unless she radiates to you'll showcase is under nathaniel. that sounds good. it's a ways it up to a boy. ah, ah, what would be my last name w, what i'm in my chair to assess laura doesn't want that much extra finance up under that whole we're all aware of whistleblowers whose lives are permanently changed when they

make their revelations. many had to prison. many never work in their fields of expertise, ever again, many loose friends, family and the respect of their peers. so why is it that some whistleblowers get the red carpet treatment? why are some lauded by congress and the media will look at the double standard between whistle blowers, who risk everything and people whom the media like to paul whistleblowers, who are little more than corporate spokespeople or individuals hoping to make a political point. i'm john here who you're watching the whistleblowers. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 francis 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 capitol hill to say that facebook misled investors on how they handled heet 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 did 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 most 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 sort of 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 least most laws protecting whistleblowers. what the key is, do these people have a reasonable belief that what they're saying is, right? and so we focus on our, 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 you don't always know what is sometimes absolutely impossible to know what someone 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 where 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 just want to make money is probably one of the most common representations that the, our opponents say about the worst work. so i don't think that you need to focus on the west. the 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 path 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 focused on the width of law or what motivates it, was the blower 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, are not only are you the ceo and executive director of the government accountability project, but you also helped 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 ca 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, 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 and 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 would turn away just because, yes, it was a 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 that are going to be more in the public

interest or, you know, or certainly as soon 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 in 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. one 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, no, i don't. i think that 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 is 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 a lower or somehow seen in 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, etc. 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 ever 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, it's still black with the have to stop it. and so i do think that as you know, i do think they have a keen sense of bar ality. i also think that there's another 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 pass pairs citizens. i mean that, you know, human being,

i mean, you know, it's like and so for example, there was on peanut butter and, 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 or was the floors. they have a sense of connection to the larger humanity or the larger society which is often absent in, 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 percent whistleblowers who are they,

they never intended to be with them or 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? they really don't want, they really are off the mation of the organization. and they're engaged in wrong doing, engaging production. and so the person whose 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 bases to the, you know, the enterprise. thank you, louis clark. stay tuned. we're going to take a short break and come back for more with lewis clark, the ceo and executive director of the whistleblower protection organization. government accountability project. ah. 2

2 ah ah ah ah, lisa can't go to russian state little never. i've side us on the most landscape with

55 with we will ban in the european union. the kremlin. yup. machine. the state on to russia for date and c r t spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all band on youtube and pinterest with me. what are you crazy? oh, yes. or took a look. i lost most of my friend. that did. i was broken. i wasn't able to save anyone. i did

nothing. i met wilson. 2030 god, virtually in my work. and make me start talking to willy waiting for me to have him. i'm happy that thrown you'd find is willie little john, you can go to sleep. mamma, he become my new friend. the one was love gonna die or oh because he is. oh, stay alive. it was they next to me if i'm not crazy enough, i'm not gonna make it. 2

2 ah, welcome back to the whistleblowers. we're speaking with louis clark, he's c e o and executive director of the washington dc 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 1978. 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 voters,

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 office that you mentioned is another, you know, absolutely param. a standard that many, including yourself were following in, in your, in your with 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, 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 sense you do end up having a obligation to be a part of the organization is making money for shareholders of the same time you have public responsibility and social responsibility at the corporation, which also is plays into this the thinking was lower. and so we do address that in that sense, little bit differently. i mean, how we would say is that basically it's never helpful. essentially, if you look at it, let's 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 it's that, 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 was the line. 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's sort of an old story that goes on all the time. you talked about a pharmaceutical company making vaccines for children, despite having a compromised 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 poll. last year of was the blower data to the american public? you know, voters about was a blog in 86 percent of the population of this country say that they're in support of strong whistler protections. well, that was not true 40 years ago. that certainly wasn't even true when you were so effectively. and so in an 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 should do is define health before they start the process of blowing that was so obviously if 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, you know, for many was lower if they would take counsel, experienced 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 out with that do it effectively. and that's think about the best way to do it. and so you develop a strategy before you actually go public or go said 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 wisdom for years, for example, at the department of homeland security. and it's unbelievable how much they've been able to accomplish, even though they were on 60 minutes. and even though they had new york times article, 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 trying to get as much support for the whistleblower before you know before that was laura is endangered. thank you,

louis. that's all we have for you today. i'd like to thank our guest lewis clark. he's c e o and the executive director of the government accountability project. i'm john curiosity and this has been the whistleblowers. 2 2 2 ah so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy foundation, let it be an arms race, this on offense bearing dramatic development only personally and getting to resist . i don't see how that strategy will be successfully very difficult time. time to sit down and talk with

business and you will clean the pre a day. i b e r w that was chosen. yeah, americans, graham, when you were with it is just such an article and i was feeling for when you was just touching shore in was named after the different student info, which helped with you throwing the width of the protein. you're still there with you as we are both in the study or something that was the voice of to watch. so lose coming to the one on the okay. to put it which you, which in the longer your bushes just in use the, from up the push to, to stream to become mon, because, i mean, there's no way to partial a few school course. i don't know which for you i know for the don't know if i should just to do that and then it will still do use for us to premium for losses. come on both.

this is for more of conflict over power and status involving do not good states that draw. shelly, it's a question of all try shop, assert deep a sphere of influence in the former soviet space it holds in europe rolled and ukraine easy. so i'm sure, in order to take this, you know, these things doesn't want to allow us to happen and this is at the bottom of what is good. ah, he's, he's talking about the quote issue, just a good as for wolf. do to work on your voice keyboard which manually, which could allow what you see is not a simple denial for you. more did a

for loop legion wise, you know what i'm actually spoke up video and you are a stick with the missed issue with jenny william lou, lou, do you suppose to work with them? can you hear it's no, it's no we do. but as it will, who you can, but the most money still to with the clear with that how can i does not with article it can you post to keep that slow and i wasn't able to ship them yet the issue especially by the

late ah ah, breaking used this our in our t international us supplied high balls. rockets used by ukraine strike a hospital in the lucon square public. as we understand killing 14 people that is, according to the russian ministry of defense, senior correspondent joins us in just a moment. also in the program, a 13 year old resident of jerusalem has been aidid as the shooter in an attack that wounded to people in the city today. so this comes after a mass shooting to the lives of 7 on friday. and here at our team, we begin our special coverage of the legacy left by the devastating of war in iraq .