Someone changed the “Whistleblower” statute to allow HEARSAY as evidence for an accusation. The change to “hearsay is good enough” seems suspiciously timed to allow for some swampy character to accuse the President of maleficence. Be that as is may, did those who amended the statute think what the consequences of their actions means in the broader scope?

If one only requires HEARSAY to file a complaint within government and government CONTRACTING, what prevents ANYONE from filing a complaint against a COMPETITOR?

Let’s examine a scenario.

Any employee of Spacely Sprockets which has a second source contract to Cogwell’s Cogs, supplying the government with cogs, can file a complaint against the Cogwell’s Cogs for ANYTHING. The employee of Spacely Sprockets may allege that Cogwell’s Cogs is using substandard materials in the cogs supplied in their government contract. It will take weeks, months, even years to investigate the ALLEGED maleficence of Cogswell’s Cogs. In the meantime Spacely Sprockets will supply all the cogs while Cogwell’s Cogs is under investigation.  BONUS for Business!

HERE’S THE BEST PART.

The employee of Spacely Sprockets who filed the complaint is completely protected from ANY LIABILITY!

“Whistleblowers” are protected by LAW to anonymity. Even if the identity of the “whisteblower” were discovered he would still be protected from liability because HEARSAY testimony is not considered EVIDENCE is a court of law. The “whistleblower” need only say “That’s what I BELIEVED that I heard”. The relieves him of any liability.

Ain’t the new law wonderful?