let's just finish that when you see, when you go with we're all aware of whistleblowers who lives are permanently change when they make their revelations. many had to prison. many never work in their fields of expertise . ever again, many lose friends, family and respected their peers. so why is it that some whistleblowers get the red carpet treatment? why are some lauded by congress in the media? will look at the double standard between whistleblowers, who risk everything, and people whom the media like to poll whistleblowers, who are little more than corporate folks. people or individuals hoping to make a political point. i'm john curiosity if you're watching the whistleblowers, the. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 for

instance, hogan was a facebook data engineer and scientist. she appeared 1st on the american news program, 60 minutes, and then before a congressional committee on capital hill to say that facebook misled investors on how they handled heat speech misinformation teenage mental health and violent content. why did she go public with her revelations? huggins said that she quote, wanted to make facebook the best company. it can be unquote. senator richard blumenthal, a democrat from connecticut, said that hoggett quote wants to fix facebook not burnett to the ground on quote hogan, got a handsome book deal after her testimony and billionaire pier ahmed, you are the founder of ebay, offered her the free services of his public relations firm, that's a pretty nice outcome if you're francis hogan. twitter whistleblower peters that go had a similar experience known as much that go with a highly respected hacker who eventually found his way to employment at darpa.

that's the defense department, super secret defense, advanced research projects agency. from there he went to twitter as the director of information security, but he was forced out of the company in early 2022 after only 2 years on the job. it was 8 months later that much went to congress to complain that twitter was deficient in its handling of user information and spam bots. he added that twitter made false representations to billionaire elan musk, who at the time was in the process of trying to buy the company. much received a buyout from twitter that paid him $7000000.00. a gag order was attached to the settlement except where it concern congressional testimony. so everybody's happy, much gets to make his revelations, he gets to keep his $7000000.00. and twitter says they've already implemented his recommendations. they get to call him a disgruntled ex employee. how do we tell a real whistleblower from a fake one? how do we tell the difference between somebody who's jeopardizing everything from

one who's trying to cash in? we're joined by louis clark, he's the ceo and executive director of the government accountability project. louis, thank you so much for joining us. let's start with that basic of questions. how can you tell the difference between a real whistleblower and somebody who is trying to cash in or maybe make a name for themselves? for one thing is that sir assumes that motive is. ready important, and i think that what we focus on when it comes in our doors is whether they have what they have to say in terms of the, the truth of the matter, what they're presenting, the law, or the latest most laws protecting whistler's. what the key is, do these people have a reasonable belief that what they're saying is, right? and so we focus on, are they write about what they're saying?

and then if they are, then we try to do something about it. the problem with motive is it always know what it's absolutely impossible to know what someone's motive might be. and i can't think of many cases that we've presented, or many cases that we've taken, and an advocacy that we've gone forth with were the other side. doesn't say something really negative about the motive of the person, you know, they're disgruntled employee or they just want to make money. i'd say, does want to make money is probably one of the most common representations that the our opponent say about that was lower. so i don't think that you need to focus on the west to blow, or what we focus on is the wrong doing that. that was for present just as an aside,

when i 1st blew the whistle on the torture program, the government accountability project left to my defense. and one of the things that i learned very early on was that motivation really was irrelevant. my attorney at the time my gap attorney told me that that she wasn't going to focus at all on motivation. that the key was exactly what you just said. it is. is the information correct? is the information true. and then we just moved on from there. yeah, because what you need to focus on is the wrong doing what the other side often does is they want to pick a pick apart or try to find some kind of skeleton in the closet or whatever. so the focus is on the whistleblower. and if you focus on the width of law or what motivates whistleblower,

then you can then not have to worry about what the whistler has to say. well, that's not our approach we put on trial. the company or the organization, not the was lower. not only are you the ceo and executive director of the government accountability project, but you also help to launch it. gap is now the most important whistleblower protection organization in america. gap represented me, as i said a moment ago after i blew the whistle on the torture program. i know that you're inundated day in and day out by people seeking gaps help a lot of people consider themselves to be whistleblowers and they're looking for somewhere to turn. how do you begin to wade through the information to separate the real from maybe the not so real or the cases that require immediate attention from those that don't? well, of course you have there immediately examine the evidence. so you look at both the

