Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part 4

Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part I

(link)

This entire series is about a Twitter thread that took place on September 26, 2021. The thread started with this tweet posted by whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack:

https://archive.md/h4vAM

Part one debunks Radack’s absurd allegations by reporting on the fact that it was her own associates who were planting derogatory material about Julian Assange and running disinfo campaigns/LARPs in 2017, not Suzie Dawson or Trevor Fitzgibbon. The article also shows that #Unity4J wasn’t even created until June 2018, and it was Radack’s own associates, again, who boosted Dawson’s credibility for years prior, giving the grifty New Zealander the ability to take over the support community.

Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part 2

(link)

In part two of this series, we looked at a WikiLeaks supporter’s response to Radack’s original tweet, which stated:

https://archive.md/MruLq

Radack responded, “How did I divide the community??,” and her question is explicitly answered in part two by examining how Radack and her associates have deliberately tried to muddy the waters and tie their personal problems with Fitzgibbon, Thomas Schoenberger, Cicada 3301, and Shadowbox to WikiLeaks, Assange, and their supporters by social engineering, gaslighting, or outright lying to activists.

The article also looks at how Radack “shamefully hijacked the work of targeted journalists for her own self-absorbed narrative, draping herself in elitist victimhood,” as well as how she and her associates infiltrated and then discredited the only small group of activists and journalists who were exposing Dawson, #Unity4J, and far-right activity within the Assange support community. 

Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part 3

(link)

In part three of this series, a sock account that entered the Twitter conversation between Radack and the WikiLeaks supporter posted statements to deliberate shift the conversation away from Radack’s complicity in dividing the WikiLeaks support community to greener pastures: The Cow. 

Unfortunately, a massive campaign has been underway since early last year to make everything Fitzgibbon vs. Radack-related about The Cow, mainly because it gives Radack good PR, I’m sure. However, 99% of what has transpired between Fitzgibbon and Radack both inside and outside the courtroom has literally nothing to do with the anonymous account.

Before debunking what the sock account had to say, in Part 3, it was necessary to address what exactly transpired before Fitzgibbon filed his 2018 lawsuit against Radack, and the role that Radack’s associate, Beth Bogaerts, played in pushing an early disinfo campaign against Fitzgibbon, as well as leaking his lawsuit to Radack’s associates. There are a myriad of important reasons to revisit this story, one of which is to show you that it had nothing to do with The Cow.

Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part 4

In Part 4, below, we’re still examining what happened prior to Fitzgibbon filing his 2018 lawsuit including what transpired between Radack and Fitzgibbon personally, their affair, and the charges she filed against him, which, again, had nothing to do with The Cow. 

I would also like to preface the rest of this article with stating that I realize rape allegations can be a difficult and volatile subject and that the WikiLeaks/Assange support community has made it fairly clear that the only time we’re generally allowed to talk about them in detail is with regards to Julian Assange.

Although many of you may find it shameful to go over the details of Radack’s shockingly questionable rape allegations against Fitzgibbon via her text messages, court documents, and other receipts, what I personally find shameful is that we’re not allowed to talk about it in light of the fact that Radack and her associates have tried to make this not only everyone’s business, but everyone’s problem. 

The Affair

(Approx. November – December 2015)

After enjoying a long standing professional relationship, in or around November 2015, Jesselyn Radack and Trevor Fitzgibbon decided to engage in a short-lived affair despite the fact they were both married at the time. On November 15, 2015, if not earlier, they began sexting with one another and released messages show that Radack sent Fitzgibbon multiple photos of her bare breasts and asked him to share his sexual fantasies with her. 

The conversation eventually turned to taking the relationship further when Fitzgibbon asked, “Back to what I want. Are we on? I’ll take that as a yes,” and Radack replied, “Yes, but condoms a must. Do you have any known STDs?” 

The following day, Radack sent him a semi-explicit photo as a “special thank you” for Fitzgibbon’s professional help: 

Radack: “ASAP Please see the chain of emails abt changing press release title and get these guys back on track. On train to NY.”

Fitzgibbon: “On train to DC. I think we are good!”

Radack: [sends semi-explicit photo] “A special thank you for your help (even tho I don’t think you’re as interested in my bottom)”

After Radack told Fitzgibbon that he owed her a photo he sent her a headshot of himself and she responded, “Amazing,” asked if he could get The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill to retweet her post, and then stated, “Oh, and cute pic but move camera south abt 3 ft.” And yes, all in that order because Radack repeatedly asked for professional favors from Fitzgibbon throughout the affair. 

On November 29th, Radack discussed an unknown project, its financial situation, and their contribution to the endeavor professionally stating “Lack of money to pay us all doesn’t mean our services didn’t deliver value…I hope I can pay you back with in-kind benefits…like powerful quotes about your amazing-ness, ETC,” and I seriously hope that she wasn’t implying she would pay him back for professional work in sexual favors. He replied, “Seriously ALL good.” 

