shin, 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 was a 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 you don't 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 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 a 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 pack 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, 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 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 the credibility 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 they're proud ability 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 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 that are 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 a l 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 then then national security whistleblowers, let's say 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's sort of an assumption there that, 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 ability 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 by why, but you know, when 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 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. we still 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 is another 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 pass pairs citizens. i mean that you know, human beings. so i mean like and, and so for example, there was laura on peanut butter and salmonella. busy and famine 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 suppliers. they have a sense of connection to the larger humanity or the larger society, which is often absent in all those thousands of employees that see the same thing.

and don't do anything about it. and so i think that really they. ready really stand apart in that sense. i also think there's another element to that i would bring up, which is the, essentially is that there is a huge 1st that a whistleblowers on who are they, they never intended to be with wars. 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, 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, they're basically to the, you know, the enterprise. thank you. louis clark, stay tune. we're going to take a short break and come back for more with louis clark, the ceo and executive director of the whistleblower protection organization, government accountability project. 2 2 ah, this is for more a conflict over our end stages involving do not get states at roswell. it's a question about a sphere of influence in the former soviet space. it holds the year a broad and ukraine easy, so i'm sure, in order to update this, you know, these things doesn't want to allow us to happen. and this is a, what is going on a

pretty common your point is a lot of work done with somebody to love me. but she listening. you have been a young, you have a job why it's not going to have that up with doing. read that up way. anything that i will be that was an awful lot for shift with

business and you will clean a daily as i made it comes gray you, when you wrote it, you know, just go over. it is just such, not critical. consuming in for you was just touching sure. it was nice talking to different student info which helped with some good news. her own the with them the problem that you're still there with yours, with menu for choice. it was a for me to on off on all things to put it which you, which and longer your bush was just in the solution not to push to, to stream remote because of losing your, your course load useful. of course, i don't know who you're going to know for the don't know as i should just to do, give me a minute. you're going to use for us to play in philosophy. come up with

i. my name is frank, i'm a retired from philadelphia, got in the movement in any age 13 going on 14. we were violent towards those people because we believed that we're in this race. we 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 and accepted when i felt on level life after, hey, is an organization that was founded by for skin on the white supremacists in the u. s. in canada. and they found each other and they knew that they wanted to help other guys get half is 2 parts to getting out of a violent extremely good. the 1st part is disengagement, which is where you leave the social group. and then the next part is d. radicalization where 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 it. ah, ah, nice to come to the russian state. little narrative. i've stivers on the northland scheme, davis with within the $55.00 with okay, so mine is 2000 speedy. one else was about with we will van in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state aunt, rush up to date and r t spoke neck. even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube with

me ah, ah, the. 2 2 2 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 the employ or is really the american people. right? you know, or this is the boat or whatever. i mean is the fact that the 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 those of office that you mentioned is another, you know, absolutely paramount standard that many, including yourself were following in, in your, in your worth of life. 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, in that regard, maybe you get great 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 costs 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, in a 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 in social responsibility at the corporation, which also is plays into this the thinking of

a was lower. and so we do address the in that sense little bit differently. i mean, how we would say is that basically. ready 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 as well and that's, 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 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 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 whispered productions. well, that was not true 40 years ago. that certainly wasn't even true when you was 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 a 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 define health 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 was 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, okay, 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, it said within human, within the company. and so 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 have a number of clients who, who have blown, there was 4 years, for example, the department 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 in several committees. 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 before that was lower is endangered. 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 curiosity and this has been the whistleblowers, the. 2 2 2 ah, i 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. i was sure nissan you and i have if you speak russian, keep your voice down while out and about a couple don't put your human symbols on display

a guy so you guys don't talk to strangers. i. 7 avoid noisy gatherings with your colleagues and perhaps also your friends think you're guilty because you'll rush a specific social with a

to figure out the same becomes the african and engagement equals the trail with so many find themselves. well, the part we choose to look for common ground. what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic. development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time to sit down and talk with i am, my name is frank, i'm a retired from philadelphia, got in the movement in the age 13 going on for team. we were violent towards those

people because we believe that were in this race. we 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 and accepted when i felt a level life after hey, is an organization that was founded by 40, skin, 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 is 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 de radicalization. where 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 challenger validate

with. we begin with breaking news. there have been reports, a multiple explosions across iran countries. defense ministry has confirmed managed for a drone attack on immunization depot. ukrainian forces strike a hospital in regards to republic with us applying hi mars rockets, killing over a dozen civilians that according to the russian defense ministry. and as civilian infrastructure is again hit and don bass ikea as forces hundreds of berliners take to the streets to protest against germany's decision to deliver tanks to ukraine.