truth of what they have to say, and you also look at the credibility of the person coming forward. in many ways it's almost like you're, are you, you would, if you're hiring someone for your organization, you want to make sure that they're credible, they're honest, and cetera. so you sorry, investigate them in the sense of their credibility. ready which you can established by just looking at the record. i mean they've got outstanding performance appraisals for 101520 years. i mean that's common. and so, you know, they're really good employees and, and the credibility is usually established that way as well as well as talking to peers talking to people who know them in a way that's obviously confidential. but you can find out from, you know, obviously peers what a person's reputation might be. so you do do that. that's just due diligence. and

also a very important factor for the people that come to our organization is how important it is. and unfortunately, many people who turn away just because yes, it was of line, but it's not significant enough for us to be engaged because we have limited resources. and so we do have to focus on the cases. they're going to be more in the public interest or, you know, or certainly, and certainly as you suggested, immediate concern. so someone's going to really be hurt if we don't step step forward and try to, to deal with what these whistleblowers are saying is some danger and public health safety danger. for example, i mentioned in an earlier episode of the show that an israeli journalist, by the name of el press, published a book called beautiful souls, which is a cycle article look at for whistleblowers in modern history. he found that whistleblowers as a group tend to have

a very highly defined sense of right and wrong form was far more well defined than the general population. whistleblowers tend to see things in terms of black and white rather than shades of gray. and they're willing to make their revelations without concern for their personal well being. is that your experience with some of these better known corporate whistleblowers as well? are they different than, than national security whistleblowers? let's say. no. no, i don't. i think that are the same in, in our experience, but where i would, you know, i love how the brand actually. but where i, if there's a suggestion and is description that things are actually gray, then i have a problem with that because, you know, there's sort of an assumption there that everything's gray and there was lower, those somehow seeing black and white when things are great and i actually don't see

it that way. what i see is whistleblowers do have a keen sense of personal responsibility, a keen sense of essentially or taxpayer sensibility or the instability of people. you know, consumers and center i'm it. i. so i do think, i do think it's true. they see things in black and white, but you know, when torture every good, you know, when to torture every, every step the ball. i mean, you, you can say, oh, let's gray because, you know, sometimes maybe torture words which i don't think is actually the, the truth. i don't think history has shown that, but then say that torture did work. it's still bad. it's still, you know, it's still black, we still have to stop it. and so i do think that as you know, i do think they have a keen sense of reality. i also think that there is a no story element of altruism that is also very

prevalent amongst whistleblowers, which is a sense essentially they do have a sense of connection to people. they don't know. for example, consumers, taxpayers, citizens. i mean that, you know, human beings, i mean like, and so for example, there was, was on peanut butter and salmonella and foundation in peanut butter. i mean, this man thought about his own, you know, what the public, you know that there are human beings out there. there are children out there. they are going to be damaged by this product. and so he was moved to do something about that. and i do think that's very real for whistleblowers. they have a sense of connection to the larger humanity or the larger society which is often

absent in. busy all those thousands of employees that see the same thing and don't do anything about it. and so i think that really they really stand apart in that sense. i also think there's another element to that i would bring up, which is essentially is that there is a huge per stat whistleblowers who are they, they never intended to be with. all they're doing is their job. and they're doing their job when the company or the government agency really doesn't want them to do that job. right? you know, they really don't want, they really are off the mation of their basis. and they're in gates and wrong doing engaging production. and so the person who's job is to audit that problem or audit the agency or have compliance with the other regulations or the rules of organization that you know, that all sudden the,

the agency or the company doesn't want to follow the rules. you know, the basic to the, you know, the enterprise if

she also has yes, 20 miles of sure. which will be your, that is china. so that all that much to leverage to london e them we what russia is created over the past 1500 years. there's no question, partially condemned, reviled and reject it. just to remind you that it's a sunny at the will of bramble, there's a lot closer on a whole college anytime. thank you said a little sure. the list joining total condemnation gross daily. and now includes, does dance gauge to cascade and shostakovich that i need to you a quick call left, but yes, you lost your signal to me. the time will you do obama lee? you're not going to do that