On November 30th, Fitzgibbon asked to see her but she was unavailable so she suggested that they meet the next day at 10:00 a.m.:

Fitzgibbon: “ok what about tmrw morning or when you are available”

Radack: “What time do you get up in the morning?”

Fitzgibbon: “whenever you say”

Radack: “Morning works. 10:00 am? What’s your address?”

Fitzgibbon sent his address and requested that she text him upon arrival after which she, again, asked for professional favors, this time for her non-profit:

“Will do. It’s Giving Tuesday and we have a clear GoFundMe one-day campaign. Can you help me get eyes on it?”

On the morning of December 1st, the two finalized plans to meet at the Hotel Lombardy in Washington D.C. After they met sometime in the morning, at approximately 3:00 p.m. that afternoon Radack asked Fitzgibbon to share and “personally vouch for” one of her Facebook posts. Then she inquired about a meeting he had with the Venezuelan Embassy. Fitzgibbon responded, “Done! Facebook and Twitter.”

Approximately four hours later, she messaged Fitzgibbon again to verify he shared her posts because she didn’t “see it on either (FB & Twitter).” Fitzgibbon sent her multiple links in return showing that he had, indeed, re-posted her requests including her non-profit’s “Giving Tuesday” campaign. 

She responded with “My bad…” and “I’m REALLY sore. Haven’t been fucked like that ever.”

Fitzgibbon Media Closes Under Sexual Allegations

(December 4 -December 17, 2015)

In 2008, Fitzgibbon left Fenton Communications and opened his own PR firm called Fitzgibbon Media. It was extremely successful, they obtained high-profile clients such as WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning, The Intercept, the ACLU, and the Venezuelan government, and Fitzgibbon eventually opened additional offices in New York and London.

Seven years later it all came crashing down. 

During the weekend of December 4-6, 2015, three days after Fitzgibbon and Radack met at the Hotel Lombardy, Fitzgibbon joined his team in Austin, Texas for a company retreat. During that weekend, a prospective employee claimed that Fitzgibbon acted inappropriately towards her by making “suggestive statements” and inviting her to his hotel room. 

On Monday, December 7th, this prospective employee, Sierra Pedraja, along with a Fitzgibbon Media staffer, both filed reports with the firm’s HR department stating that they were “harassed by Fitzgibbon during the Austin retreat.” According to The Daily Dot, five more women filed reports with HR that week, and by Friday, staffers reported that HR had confronted Fitzgibbon with the allegations. They released this statement:

I’m not saying I don’t believe this statement but I do find it odd that they would call Fitzgibbon Media their “beloved place of work” with so many alleged victims, one of whom claimed in the media that she was basically terrified of Fitzgibbon. That, and in early January 2017, former staffers took to Facebook and posted things like this: 

On December 17, 2015, Fitzgibbon’s decision to close the firm under mounting allegations became public via Huffington Post after which a flood of articles followed from outlets such as The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Daily Dot.

Released text messages show that Radack and Fitzgibbon had limited communication between December 2 -December 18, 2015 aside from December 10th when she asked him to promote one of her tweets. However, keep in mind that there may have been more but they were unrelated to Fitzgibbon’s 2018 lawsuit or, for whatever reason, his attorney did not release them.

Radack’s Reaction

On December 19, 2015, two days after the story broke, Radack texted Fitzgibbon:

“Hey, saw you called yesterday and just now. Don’t want to talk yet–still processing it all–but text is ok. I thot what happened in my office was an isolated incident. But the pulling me onto your lap, and then being up my shirt–sounds so identical to what other women are saying…”

On December 20th, The Guardian published an article about a high-powered attorney (she was initially mentioned in the Huffington Post story) who claimed that Fitzgibbon had groped her without her consent during a meeting at a D.C. hotel called The Bowery. Radack messaged Fitzgibbon to clarify that the attorney mentioned in the story was not her, adding “This is a mess.” She then said:

“Aside from my office, the only other time was at the Lombardy Hotel, not the Bowery. If you even can keep these incidents straights. How many others. Trevor? You swore I was the only one.”

Fitzgibbon replied, “What we did. Yes.” Radack went on:

“I want to believe what happened at Hotel Lombardy didn’t happen with any of them, but you said the same thing about what happened in my office…”

“I’m trying to understand. I know you can’t defend in press. But I’m trying to make sense of this…”

“I’m still trying to process it all. Sorry if I repeat myself. I thot what happened in my office was an isolated incident…”

“I don’t know what to believe bc you said that happened at the Lombardy Hotel was only me, but you had also said the same thing about what happened in my office.”

Throughout her conversations with Fitzgibbon, Radack brought up the fact that she thought she was the “only one” at least seven times to which he responded virtually every time that she was.

