may abandon you and your time of need. on the other hand, it's the understanding and the respect for that risk that i think would lead to the caution necessary that you never have a disaster. not as kind of open about those comments to the other panelists if you'd like to say something from a journalist respect it or have you worked on it. >> about the risk? >> not just the risk of the whistleblower, but the rest are implicit in a controversial story. >> excuse me. when you're dealing with classified information, that's always the riskiest, that combined with an anonymous source who more than likely is not willing to go on camera or go public because, you know, maybe with larry franklin case and all of that, you know, there

is a separate national security blog that you have to deal with. and so come you proceed very slowly and cautiously and generally what i've been able to do and i'm sure it's true to everybody here is that you take -- if i caught the record information. you are not going to broadcast at her publisher, but you're going to use it as the lead to verify the knot of it and either i'm classified way or with senior government officials who will in effect declassified it for you. and i know that that's happened to me in a couple of instances where somebody way down in the trenches like something and couldn't go with it and i worked my way up the chain and got to a senior intel official and they

completely laid it out for us. sometimes in the hope of getting us just do not read a story, but other times just to make sure we got it right because the other risk when you're dealing with classified information is coming up, in the world of intelligence in the world of espionage in all, it's so hard to get through the smoke and find the fire and to realize if you're being manipulated, if you're being used, if it's the quality of the intelligence to begin with, it's all very tricky and we spend a lot of months, year, two years trying to verify inks. and the networks who are the people who all of the news business, you know, they don't want to, you know, if you're accused of violating national security, that is x. the company's reputation.

they carry about battle lodge. ndp defined, they care about that a lot. so you've really got to negotiate a very tricky road. but often you can't, it just takes time. >> yeah, i personally have endured a little bit of the legal consequences of reporting on national security and in some cases grand jury cases. in 2001 just before 9/11, the justice department took my home phone records in my work phone records tried to figure out who i was talking to him a story about all of the things, all of the ethical misdeeds that senator torricelli of new jersey engaged in at that time in examining why he was prosecuted in criminal court and they got a judge to sign a subpoena and they took my phone records trying to find out my sources. for shy, they didn't. i thought that was enough of a near-death experience i've had my one and life and i could move

on in 13 months later the bush administration, using a very arcane, 19th century local search and seizure authority at the border to document, non-classified documents that are then sent to me from a source in the philippines and hold onto them. i never got my package impact fedex who was delivering my package was instructed by our government to lie to me if it fell off the package in a horse cart and we and they paid me my $100 insurance money. but the fbi actually cut without a warrant by mail and tried to ascertain how i got it and why would we finally figured out what they've done a pathetic story was just a cover story they set for a chance to apologize. i was wondered why took forages to apologize. so there are consequences. not that worried about the consequences to me as i was cognizant of the consequences of anyone who comes to talk to me as if i miss identify them, if i slip up even one time too someone who is listening or tried to figure out the identity of a source that may jeopardize

an a persons life. i use these two aberrations in my own career sort of just chalk up to some unusual behavior by the government. but there are consequences for us come but they're always consequences for the people who step forward in the thing that always his funds on her and i know all three of our minds. >> jim, do want to comment? next question, please. >> how do you deal with keeping a story alive when public opinion kind of meson or public-interest moves on. son. a lot of times issues so far as raising our large problems that might take a lot of time to finally get resolution. the public outrage can, you know, change quicker than the problems get resolved. >> jim, we'll start with you on that one. >> like is coming up, i don't really look at it that way because i want to get the story out. i'm not so much that is kind of a tinge of maybe advocating for the person or the cause.

so i really haven't had a situation where i've wanted to keep the fire burning for that reason. so i guess if you really speak to that as a journalist. i don't know if you guys are great. >> i think jim's right. our role is not to be the advocacy role fit the facts of the public and the paranormal effects to give to the public than move on. but it is from ensure legal perspective and obviously a perspective a challenge. >> i would just say that coming and no, it is important, it's important. and you go for it and you look into it. and if by the time you get to proving that, the issue has moved on. there really is nothing you can do about it if it's just not important anymore come either to your editors or to the public.