a little bit more. ah, more if the school bus, the bulk more issue my for the mobile, when you vision annual g d. p per capita is about $4000.00 euros. the la garza, we've got drugs on a mobile, a wash there to sleep up on a planet consti feel for group us really until near please. when you find them all belong to? kathy mitchel, a laws thought they would have thought of unemployment is off the charts. moldova territorial integrity and sovereignty, are we respect no better than the country which enjoys financial support from the u . s. and the you is constantly roth,

by political and corruption scandals. but all that didn't stop moldova, obtaining a new candidate status in 2022. i. 2 i welcome back to the whistleblowers. we're speaking with louis clark, he's ceo and executive director of the washington d. c based government accountability project. we're talking about why some whistleblowers are vilified, while others are celebrated even enriched for their whistle blowing. you've helped whistleblowers from every walk of life since 978. are there differences in whistle blowing depending on industry or on whether a person is in government or in the private sector? do do whistleblowers in these 2 different areas approach their whistleblower, their whistle blowing differently. yeah,

i think there are differences. for example, when, if you're talking about government, then essentially they employ or is really the american people. right? you know, or this is the boat or whatever. i mean is the fact that matter is they have a constituency of the country. the sovereign is the people. and so therefore, in, in government you pretty much have a direct line and also for the all of office that you mentioned is another, you know, absolutely paramount standard that many, including yourself were following in, in your, in your work line. and so therefore that that has a higher standard in the private sector, you have to deal with the idea of profit, right? and so, and in that regard, maybe you get gray in the sense that the company itself has

a duty to stop shareholders. but why wait a minute? what if that means that you had cut corners in terms of nuclear industry, for example. it's cost more to be, you know, to essentially secure safety or, or establish safety or maintain safety. and you might want to cut some bars in order to make more money in order to make shareholders happier. so i, if you do end up having a obligation to be a part of the organization is making money for shareholders. at the same time, you have public responsibility and social responsibility at the cooperation, which also is plays into this the thinking was lower. and so we do address in that sense little bit differently. i mean, how we would say that basically, it's never helpful. essentially,

if you look at it, sir, look at, you know, ethics is good, business is often said in the corporate world, well, ethics is ethics, it might be bad business. but at that goal, and that's right, that's the standard. and so you do get some ambiguity in the private sector, the, you know, in the public as, as i guess, as, as much as you would in the, in the public sphere. and in your experience, have you encountered whistleblowers who, when they blew the whistle, their parent company or parent governmental agency rather than attacking them or trying to silence them said, oh my goodness, we didn't realize this was going on. this is a serious issue. we're going to have to fix this right away. is that common? is it rare? what's your experience? unfortunately, i think it's rare, but i do think it,

but it does happen. and, and in fact, in every organization, there are a lot of people who are blown, it was all, and they have continued up the ladder. it's just that, you know, that they got away with it in a way, perhaps, or they, they were more effective. and in how they pull it off. but the fact of the matter is it's all its too infrequent. but i think increasingly, increasingly, companies are realized in the value with supplying good. i recently read an interview that you did in which you talked about how necessary whistleblower whistleblowers are in all walks of life. a toy company, for example, imported toys from china that were painted with lead paint, which we know when ingested can lead to brain damage. in children, you talked about defense contractors in iraq,

padding their expenses to essentially steal money from the american taxpayers. that sort of an old story that goes on all the time. you talked about a pharmaceutical company making vaccines for children, despite having a compromise, quality control system. the problems seem to just never end. and as a result, we need more and more whistleblowers. are you optimistic or pessimistic about the trajectory of things? is it getting easier for whistleblowers to make their revelations or is it becoming more difficult? no, actually i do think it's becoming easier. i mean that the, there was a poem artist, paul, last year of with the blower data to the american public. you know, voters about what's a blog in 86 percent of the population of this country say that they're in support of strong was for protection. well, that was not true 40 years ago. that certainly wasn't even true when you was so