December 20th: Encryption

On December 20, 2015, Fitzgibbon appeared concerned about his text messages with Radack and he expressed to her at least three times that he wanted to speak in a “protected manner” and/or he sought reassurance that their communications were secure:

Fitzgibbon: “I wish I could speak under a c priviledge [sic]”

Radack: “I’m still trying to process it all. Sorry if I repeated myself. I thot what happened in my office was an isolated incident. But then when I started seeing women’s accounts, so much of it was nearly identical: pulling someone onto your lap and then being up their shirt and on their breasts…”

Fitzgibbon: “I understand your position. I want to be able to talk in a protected manner. Just frustrating to not be able too [sic]. I don’t know what’s protected etc”

Radack: “That’s why I’m using text and not phone. Texts ARE encrypted.”

Fitzgibbon: “Ahh!! Ha. Jesus. I’ve been having a heart attack. So. Here’s the deal. What we did was isolated. People are misinterperting [sic] hugs etc. Are you sure I’m protected here? I’m trying to talk as friends…”

Radack: “Yes, as friends…”

And just like that, Fitzgibbon opened up to Radack about his thoughts on the situation, inside information about the attorney named in The Guardian article, his belief that two staffers who filed allegations with HR had recently turned down job offers from other firms, details about his business’ finances, and what was happening with his family. All because Radack told him that their text messages were encrypted. 

But she wasn’t being fully transparent.

According to the headers on their text messages and the green vs. blue bubbles that Apple uses for text messages sent, Fitzgibbon sent Radack at least one SMS message using iMessage. Although iMessage does provide end-to-end encryption, according to Forbes, “[S]ometimes when a data network is unavailable, iMessage can revert to SMS when needed. But when it does so, there is no end-to-end encryption.”

This appears to have happened once with Fitzgibbon when he was sending a completely innocuous message but what if he wasn’t aware that iMessage could automatically revert to SMS and it happened while he was sending sensitive information to Radack? 

The other thing that Radack didn’t inform Fitzgibbon about is that if you store your messages in iCloud, they are not secure. Again, according to Forbes:

“The problem is cloud backups, of course…As Apple confirms, ‘Apple retains the [iCloud] encryption keys in its U.S. data centers. iCloud content, as it exists in the customer’s account, may be provided in response to a search warrant issued upon a showing of probably [sic] cause, or customer consent.’

If there’s no iMessage encryption key in the data center, this doesn’t happen…

If you enable the generic iCloud Backup on your Apple devices, then Apple will store a copy of your iMessage end-to-end encryption key within your backup. It’s like locking your front door but leaving a key visibly handing from a hook inside, just in case of emergencies. Pointless.”

It’s unknown if Radack, Fitzgibbon, or both had iCloud backup turned on but obviously if one of them did, their messages were not secure. Put simply, even Radack might have put their conversations at risk and this is important in terms of the fact that the Department of Justice eventually investigated her allegations against Fitzgibbon. I’m assuming the DOJ could have obtained a warrant for iCloud messages but that’s speculation on my part, I’m not well-versed in this area.

And yes, your iCloud can also be hacked. So can your phone giving hackers access to encryption apps so is there really anything that’s truly protected? No. But you get the point. Despite being an attorney that has represented some of the most well-known whistleblowers in history, you would think that Radack would have at least confirmed that Fitzgibbon wasn’t backing up his messages to the cloud. 

That’s not to say that iMessage doesn’t provide strong encryption, it does. Just make sure you turn off your iCloud.

Radack’s assurances to Fitzgibbon that their communications were well protected isn’t the first time I’ve come across her failure to do her part in keeping activists or those within the whistleblower/truth/WikiLeaks support community safe. I’ve experienced it first hand.

About a month after attorney Steve Biss filed a subpoena for Twitter DMs from at least 20 individuals and Twitter accounts including myself, Radack, and Ray Johansen, on January 17, 2020, I sent Radack a message via Signal, “Hi. Can you verify your safety number with me before we talk. Signal notified me that it’s changed.” 

Radack responded via Signal, “Sorry, who is this? I can’t tell from the numbers,” despite the fact we had exchanged messages previously. I wrote back, “Sorry its llama,” which, whatever, not necessarily a big deal despite showing up as “llama” because as she said, she didn’t recognize the number. But what followed was bizarre.

I followed up with her via an ambiguous Twitter DM that I knew she would understand, “Just confirming that it was me.” She wrote back:

“Ah, ok. We don’t have those weird Signal number verification here.”

So much for ambiguity. And according to her response, I’m suppose to believe that this woman is actually a whistleblower attorney?? This just happened LAST YEAR.  I answered, “Oh. Anytime I change phones or someone else does Signal should notify you that the verification number [correction: safety number] has changed.” She never responded.

