Claims he encourages concerned employees to speak up.
Hasn't talked to any of the whistleblowers who have spoken up.
One solution to this logic problem is that the concerned employees he is encouraging to speak up are not the whistleblower but rather the employees raising concerns about whistleblowers.
Not surprised to see crickets in the comments on this one. I mean really, what's the bigger story here: the fact he admitted to that, or that he won't face any repercussions? I'll be happy to be proven wrong on that second part, though i don't expect to see anything actually happen to him over this.