OPINION: When Jesselyn Radack committed a criminal offense in December 2013, she was representing both Edward Snowden and drone whistleblower, Daniel Hale, the latter of which just happened to be raided by the FBI a month after Radack was sentenced on a reduced felony charge. However, she denies that she was representing him at the time of the raid. Here’s how it started:
There’s no question that Radack stated during a 2018 deposition (above) that she represented Hale in 2013, and after I posted a screenshot of this on Twitter back in 2021, she confirmed that her statements were truthful and accurate.
According to Kennebeck, both attorney Frank Dehn and Radack were brought in during the production of her film, National Bird.
“During development, I asked a friend from the intelligence community to introduce me to whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack.” — Kennebeck
“I had worked sensitive projects before and hired a legal counsel during development who specializes on First Amendment rights, Frank Dehn, and also approached prominent whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack…That legal support turned out to be vital during the production of the film when the government tried to silence the whistleblowers.” — Kennebeck
Radack was brought in to serve as general counsel, not as Hale’s personal attorney, and she acknowledged this at the 2016 Berlin International Film Festival. Thus, when he was raided by the FBI on August 8, 2014, he didn’t call her. He called Kennebeck who then got in touch with Dehn:
Less than 24 hours prior to my phone purchase, [Hale] had [his] home raided by the FBI and was now being investigated for espionage. I needed to contact my lawyer, an expert on First Amendment rights, and given the recent turn of events, using my own phone did not seem like a good idea.
With the money from my first small production grant, I hired an attorney, Frank Dehn, to consult me on how I could protect my sources. All those months later, he was the person I called from the burner phone. — Kennebeck
Then Radack was contacted:
With the money from my first small production grant, I hired an attorney, Frank Dehn, to consult me on how I could protect my sources. All those months later, he was the person I called from the burner phone. I also contacted Jesselyn Radack. — Kennebeck
After Radack was put in touch with Hale they made arrangements to meet the following day. Radack says that during their meeting she wrote up a temporary attorney-client agreement on a napkin but why would she do this if she had been representing Hale since 2013, per her 2018 deposition? Had he been confiding in her without the full protection of an attorney-client agreement?
During the deposition, Radack was reminded that the raid occurred in August 2014, but rather than acknowledging that she might be confused about when she represented Hale, or explain why she had inexplicably stated that she had represented him a year prior to the raid taking place, she tried to wriggle out of it by accusing a journalist of publishing the wrong date:
Yeah, no, Gosztola didn’t get his dates wrong. Hale was absolutely raided on August 8, 2014, during the filming of National Bird. In a 2017 interview with Daniel Grinberg, Kennebeck stated (approx. 7:01 mark), “Daniel [Hale] was raided in the middle of production.”
And at the 2016 Berlin International Film Festival, which took place a mere two years before Radack seemingly lost her memory during the deposition, she also stated (approx. 23:47 mark) that he was raided during film production.
If we’re to believe the statements that Radack made during the deposition that means she was representing Hale in 2013 and “maybe some of 2014,” but then stopped representing him sometime before the August 2014 raid, and then started representing him again after the raid.
During the 2016 film festival, Radack also told the audience that she “still represents” Hale but that’s impossible according to that 2021 tweet I mentioned earlier. As you can see in her tweet below, Radack confirmed that the statements she made in her deposition were correct—as of 2018, she had only represented Hale in 2013 and “maybe some of 2014.”
However, she also said that it was true that she has been Hale’s attorney since 2014 (see the screenshot I included in my tweet above where she says, “As #DanielHale’s whistleblower lawyer for the past 7 yrs…”). This:
Let’s see if we can navigate this confusing pile of horseshit that Radack has been feeding the American public. She represented Hale in 2013 and maybe part of 2014, but she definitely wasn’t representing him when he got raided in August 2014, per her 2018 deposition.
Radack also didn’t represent Hale between 2014-2019 because his case was “dormant,” but she also represented him after the raid in 2014, as evidenced by her statements in National Bird about writing up an attorney-client agreement on a napkin.
In 2016, she was “still” representing Hale per her statements at the Berlin International Film Festival, but she also had not spoken to him since 2014, per the 2018 deposition.
And according to the standwithdanielhale.org website which was created in 2020 and seems to be run by Radack’s own non-profit called WHISPeR, her non-profit has been “representing” Hale since 2014, despite Radack’s argument that the case was dormant between 2014-2019. Even Kennebeck said that she has “represented” him since 2014.
Finally, according to her 2021 tweet, Radack has also been Hale’s attorney since 2014.
Make sense now? Of course it doesn’t, nor should it.
My guess is that what’s happening with Radack’s 2021 tweet to me is this: She’s using semantics because most people probably don’t know that “legally representing” someone technically means “the process of lawyers representing their clients in court and the work that the lawyers do during the proceedings.”