affectively. and so in incredibly actually, you know, that wasn't true, it's it, but it's become, you know, it's certainly become recognized as an important part of having an effective government. and also having essentially corporations that adhere to the law. lewis, you've seen pretty much everything there is to see in the world of whistle blowing . what advice would you give to somebody considering blowing the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse or legality? is there way to do it safely to protect oneself? is probably not too many ways that you can do it. oh, really protect yourself. i mean, even leaking information can be identified to a person. so it's never completely say, but i would say that the 1st thing someone to do is to find help before

they start the process of blowing that was so obviously someone who's caught up in the job is just doing their job. and the company doesn't, or the agency does not want them to do their job, then it might be too late. but for the, for many words lowers if they would seek counsel, experience counsel and counsel is not going to say, don't do that, but it should be the counsel that says ok, you want this to be dealt with, that's do effectively. and that's think about the best way to do is develop a strategy before you actually go public or go say within even within the company itself. i would actually like to reiterate that people ask me all the time if i would, if i would do something differently. if i were to sort of relive my own experience and i said the same thing every time,

i would have sought out legal advice before blowing the whistle. instead i just blew the whistle and then i came to gap. i was reactive instead of being proactive . so my own advice is the same as yours. if a person is considering blowing the whistle, they really need to speak to an attorney who specializes in whistle blowing 1st and to try to protect himself or herself. yeah, we have a number of clients who, who have blown there was 4 years, for example, the department of homeland security. and it's unbelievable how much they've been able to. ready accomplish, even though they were on 60 minutes, and even though they had new york times articles, by the way that we approached it and the way that we had their back and not all the ourselves but many members of congress and several committees. the congress. i have

their back so they can be touched. and so that we do work on, on trying to get as much support for the whistleblower before that before that was lower is endangered. thank you, louis. that's all we have for you today. i'd like to thank our guests lewis clark. he's c e o and executive director of the government accountability project. i'm john curiosity and this has been the whistleblowers. 2 2 2 ah ah the claims of the king of the belgians leopold the 2nd to the congo were finally authorized by the leading european countries in 1885. in the very heart of the

african continent, a state under the rule of the belgian monarch was declared. since the beginning, the congo free state was total may him for the local population and functioned as a universal concentration camp. the majority of the population, including women and children, were forced to work on the rubber plantations. those who failed to fulfill their quota were beaten and mutilated to keep the congolese people under control. the king set up the so called for spook leak, which were punitive detachments that cast terror on the captured country and its inhabitants. fearing that their subordinates would simply waste bullets hunting for wild animals, the officers demanded that the soldiers gave an answer for every bullet used. and as proof presented a chop hand of an african. it was not uncommon when trying to justify the use of

the ammunition, the colonist amputated the hands of not only those who were dead, but also of those who were kept alive. the atrocious exploitation of the congo turned into a real genocide in only 20 years. the policy of the belgians led to the death of nearly 10000000 people alongside the holocaust, that genocide of the congo population is considered to be one of the grimmest pages in the history of mankind. ah, a proof of francis come in europe with a clue. what doug with some, i'd love an opportunity,

a young you give it a good idea why i think i've got that up with the word made that up way. anything that i beat was a lot to shift left in things you could see it wasn't much our up with laura mitchell. i had to be put off with this is for more a conflict over our end. the peace involving do not do it. states and russia, it's a question about a sphere of influence in the former soviet space. it holds the year abroad,

and ukraine easy. so i'm sure, in order to do this, you know, the state doesn't want to do a lot to happen and this is not the what is going on with the headlines on, on the international a 13 year old resident of jerusalem has been identified as the shooter in an attack that wounded to people in the city today comes after a mass shooting took the lives of 7 on friday. the trenches are maybe about take you long away from google. lazar were intense fighting and continues as we speak. a russian military force is engaging in heavy fighting for the city of ogle at audits and the donuts republic. our correspondent remains on the frontline also here in the program, we begin on a special coverage of the legacy left.