i mean, i do argue with my bosses, but i mean if the practical reality is what was an issue in 2007 isn't an issue in 2009, you know, you're not there to put the story on, just to put the story on. gorgeous they are to come you know, report something that continues to be important. >> and here and part of our invitation list was to have three different types of journalists, newsmagazine, nightly news and print. and in terms of the follow-up any story and this is something to always think about because a whistleblower can establish relationship with the journalist and a sense that the journalist becomes interested in the story. there is usually lots more to the story than it's ever initially reported. but a magazine show like 60 minutes is harder for them to do lots of follow-up because their

format is as newsmagazine, 10, 15 minute feature piece. nightly news is the same way. they're the very limited amount of time on the nightly news show to do a story and a follow-up is very rare and much more difficult. print, on the other hand, is your best chance of getting a follow-up because of the nature of the story and also -- i hope i panelists here don't take offense to it, but at some point it comes like a baseball game, like a sporting event. you wince at the end? you know, you have an issue and there are people that will want to follow that issue all the way through to a conclusion. and print is the best way to do that from my days. if they come back into the electronic media, some big event changing event happened, but print is the best way to follow-up on it. and again, we have here are three representatives from the national news media, i know some of them have root and local news

media and often a story that was a national story at one point they become a focal story because there's just a lot of interest in that local energy. so it's just a question of how that story has moved. >> i would beg to differ slight ,o@ h#á@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is set the agenda. we will put a story that might land on page 8:15 of the daily newspaper, we'll showcase it as one of the three on sunday night, and like the dick clark story, like a number of stories that i've done, you know, it then gets picked up by the daily papers, and the daily papers may do the incremental followup that we won't do, but lisp, if the whistle blower goes on camera and then suffers from retaliation, i mean, we'll

be all over that, and there will be a followup story. but there also will be in the newspaper. and, you know, there's sort of a symbiotic thing going on with print and tv, either i think particularly when you're dealing with the national broadcast media. and tv. i think particularly when you're dealing with the national broadcast media. >> in its 100% right. i was going to tell a story from 60 minutes as an example. we did a show, worked with 60 minutes on a show, a translator from the fbi and is part of the show we just had a one minute segment of it who is a unit chief who went on the show and said what she was saying was shed credibility. while that unit chief got retaliated against immediately after the show and 60, to its credit, restaurant and there and did a second show like two weeks or three weeks later on the

retaliation of the witness. and then that triggered an inspector general investigation and the assistant or who engaged in the retaliation was removed from his session. and he's the only time that i know about the fbi were a manager was actually removed from their position positions for retaliating against a whistleblower. that explains from my live as a voyeur, you know, when a major media outlet does, in other words, if one of the reason why three whistleblowers advantage take on a case and she also was indicated by a full investigation. it is very done for an employer to then start retaliating against witnesses because thankfully it's been my history with the press that the press doesn't like to see their source

is getting slammed and will rally up. so i'm only talking in generalities. though her will often be a good follow up. so i hope that though her will often be a good follow up. so i hope that though her will often be a good follow up. so i hope that >> another question, please. >> well, i have a question. rich, when you were discussing descartes, you mentioned that he was able to frame the debate, which is very unusual in that -- in many respects. a lot of whistleblowers don't really get to frame the debate. the media frame set before them. a prime example that i had was after 9/11, we had information that was well-known that the nuclear power facilities are at risk for airstrikes and the

federal government was covering up the fact. and we have bleached to us the information that dennis or did that. so something could have been to address the issue. and when we couldn't get anyone to take it seriously and the government and admit that they're lying to the federal -- or at least tell us something that made us feel that the country was did. we went to the media and the media ended up running the story about how this document was found in the public records at the nrc identified that it was -- to the new power plants were safe and that al qaeda could have gotten this. but the point of going to the media was to correct the problem. and after which ones you had what it enters the closing down and shutting off any information that should legitimately be out there so we can really assess what was going on. and so that was like the exact

opposite of being able to frame what was going on. and so i'm wondering with dick clark and the whispers something in which he was able to do to frame the debate. was whether this level of sophistication? did he have an attorney? to be at the representative? why was he able to frame it so successful? >> because he so smart. i think he anticipated everything at the white house would throw at them. i never had this discussion with him, but when they came after him, he seems to be one step ahead of them. and so i just think he not only did what he felt he had to do, but he was smart enough to realize what the reaction would he and he -- and you know, he

prepared himself for it. in the other thing that went on acm agnew each other for a long time before the piece ran. and it was clear that we had a meeting of the minds about what the piece would be. i mean, if he shopped there and had one thesis and i have another thesis, you know, a would like to them about what my thesis was and if it was at odds with his, he might well have gone elsewhere to do it. and i wouldn't have blamed him. you know, for a piece like that, you know, you not only -- after you're satisfied yourself that the facts are there and that this person, you know, motivated for the right reasons, you know, you develop a sense of identity with the source in this way, that you don't want to do