So yes, she’s been Hale’s attorney since 2014, but no, she hasn’t been “representing” him since 2014, because aside from the raid nothing happened until Hale was charged in 2019.
This, of course, doesn’t explain why she agreed in the deposition that she “represented” Hale in 2013 and 2014, nor why she told an audience at the Berlin International Film Festival in 2016 that she “still represents” him seeing that, as Radack put it, his case was still dormant. Don’t forget that in the deposition, Radack used the past tense to describe her relationship with Hale:
Q: Do you represent somebody who is identified — who’s identified in these documents as Daniel, do you represent that person?
Radack: I did.
Radack was reminded yet again during the deposition that Hale wasn’t raided until August 2014, giving her ample opportunity to realize, “Oh wait, sorry, I was wrong, I never represented Hale or gave him legal advice until after the August 2014 raid,” but she continued to double down on her story that she provided legal services to him back in 2013.
Well, by all means, if Radack wants to take credit for representing Hale in 2013, let’s take a look at what he was doing back then.
According to the government’s superseding indictment, Hale began conducting online searches about journalist Jeremy Scahill as early as April 2013. One of those searches was about Scahill’s book tour and one of his events that was happening in Washington D.C. at the end of the month. Hale decided to attend the event and the very next day, he used his NSA computer to search for “classified information concerning individuals and issues” that pertained to Scahill’s work:
Among the results of his search was information pertaining to a scheduled appearance of the Reporter on or about April 29, 2013 at a Washington, D.C. restaurant/bookstore (Bookstore).
On or about April 29, 2013, HALE attended a book tour event at the Bookstore, where he met with the Reporter. The next day, on or about April 30, 2013, HALE used his TOP SECRET NSA computer to search for classified information concerning individuals and issues about which the Reporter wrote.
In May 2013, HALE sent a text to a close friend and confidant (Confidant) stating “[the Reporter] wants me to tell my story about working with drones at the opening screening of his documentary about the war and the use of drones.”
On June 8th, he met with Scahill again at another speaking event and in the video I posted below you can see that Scahill invited Hale to sit next to him on a makeshift stage.
At the same exact time that Hale and Scahill were meeting, journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras were in Hong Kong with Snowden. In the last few minutes of Poitras’ documentary, Citizenfour, Greenwald discusses a “second source” with Snowden:
The media has since reported that this “second source” was likely Hale. According to techdirt.com:
According to the indictment…Hale’s printing and removal of top secret documents began in early 2013 — just a couple of months before the first Snowden leak…In ‘Citizenfour,’ the documentary about Snowden’s first meetings with Glenn Greenwald, Greenwald discusses another leak source that is most likely Hale.
And according to @emptywheel:
There’s a scene of [Citizenfour]…where Bill Binney warns Jeremy Scahill that if he wanted to publish documents from a source we now know to be Hale, with whom (trial exhibits would have shown) Scahill had already met in public, emailed, and texted during the period Hale was leaking, then (Binney instructed Scahill) he needed to do so by meeting in person, secretly.
It was probably too late for Hale by the time Binney gave Scahill this warning.
Then there’s the film’s widely discussed closing scene, showing a meeting where Glenn Greenwald flew to Moscow to update Snowden about ‘the new source’ that has come to The Intercept. Apparently believing he’s using rockstar operational security, he’s writing down — on camera!!! — how The Intercept is communicating with this new source, bragging…Greenwald continues to sketch out the contents of several of the documents — including one of the first ones to be published — that Hale just admitted he shared with The Intercept.
During his meeting with Snowden, Greenwald also told him that Hale’s boldness was “shocking” but that he was “obviously motivated by what you did.” But how is that possible? Initially, that is.
Greenwald and Poitras didn’t arrive in Hong Kong until June 2, 2013, and by then Hale was already using his NSA computer to search for classified documents related to Scahill’s work, meeting with Scahill, and sharing parts of his story. Furthermore, The Guardian didn’t start publishing Snowden’s documents until June 5th, and no one even knew who he was until June 9th.
It stands to reason that Hale’s initial inspiration came from something or someone other than Snowden unless, of course, he was being fed information about Snowden before the story became public. And Radack wants to take credit for providing “legal services” to Hale during all of this? Okay dokey.
In mid-fall, Radack traveled to Russia to meet with Snowden while Greenwald, Poitras and Scahill discussed putting together an “adversarial” news organization entirely funded by billionaire, Pierre Omidyar.
On December 5th, Scahill went on Democracy Now and announced the launch of “a new media venture with Greenwald, filmmaker Laura Poitras and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar,” which is now known today as The Intercept.
The very next day, Radack committed her first criminal offense in connection with Virginia state criminal cases #GC14070623 and #GC14070656, again, while she was representing Hale. Maybe. The one question that everyone should ask Kennebeck is whether she knew that Radack had just been handed a one-year suspended jail sentence when she put her in contact with Hale. Better yet, ask Radack’s “client” Edward Snowden if he knew.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.