A. The first thing is the secretive dialogue between court appointed counsel and the prosecutor. Things I "purportedly" said to my counsel; i.e. representations, etc., ended up in motions to the judge without my prior review. Those representations were against my interest and lead me to believe court appointed counsel were working behind the scenes with the prosecutor. There is no other logical explanation, other than pure incompetence. The other thing I learned was that my court appointed counsel could not understand the truth. The truth was complex, sophisticated and multi-layered with concepts in actuarial science, advanced finance and economics, pension law and investment mathematics. Therefore, instead of telling the correct narrative to the jury, legal counsel concocted an even more difficult to understand defense based on a "theory." It was an embarrassing mess. I probably would have fared better had I defended myself.
The other thing that really bothers me is that at no time did the federal government ever ask to sit down with me to discuss why they feel I broke the law. It was all cloak and dagger, hush-hush, tip-toe around me, all the while carefully crafting a narrative with the news media that I could not rebut because all actions against me were being taken secretly. The whole thing was a star-chamber trial.
Q. Do you believe that cases like yours have had a chilling effect upon prospective whistleblowers? What steps would you like to see taken to protect whistleblowers?
A. Yes, I do. It is clear to me that aggressive, hostile, and malicious prosecutions are the government's method for scaring would-be whistleblowers into silence. As a society, we are just a hair's width away from becoming a full blown police state; the evidence is how the government is treating citizens of the United States of America.
Despite numerous promises to the contrary, Obama has displayed an avidity to savagely crush dissent
It is difficult to know what can be done to protect whistleblowers. At a minimum, I think grand juries should be required to interview the person the government is trying to indict. Secret grand juries, where only the prosecution's side is heard, seems outrageous to the average person. That needs to change. Also, there needs to be an easier way for whistleblowers to make their voices and stories heard. Most agencies have Inspectors General. However, in my case, the Department of Labor has not had an Inspector General for years, which explains why my pleas for help went unanswered.
Perhaps a one page disclosure statement should be given to grand juries explaining that there are always two sides to every story (or even three or four sides!), and that they are going to be asked to make a decision based on one side; the prosecution's side, and that the likelihood the prosecution will manipulate them into issuing an indictment is very high. Accordingly, statistically, many innocent people will be falsely indicted. The grand jury should also be told what the effects of an indictment are upon families, children, neighbors, etc. An indictment is devastating and causes so much devastation by itself, whether the person ends up being convicted or not. Grand juries must understand the devastating impact of their decision.
Hutcheson has now joined the swelling ranks of administration enemies who have seen the DOJ loosed upon them by what may very well be the most vindictive regime to ever occupy Washington. Prosecuting people like Hutcheson serves a dual effect. It dissuades other would-be whistleblowers and dissenters by serving notice that Eric Holder and his legion of lackeys stand ready to perniciously punish those targeted by the administration. But perhaps more important, it transforms these targets into convicted felons, thus delegitimizing their claims and deflecting attention away from the wrongdoing that whistleblowers like Hutcheson first identified. The DOJ's ability to control how the story is reported all but assures that a convicted person's whistleblowing will be sent down the memory hole, while their "crimes" will remain front and center.
Attorney General Eric Holder is overseeing what many consider to be the most vindictive and pernicious DOJ in U.S. history
Hutcheson's interview reveals deep insight into exactly how the system of justice in the U.S. has been hijacked and used as a weapon of political oppression. He understands that the tactics employed against him are hardly unique and that his case is simply one of many such travesties playing out in federal court on a daily basis. The idiom "don't make a federal case out of it" is rapidly losing its meaning as even the most innocuous, well-intentioned conduct can cause one to be hauled into federal court on serious charges. The government's ubiquitous use of federal prosecution may be working against it, however, as a growing number of people begin to recognize federal trials for the scripted theater they have become. Meanwhile, the disgraceful war on whistleblowers continues and citizens like Hutcheson face tremendous peril in return for their laudatory acts of courage.