According to instructions published by www.howtogeek.com on January 25, 2021, about verifying a safety number with your contact, you should compare the safety number you have for them with the safety number they have for themselves in order to confirm that the person you’re speaking with is who you think they are. And according to Signal’s website:

“The easiest way to compare safety numbers is to scan your contact’s QR code while viewing their safety number. You can also visually or audibly compare the numeric code, or use the share icon to copy it to your clipboard. If the safety number is identical then you can be sure that you are communicating with the right person.”

Using the Signal app, if you click on your contact’s picture or phone number it will bring up a screen with the option “View safety number.” After clicking on that, Signal will show you a QR code and the 60-digit safety number you have with them. Underneath that it states, “If you wish to verify the security of your end-to-end encryption with [insert phone number of contact], compare the numbers above with the numbers on their device.”

You can do one of two things: You can manually verify with your contact that your 60-digit code matches theirs or you can use the QR code. According to howtogeek.com:

“From the ‘Verify Safety Number’ screen, simply tap the QR code. Now ask the contact to display their Safety Number QR code. Once the QR code is scanned using your phone’s camera, Signal will tell you if the code matches.”

According to one blogger who works for Amazon Web Services:

“Ideally you will do this verification out-of-band from Signal either in person or through some other video/image sharing service. Facetime, zoom, etc. are great options if you can’t meet in person.”

And according to one software designer, who prefaced his instructions on how to prevent a man-in-the-middle attack with, “I am not a real cryptographer, so I have not verified the safety and security of the method of verifying safety numbers in Signal,” he recommended calling your contact directly through Signal and have them “read the safety number to you, digit by digit.” He added, “For extra paranoia, read the number back to them” and “For even more paranoia, do a video call.”

Radack either deliberately refused to verify the safety number with me for unknown reasons or her knowledge is deeply lacking about how to keep herself and others safe. In fact, Johansen told me numerous times that Radack has no idea how to use encryption and that NSA whistleblower, Thomas Drake, actually has to go over to her house to help her. 

I have no idea if that story is true seeing that Johansen has since been proven to be a notorious liar, and I’m assuming Radack would deny it for professional reasons alone, but my own first-hand experience with Radack tells me that she’s either fairly inept or she’s deliberately putting people at risk, again, for unknown reasons.

Two days after Radack told me that she doesn’t get those “weird Signal number” verifications, I messaged Johansen to voice my confirms, intimidated by the idea of broaching the subject directly with a well-known whistleblower attorney:

Me: “I responded on Signal asking her to verify the signal key since it changed…I sent her a screenshot of it from my end [update: this isn’t safe either especially if dealing with a man-in-the-middle attack] and she responded on Twitter that Signal doesn’t send stuff like that to her. So no verification on her end…” 


Johansen: “She is not very good at using her Signal…Just forget about it. Same problem on my end.”

“Just forget about it.” THAT’S how this so-called “hacktivist” and member of Anonymous, as well as one whistleblower attorney, apparently roll in terms of encryption and safety. Just forget about it, ya’ll.

On March 5, 2020, I wrote to Johansen again, furious that Radack was still DM’ing me on Twitter despite the fact that Fitzgibbon’s attorney, Steve Biss, had subpoenaed our messages:

“And did you speak to Jess because she’s sending me DMs (plural) as we speak. I will not let her put me in this position any longer. If no one is able to reason with her on some sort of encrypted comms I’ll be blocking her at the end of the day…I thought I’ll just email her myself and turns out the email address I have for her isn’t even proton, it’s gmail. Smh. I’m done.”

Not only did Radack repeatedly use Twitter DM’s to make it sound like Johansen and I were colluding in order to help her get Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit dismissed at the same time we were in the middle of a Twitter subpoena from Biss, she only communicated with me via my Protonmail email address using a Google Gmail account. 

In fact, I went back through my old Signal messages for this article and I realized that in the first message I ever sent to Radack on April 27, 2019, I wrote, “Sorry I said Proton thinking you had it too but realized yours is gmail. Can you do me favor and delete those recent emails I sent you? I’ll send info here.”

At no point did Radack state that she uses Protonmail nor did she offer. She always used her Gmail account. 

On the same day I first messaged Radack via Signal, I was also having trouble figuring out what exactly she was doing with our communications. I sent Johansen a message, “In my Twitter thread today I mentioned Trevor — Jesselyn DM’d me about it. I sent her some proton emails. She responded. But then she took the convo back to Twitter DM.”

Johansen replied, “The fact that she falls back to Twitter DM is in line with how she has gone about things before. So Im not too worried.” I wrote back, “Ok. Yes it [my conversation with Radack] went from Twitter DM to Proton to Twitter to Signal to Twitter.”

See what I mean? And again, I have no idea if what Johansen told me was true but if so, it’s a bit disconcerting that a whistleblower attorney’s fallback is Twitter DM. 

And in late December 2019, again, after Biss had already filed the subpoena, I wrote to Johansen, “Hi. Can you do me a favor when you get a chance? I want to send Jess a message but Signal safety number has changed.” Johansen replied, “She swapped phones yes, so you just have to validate the new number.”