anything that is going to hurt him. you know, and ultimately he or she has to make your decision. and if we don't see eye to eye on the piece, then i don't want him to do it with me, you know, then he should go and maybe somebody at the "washington post" or abc will frame it the way he did. but that was not an issue with us. so there's a lot of off-camera stuff. i mean, you know, days, weeks, in which all of this is discussed and he came to know intrinsically how i saw the story and therefore the way he thought is the way i saw it after a thorough investigation and we will forward. and so that's how he was able to frame it. >> this is not strictly relevant to the question about framing, the rich just brought up an

interesting point. i often found that when you engage in this relationship and you go through georgiou diligence, at a certain point you really do become very closely associated with a whistleblower if you've than a story. and your credibility is on the line at the same time. i found in my own case, you know, the organizations that i worked for like the stories, that they wanted to make sure they were airtight. and if a serious challenge came to the story, i had to defend its almost as strongly as the whistleblower did. so that's why it was so important to that work up front. you can intrinsically linked with your own whistleblower when you do the stories. >> so elaborate on that. i'm sure the lawyers go through this with their clients. i mean, when you meet somebody who is sharing all of this with

you, like john said your domain, you know, you almost become a married couple. and, you know, if they're taking -- if they're acting bravely and their team in the interest of a higher principle, you can't help but like them often. but at the same time, at the end of the day, you're a journalist and you have a devotion to truth and you have, quite honestly, every card for your own career. and so you have to have this parallel set of relationships going on where you may have liked the guy and you may have wanted and you'll never want to do anything to hurt them, but you have to be ruthless about your pursuit of the facts and the truth. and when push comes to shove,

for reasons of self-interest and there's reasons of what got you into journalism in the first race. you go with the facts. and i mean, one of the classic examples before my time at "60 minutes." i forgot his name now, some vietnam era colonel. i want to say herbert -- i don't know. he came to "60 minutes" with this unbelievable story. mike wallace and barry landrieu was the producer. and they went weeks and months going down one afternoon about what the story would be in at the end of the day, barry landrieu, the producer, realized that this guy who it got was actually a fraud and was perpetrating a major fraud on the u.s. government and on "60 minutes" and the news media and barry turned the tables and in the end, you know, his devotion was to the facts, to the truth.

and so, so that -- i guess the point is, you know, you can like somebody, you can identify with somebody, but at the end of the day, it's got to check out and we check it out ruthlessly. our devotion to the truth is the matter. so, that's my elaboration. >> i think you summed it up perfectly. i remember one little incident of a guide with stories about and buy a waste since there was something he hadn't told her they couldn't get it from anyone. finally i found the flaw in his background and i put it out there and i remember he said how could she do that? that's what we are. we're not friends at the end of the day. worldly professionals and we trusted with the public trust of getting the story completely and if you didn't tell me and it's essential to the american public, we're going to report it. or not there should be our advocate. i remember how angry was.

does a very powerful moment of screaming and learning and calling me names. but that's what were entrusted with and we really have to stay true to. it's hard not to get a touch of these whistleblowers and you have to pull yourself back him up and remind yourself that even though what they're going through, your job is to stay as neutral as honest an arbitrary to the facts as you can possibly be. >> i'm going to try to question to the panelists. i hope it's appropriate. i would just like each of them to it respond to their view of protecting sources, even though under the u.s. constitution, there is no first amendment right to keep a source confidential. so therefore you can be compelled the recipient a comic grand jury or civil subpoena to reveal a source. what's your personal view on that as a journalist, not just politically, like how you deal with that in dealing with sources is what i would like to

know. i'm not looking for your -- we understand what the news media comes from as a matter of ideology, but i'm just looking forward to you personally deal that when you're dealing with confidential services. >> i'll jump in here. my view on this changeover, you know, the 25 years i was reporter, i used to think that that was kind of sacrosanct and you -- i'm not speaking from a personal point of view, but in terms of the law that sources really would have conjecture. i saw that been abridged over the years and obviously you look at coming in now, during the bush administration what happened in a lot of reporters, john, that's a good example and that's actually became come you know, all most typical in a way. the other thing i saw is that corporations, these big corporations, especially when

the economy started to go south, there was a lot of pressure. no one wanted a big lawsuit like that. and i saw the legal departments kind of way for a little bit good they want us dead fast as i wanted them to be. and so i would enter into a relationship to a source with a whistleblower and i kind of pepper that first conversation with a lot of caveats. towards the end of my career, journalism career i wouldn't go in and sit your protected and backward to go to jail if we all died before it turned you over. i'd be more realistic about it same i will do everything in my power to protect you. however, there maybe circumstances that come up with out of my control. and you know, i thought about what would happen if in my case at nbc said, we're not going to back you. this wasn't