At this point in their email conversation, John De Pue and Jesselyn Radack were both unaware that an FBI agent had interviewed John Walker Lindh over the weekend. It was only after his last email to her that he learned about the interview, called her, and informed her about what happened. She followed up his phone call with an email. Here’s how she described these events in court documents:
2003 Affidavit
On December 10, 2001, I was advised by DePue that the Deputy Legal Advisor of the FBI stated that an agent had interviewed Lindh over the preceding two days.
I was told by my boss, Claudia Flynn, to research all advice PRAO had rendered in the past with respect to ‘unauthorized contacts’ and advised Deue that the interview may have to be sealed or only used for national security purposes.
December 2003 Filing
On December 10, 2001, Ms. Radack was advised by Mr. DePue that the Deputy Legal Advisor of the FBI had informed him that an agent had interviewed Lindh over the preceding two days. This interview also was widely reported in the press.
Ms. Radack immediately advised her supervisor, Claudia Flynn, that PRAO’s advice had been disregarded. Ms. Flynn instructed Ms. Radack to research all advice PRAO had rendered in the past with respect to ‘unauthorized contacts.’ Ms. Radack advised Mr. DePue that the FBI interview may have to be sealed or only used for national security purposes.
2005 Declaration
On December 10, 2001, I was advised by Mr. DePue that the Deputy Legal Advisor of the FBI had informed him that an FBI agent had interviewed Lindh over the preceding two days. This interview also was widely reported in the press.
I immediately advised my supervisor, Claudia Flynn, that PRAO’s advice had been disregarded. Ms. Flynn instructed me to research all advice PRAO had rendered in the past with respect to ‘unauthorized contacts.’ I advised Mr. DePue via email that the FBI interview may have to be sealed or only used for national security purposes.
Radack’s court statements reveal an interesting timeline. According to emails that she herself leaked, at 11:15 a.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, she was still discussing indictment venues with De Pue and getting schooled on the presumption of Lindh’s innocence. Neither of them had any idea that the FBI had interviewed him over the course of the previous two days:
From: Radack, Jesselyn A.
Sent: 12/10/01 11:01 AM ⬅
To: De Pue, John
I guess because he committed the crime of treason while he was overseas, you can’t glom on to the conspiracy venue. It seems that if you indicted him for conspiracy, that would be a different story.
From: De Pue, John
Sent: 12/10/01 11:15 AM ⬅
To: Radack, Jesselyn A.
That’s right. At present we have no knowledge that he did anything otherl [sic] than join the Talban [sic]. If that’s treason, the federal extraterrorial [sic] offense venue status applies.
14 minutes later, Radack documented his telephone call in an email which means the phone call must have occurred sometime between their last email at 11:15 a.m. and the email she sent at 11:29 a.m. that documented the call:
From: Radack, Jesselyn A
Sent: 12/10/01 11:29 AM ⬅
To: De Pue, John
You just advised that the Deputy Legal Advisor of the FBI stated that an agent went and interviewed Walker over the weekend.
If you go back to her court statements, she told two different federal judges that after De Pue told her about the interview—which, again, occurred sometime between 11:15 and 11:29 a.m.—she immediately told her supervisor what happened. In response, her supervisor told her to “research all advice PRAO had rendered in the past with respect to unauthorized contacts.”
Presumably, it was only after she conducted this research that she told De Pue at 11:29 a.m.—just 14 minutes after his last email to her—that the Lindh interview might have to be sealed. This is the timeline she gave to the courts and her emails wholly support it.
So, at 11:15 a.m. or later, Radack gets a phone call from De Pue who explains to her what happened. She then has to find her boss and explain to her what happened. Her boss instructs her to research all PRAO advice rendered in the past, and it’s only after she presumably followed these instructions that she sent him the following email:
From: Radack, Jesselyn A.
Sent: 12/10/01 11:29 AM ⬅
To: De Pue, John
You just advised that the Deputy Legal Advisor of the FBI stated that an agent went and interviewed Walker over the weekend, not knowing that Walker was a represented person. Please keep me in the loop as you learn more details. The interview may have to be sealed or only used for national security purposes; however, I don’t have enough information yet to make that recommendation.
All of these events supposedly happened within 14 minutes, meaning Radack spent less than 14 minutes conducting legal research into the Lindh case before she responded. In fact, it’s conceivable that she spent less than 5 minutes conducting research, or she ignored her supervisor’s instructions altogether. It comes as no surprise that she failed to give him any advice whatsoever.
Sources:
- https://jimmysllama.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Radack-2003-Affidavit-December-2003-filing.pdf
- https://jimmysllama.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Radack-2005-declaration.pdf
- https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3067190
Post Disclaimer
This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information, education, and entertainment 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.
Links are provided as a convenience and for informational and educational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by the operator of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. We bear no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links.
The operator of this site is not a professional such as an attorney or medical doctor. Information on this site should NOT be seen as any kind of advice including, but not limited to, legal, medical, tax or emotional advice. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this site or website are hereby expressly disclaimed.
Comments, reviews, and other user-generated content reflect the opinions of the individuals who post them. The operator of this site does not endorse, support, verify, or agree with comments, opinions, or statements posted by users, unless explicitly stated. We are not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of user-generated content.
Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual. The information provided on this site and webpage is not intended to encourage, organize, or facilitate harassment, bullying, or doxxing against any individual, organization, company or corporation. We strictly condemn all forms of online harassment, threats, and targeted attacks. Readers are expected to interact respectfully and engage in civil discourse.
This site or webpage may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you are the copyright owner of content that appears on this website and would like it removed, please contact jimmysllama@protonmail.com.