Right. But how do you validate a new number with someone who claims that “We don’t get those weird Signal verification here.” And where is here, exactly? Washington D.C. or another other planet that Radack seems to be living on?

If for some unexplainable reason this isn’t sinking in, let me point out what Radack stated during her 2018 deposition:

“[I]t is possible that at some point in the last three years I could have done a tweet from my work computer or my laptop, but I usually don’t because it involves, like, an extra ballet. It’s difficult. It involves an extra ballet step. You have to log into the Twitter. You can’t go directly to it like you can on your phone.”

It’s difficult? Radack’s explanation is so beyond baffling there are no words for this clown show. Regardless of whether or not you use Twitter on your laptop or your cellphone via the app (or not even using app), you have to log in. Twitter doesn’t magically know who you are because you’re using your cellphone. You have to log in initially and in the case of a laptop, Twitter gives you the option to stay logged in.

There is something very, very wrong when a tech idiot like myself appears to know more about Signal and Radack’s default platform for communications (Twitter) than she does, a whistleblower attorney.

Radack Advises Fitzgibbon On How to Protect Himself

(December 20 – December 30, 2015)

Communication between Radack and Fitzgibbon continued until the end of 2015. After assuring Fitzgibbon that their communications were safe, Fitzgibbon disclosed that he had already made an appointment with a counselor to work out his boundary issues. He also talked about his financial concerns and he asked her if she thought anyone would sue him. She didn’t answer. Later, she advised him not to respond in the press.

After divulging a host of financial and personal details to Radack, he told her that he had to go. She responded, “Me to,” and then quickly added, “Me too,” surely an ominous warning of things to come.

Whether it was a simple spelling correction or an indication about how things were going to play out, Radack continued to communicate with Fitzgibbon for ten more days. On December 21, 2015, she advised him about filing for bankruptcy and how that would get him “off the hook” for rent on his offices in Washington D.C. and New York. She added that his clients who “owe $400K are still on the hook for that” despite the fact he decided to close the firm. 

On December 22nd, she told him that she thought “this was gonna be a 1-day story,” and then she asked him to specify what kind of lawyers he had i.e. employment, bankruptcy, corporate, etc. And on December 30th, thirteen days after the story broke, Radack encouraged Fitzgibbon to hire a “crisis PR” strategist.

Radack Turns On Fitzgibbon; Files Charges

(March 7, 2016)

On December 30, 2015, Fitzgibbon texted Radack, “It seems as though stuff has died down a bit. Although I have impending doom feeling 24/7.” Radack wrote back, “The Christmas-New Year vortex.” Fitzgibbon responded, “Do you think it will heat back up?” Radack told him:

“I honestly don’t know. I think if more women come forward it will hear [sic] back up. But i was actually surprised it got as much coverage as it did.”

And just like that, on March 7, 2016, approximately two months after Radack went on a fishing expedition about how much his firm was worth, what kind of attorneys he had, and telling him that things wouldn’t “heat back up” unless more women came forward, she filed two complaints against him, one for First Degree Sexual Abuse and the other for Third Degree Sexual Abuse.

According to Radack’s 2018 deposition, she and two other women went to the D.C. Metropolitan Police to file charges after high-powered attorney, Gloria Allred, agreed to accompany them for “moral support.” As we all know, Allred didn’t take Radack’s case nor did she ever make any public statements about it. 

Out of the three women that filed charges that day, Radack’s allegation of rape was the most serious. One of the other two woman alleged that Fitzgibbon had “touched her buttocks against her will…during a hug.” The third accused him of inappropriately hugging her in March 2014—both of which were unquestionably unprofessional, even gross, if true, but a far cry from rape.

Radack’s Questionable Allegations

According to the police report, Radack claimed that Fitzgibbon pulled her onto her lap and touched her breasts without her consent on December 4, 2015, at her office in Washington, D.C., and that he raped her on December 8, 2015, at the Lombardy Hotel, which is also located in Washington D.C. 

The incident that allegedly occurred at her office was considered Third Degree Sexual Abuse and her allegation of rape carried a life sentence and fines up to $125,000, if convicted.

Fitzgibbon faced 10 years alone just on Radack’s allegation about what supposedly transpired in her office, something that she repeatedly brought up to him in text messages prior to filing charges. Remember the whole “she thought that she was the only one” bit? Right. Not once did she say, insinuate, or even hint that she considered what happened in her office a physical assault.

But the real problem with Radack’s story is that Fitzgibbon wasn’t even in town on December 4th when she claimed that he assaulted her at her office. He was at his firm’s retreat in Austin, Texas. Radack later clarified in a 2018 counterclaim and a 2018 deposition that the date should have read November 4th, but even that’s problematic.

