ah, at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from great with we will bring to the food in medicine, in supplies. and fleet with ah

ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race group is often very dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time to sit down and talk with

a with what a mirror with somebody. love me, but she listening you. yeah, yeah. i think a with why i brought up with the when read that up way. anything that i will be the was a lot to shift from up in things you could see it wasn't much our because up with a lot mitchell. i to the article,

bring it in 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 lose friends, emily and the 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 call whistleblowers, who are little more than corporate, spoke people, or individuals hoping to make a political point. i'm john curious who you're watching the whistleblowers the. 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 burn it to the ground, unquote. hogan got a handsome book deal after her testimony. and billionaire pierre 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 was 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. lewis, 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 so. 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 whistleblowers. what the key is, do these people have a reason to believe 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 always know what it's 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, does want to make money is probably one of the most common representations that the our opponents say about that was lower. so i don't think that you need to focus on the went 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 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 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, 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 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, no, i don't. i think those 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 are sort of an assumption there that everything's gray and there was 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 sensibility 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 the torture every good, you know, when torture every ever acceptable. 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 and still, you know, it's still black with have to stop it. and so i do think that as you know, i do think they have a keen sense of morality. i also think that there's no sorry, 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 are the, was on peanut butter and, and salmonella and family nation and 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're 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 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 1st that a whistleblowers and who are they, they never intended to be with. busy was 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 the organization. and they're, you know, engaged in wrong doing, engaging production. and so the person whose job it is to audit that problem or audit the, 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. 2 2 ah, this is for more a conflict overpower and the piece involving to united states across all it's a question about a certain sphere of influence in the former soviet space particles in europe. broad and ukraine. easy. so i'm sure in order to obtain this, you know, these things doesn't want to allow this to happen. and mrs. with

ah, ah, oh, a ah it i am, my name is frank richardson, so daughter got in the room in any age. 13 going on 14 to we were violent towards those people because we believe there were this race were here 1st, and this is our country being part of that movement. i got your sense of power.

when i felt powerless, we got attention when i felt invisible, him accepted when i talked to level life after, hey, is an organization that was founded by 4 o skinhead, neo nazi white supremacists in the u. s. in canada. and they found each other and they knew that they wanted to help other guys get out was 2 parts to getting out of a violent extremist group. the 1st part is disengagement, which is where you leave the social group. and then the next part is d. radicalization work belief systems audiology are removed. it was very impactful when someone finally came along with no fear, no judgement. you heard my story did nothing to challenge with our with

. 2 2 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 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 all of office that you mentioned is another absolutely param. huh. 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, 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. at the same time, you have public responsibility and social responsibility at the corporation, which also is plays into this the thinking of a 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, 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 govern mental 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 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, i 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 what's 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 little there was some so affectively. 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 leasing 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 help 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.

ready for the, you know, for many was lower if they would take counsel, experience to counsel and counsel is not going to say, don't do that, but it should be the counsel that says, okay, you want this to be out with. that's 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 asked 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, we have a number of clients who, who have blown it was the 4 years, for example, at the department, homeland security. and it's unbelievable how much they're been able to 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 only ourselves but many members of congress in service committees, the congress, i had their back so they can be touched. and so that we do work on, on trying to get ah, as much support for the was the bore before that in before there was war is in danger. thank you, louis. that's all we have for you today. i'd like to thank our guests louis clark.

he's c e o and executive director of the government accountability project. i'm john kerry aku and this has been the whistleblowers. 2 2 2 ah, ah ah my a pretty, who's

a forensic come on you up with? what? a good many somebody to love them, but she listening you know? yeah, you get a job. why did they got got that up with the word mad that up way? anything that i put a lot to shift left in things you can see it working with not mitchell i had to be with

with with breaking news on our t hospital in the loop down script public a struct, bobby ukrainian military using us apply to high mars rockets killing over a dozen civilians. that's according to the russian ministry of law. civilian infrastructure is again had to end on balance by key forces. hundreds of berliners take to the streets to protest the german decision of delivery types to ukraine marketing 20 years since the u. s invasion and occupation of iraq. we begin our special.