Leaking versus whistleblowing
=============================

Leaking versus whistleblowing is a distinction John Kiriakou makes repeatedly and insists is not a matter of preference. "There's a legal definition of whistleblowing, and that is bringing to light any evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety."

Everything outside that definition he calls leaking, and he does not treat leakers charitably.

> "Leaking is just leaking, and there are lots of motivations for leakers. Some people like the thrill of speaking with a journalist. Some people like to feel important, that they're on the inside, they have this information and they just have to share it with somebody. Some people do it for revenge, just because they're angry at a boss, angry at the president perhaps, angry at a supervisor. But leaking is not whistleblowing. They are mutually exclusive."

The distinction does the work of separating his own case from the disclosures a crackdown is usually announced against. Elsewhere he applies the same statutory test when telling members of the public where to take evidence, and treats official leaks, the ones that come out of the White House and are never prosecuted, as a third category again.

See also

- Official Leaks
- Government Accountability Project
- Espionage Act
- John Kiriakou