If Fitzgibbon assaulted her in her office on November 4, 2015, why was she sending him photos of her bare breasts and asking him about his sexual fantasies less than two weeks later? And why would she ask him to retweet her posts and vouch for her professionally on social media if he was such a monster? That’s the kind of endorsement she was looking for?

Worse still, why would she meet up with him at the Hotel Lombardy after he had already assaulted her? And these aren’t the only questions I have about Radack’s story.

In both the police report and court documents, she claimed that he raped her on December 8, 2015, at the Hotel Lombardy. Here’s what she said in her 2018 counterclaim, “On November 4, 2015, and December 8, 2015, Radack was sexually assaulted by Fitzgibbon,” and what she told Fitzgibbon on December 20, 2015, prior to filing charges, “Aside from my office, the only other time was at the Lombardy Hotel.”

Right, the “only other time was at the Lombardy Hotel.” So Radack herself admitted that there were only two alleged incidences with Fitzgibbon: Once at her office and “the only other time was at the Lombardy Hotel.” But the latter of which took place on December 1, 2015, not December 8, 2015.

This isn’t make-believe land or spinning the truth. Between November 30 – December 1, 2015, text messages show Radack and Fitzgibbon making plans to meet at the Hotel Lombardy on December 1st. A hotel receipt shows that Fitzgibbon had a room there between November 30-December 1, 2015. And on the evening of December 1st, Radack told Fitzgibbon that she had never been “fucked that hard..” 

Not only does it appear that Radack falsely accused Fitzgibbon of rape and has been carrying out a bizarre and deranged campaign against him ever since, it is beyond stunning that an attorney who was chosen for the U.S. Department of Justice’s prestigious Attorney General’s Honor Program and then later served as an ethics advisor to the DOJ, filed the wrong date of this alleged assault with both the D.C. police and Virginia courts. 

Even more unfathomably is the fact that in a deposition two years after she approached authorities, she failed to correct the error and actually doubled down on her story that he raped her on December 8th. Then she corrected the December 4th date. Attorney Steve Biss questioning Radack during a 2018 deposition:

So just to be clear, this is the story we’re suppose to believe if we take into account Radack’s text messages, police report, counterclaim, and the correction she made about the incident in her office (November 4th, not December 4th): Fitzgibbon sexually abused her in her office on November 4, 2015, but despite this, approximately twelve days later she sent him explicit photos of her naked breasts, asked him about his sexual fantasies, and requested photos specifically of Fitzgibbon’s groin area while also requesting numerous professional favors from him. 

Between November 30th and December 1st, they made plans to meet at the Hotel Lombardy and they both seemed to agree in text messaging that they had sex at the hotel on December 1st. Three months later she claimed that he raped her at that same hotel, on a different day when they never met there, and after he had already assaulted her in his office almost a month prior.

Despite being assaulted by him twice now, she continued to communicate with him and request professional favors. After multiple allegations against Fitzgibbon surfaced in the MSM, she advised him on how to protect both his finances and his reputation despite what the media was reporting. 

And then two months after telling him that things would die down unless more women came forward, she filed rape charges against him. You thought Cicada 3301 was bad? Welcome to the real criminal circus act you bought into lock, stock, and barrel (and that’s just an opinion, folks, calm down and come to your own conclusions).

The Text Messages

In order to understand just how absurd Radack’s story seems to be, let’s add her allegations to the text messages she sent to Fitzgibbon prior to filing charges:

“I thot [the forced sexual contact] in my office was an isolated incident.”

***

Radack: “Aside from my office, the only other time was [when you raped me] at the Lombardy Hotel, not the Bowery. If you even can keep these [rape] incidents straight. How many others. Trevor? You swore I was the only one [you raped].”

Fitzgibbon: “This is what’s crazy…What we did. [Me raping you]. Yes.

***

Radack: “I don’t know what to believe bc you said [the rape] at the Lombardy Hotel was only me, but you had also said the same thing about the [forced sexual contact] in my office.”

Fitzgibbon: “[Me raping you at] Lombardy was only you!”

So Fitzgibbon “swore” to her that she was the only one he had raped? He admitted to her that he used forced sexual contact in her office and then raped her at a hotel almost four weeks later? He told her over and over again that she was the only one he had raped? Does any of this make sense? Of course it doesn’t.

The Power Dynamic

Although Radack appeared to dismiss the allegations that other women lodged against Fitzgibbon by characterizing them as the same behavior he exhibited with her—consensual sexual encounters based on her own text messages—at one point she distinguished the difference to Fitzgibbon, “How could it be 100% consensual with junior staff, woman seeking employment, etc?” 

Right. So his behavior with her was consensual but that same behavior couldn’t possibly be consensual with junior staff and a “woman seeking employment.” And why would that be?

First and foremost, staffers didn’t have power over Fitzgibbon hence Radack’s assumption that sexual behavior between them could not be 100% consensual. Meanwhile, Radack’s own text messages reflect that both a professional and consensual sexual relationship existed between her and Fitzgibbon and that she had the power in their relationship based on her high profile as a whistleblower attorney. 

After she apologized for not seeing his retweets and thanking him for following through with yet another one of her requests for a professional favor, Fitzgibbon responded, “Totally I’m no fool,” indicating that even he knew who held more professional power between the two of them.

Furthermore, you need only look at what Radack has been able to accomplish in terms of further demolishing Fitzgibbon’s reputation with accusations of rape versus his “power” to prove her allegations wrong despite a mountain of evidence on his side. 

Not only has Radack accused Fitzgibbon of being a rapist since early 2016, her associates have gotten away with repeatedly (and publicly) calling him a “serial rapist” for years despite the fact that Radack is the only one who accused him of such a serious crime that it carries a potential life sentence.

Put simply, she held the power in their relationship and Fitzgibbon held the power in his relationship with staffers, again, why Radack assumed that any sexual behavior between Fitzgibbon and a staffer could not have been 100% consensual. In this case, the victims’ stories reflect that it wasn’t. But what about Radack holding the power in her relationship with Fitzgibbon…

Although Radack’s assumptions may have been right in this instance (I’m not here to get into whether or not every alleged victim’s story was true), her statement to Fitzgibbon gives us a possible glimpse into her views about power, sexuality, and subordination within the workplace.

Based on what she said, “how could it be 100% consensual with junior staff,” Radack appears to believe that regardless of the situation, every office/client romance or physical relationship must be the result of coercion, assault, or even rape if there’s a power imbalance.

In no uncertain terms am I saying that it’s okay to make a move on a subordinate or, for that matter, even engage in an office romance because they virtually always spell trouble. But Radack’s blanket ideology or assumptions about romance and sex in the workplace comes across as hyper-feminist rape culture.  

I’m sorry feminists don’t want to hear it but yes, people have had consensual relationships with a subordinate. I can personally vouch for this so let’s not act like this never happens.

However, although my relationship was 100% consensual, what I can tell you is that after it soured, management tried to strong arm me over the whole sordid affair rather than him because of his position–and he let the whole thing happen. Despite this, I would never accuse this man of coercion, using his power to lure me into a relationship, or assault. It would be a grossly false statement.

Was he a jerk after I ended it? Yes, hence one of a million reasons why they say, “Don’t mix business with pleasure.” But that didn’t make him a rapist. His power wasn’t used during the relationship, it was used AFTER one party (him) became unhappy with the other party (me). And THAT’S what I think happened between Radack and Fitzgibbon.

After the allegations against Fitzgibbon became public, Radack told Fitzgibbon at least seven times that she thought she was the “only one,” which begs the question if she was really assaulted in her own office, raped a few weeks later, and just found out that her rapist had sexually harassed/assaulted other women or… 

Was this a powerful woman shocked, jealous, and perhaps even hurt to find out that the person she was cheating on her husband with was a rotten scoundrel who had dared to cheat on her, too? For reference, when the news broke about Fitzgibbon on December 17, 2015, it was headlined by the story about him inappropriately flirting with a potential employee (and former Maxim model) only a few days after he met up with Radack at the Lombardy.

Less Than 20% of Rape Victims Report

No rape victim reacts to trauma the same way and a large majority of them don’t even report the crime. In fact, statistics show that only approximately 19% of alleged rape victims report and so Radack’s decision to file charges with the police fall well within a small minority. 

But Radack didn’t just report Fitzgibbon to the authorities, she has carried out a 6-year campaign against him both privately and publicly. On social media, she has posted blatant lies about the situation and, according to Fitzgibbon, has egregiously defamed him repeatedly. She and her associates have also carried out private whisper campaigns knowing full well that Radack’s high profile carries significant weight.

In fact, unlike most alleged rape victims, Radack has been so vocal about the events that allegedly transpired in 2015, that she has risked her career, she’s been sanctioned by the court, she had to file for bankruptcy, and she’s been sued twice for defamation. 

But despite all of this, it appears that Radack may have already broken her second settlement agreement that she signed just last year—as if she wants to get sued for a third time. And for someone itching to get sued again, you would think that they would look forward to testifying in court but, inexplicably, the one thing that Radack has avoided is getting her story on the record while under oath.

Yes, she got her allegations on the record with the police but it wasn’t under oath. She also told them the wrong date when she was allegedly raped and she has never, ever corrected it.

In 2018, she filed a counterclaim against Fitzgibbon and she still maintained the wrong date. And when asked during a 2018 deposition if she had told the “United State’s attorney that Trevor Fitzgibbon had raped her,” she quickly responded, “I’m not getting into — this is not jurisdiction.” 

Oh, but Radack probably objected to a lot of questions, right? Wrong. Radack’s attorney objected to approximately 55 questions that Biss asked during the deposition but Radack still answered approximately 50 of them. There were only approximately five questions that Radack wouldn’t answer. They included: 

“Did you represent to the United State’s Attorney that Trevor Fitzgibbon had raped you?”

“Do you remember taking these photographs of yourself and texting them to Mr. Fitzgibbon?…Do you remember attaching photographs of yourself to text messages that you transmitted to Trevor Fitzgibbon?”

“When you wrote: The author is buds with the guy who sexually assaulted me…the guy who sexually assaulted me, that’s a reference to Trevor Fitzgibbon; correct?”

“When you wrote: ‘Going through something similar, and it’s utterly terrifying,’ you were referring to this case?”

For someone who has spent years trying to destroy Fitzgibbon’s reputation over a rape allegation, I’m surprised she didn’t take opposing council’s questions as an opportunity to get her story on the record. Under oath. However, it’s also a known fact that you can face up to five years in federal prison for making false statements and perhaps Radack was keeping that in mind during the deposition.

In the end, Radack also chose to settle two defamation cases that Fitzgibbon filed against her rather than take it to trial and testify under oath, which seems like another missed opportunity. 

And sure, Radack can argue that trials are costly (they are), but then that doesn’t explain why she deliberately keeps trying to get sued.

Some might argue that Radack is a crusader and a fighter, not the twisted, obsessed, and bitter woman that some of us see. And maybe they’re right. She is a fighter. She hasn’t stopped fighting since early 2016, but the question is what exactly is she fighting for?

Not One Part Of This Story Is About the Cow

I want you to keep repeating this to yourself until it sinks in and you stop spreading disinformation across the f*cking universe. 

So…

In April 2017, the Department of Justice closed their investigation into Radack’s allegations and decided not to charge Fitzgibbon, which we’ll get into more in the next article.

When it comes to this case, no one knows what happened at the Hotel Lombardy on December 1, 2015, except Fitzgibbon and Radack. Sure, you can believe one or the other and trust their story but you don’t know. And no matter how close you are to either of them, you still don’t know although some are adamant that they do know. No, they don’t. That’s an OPINION that reflects they trust their friend explicitly. No more, no less.

The only thing that everyone besides Radack and Fitzgibbon have to go on is evidence and evidence from Radack’s own text messages shows that she was sending him explicit photos, asking him about his sexual fantasies, requesting photos of his groin area, and making plans to meet him at the Hotel Lombardy.

Evidence from a hotel receipt shows that Fitzgibbon had a hotel room at the Lombardy from November 30th-December 1, 2015.

Evidence from Radack’s own text messages shows that they met at the Lombardy on December 1st, not December 8th, and that they had sex, ‘I’ve never been fucked that hard…”

Evidence from Radack’s own text messages show that she continued to communicate with Fitzgibbon well after staffers from Fitzgibbon Media came forward with sexual harassment/assault allegations, which included Radack asking him what his company was worth, advising him on bankruptcy and what his clients still owed him financially, and repairing his image.

Evidence from Radack’s own text messages show that she told Fitzgibbon on December 30, 2015, that the story about him would probably die down unless more women came forward.

Evidence from Radack’s own text messages shows that she never stated or even hinted that the sexual behavior between the two of them wasn’t consensual. In fact, her text messages show that she was a willing participant.

Evidence from a police report shows that Radack reported Fitzgibbon for rape and assault on March 6, 2016, a little over two months after she told him that the story would die down unless more women came forward.

Evidence from the police report also shows the incorrect date for both the assault that allegedly happened at her office (Fitzgibbon was in Texas on the date reported), as well as the alleged rape.

Evidence from Radack’s 2018 counterclaim shows that Radack filed the incorrect date of when the rape supposedly occurred. 

Evidence from Radack’s 2018 deposition shows that Radack corrected the date of the alleged assault in her office but continued to maintain, under oath, the wrong date for when the rape allegedly occurred.  

Evidence shows that after Radack corrected the date for when the alleged assault took place in her office, she still sent Fitzgibbon explicit photos of her bare breasts, asked him about his sexual fantasies, requested photos of his groin area, and made plans to meet him at the Hotel Lombardy. Again, after she says he had already assaulted her. 

Evidence from Radack’s own text messages show that she also requested professional favors and maintained communication with Fitzgibbon after he had allegedly assaulted her…TWICE.

That’s it. That’s the evidence. So can someone please explain what Radack’s six-year crusade has been about, exactly?

Liked it? Take a second to support Jimmysllama on Patreon!
Post Disclaimer

Disclaimer: Ten thousand more pages of disclaimers to follow.

If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.

If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.

If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.

That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at jimmysllama@protonmail.com with any questions or concerns.

I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.

If I described you as a fruit basket or even a mental patient it's because that is my opinion of you, it's not a diagnosis. I'm not a psychiatrist nor should anyone take my personal opinions as some sort of clinical assessment. Contact @BellaMagnani if you want a rundown on the psych profile she ran on you.

This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.

The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.

The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.  The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.

Leave a Reply