After Jesselyn Radack spent what may have been less than five minutes conducting legal research into the John Walker Lindh case before telling John De Pue that the FBI interview might have to be sealed, he wrote back that same day at 1:54 p.m.
From: De Pue, John
Sent: 12/10/01 1:54 PM
To: Radack, Jesselyn A.
Ugh. We are trying to figure out what actually transpired and what, if anything, Walker said. It may well be that the questioning was for intelligence purposes and that he was questioned as any other prisoner of war should be.
She responded to him at 2:04 p.m. but we don’t know what she said because she cherry-picked the emails she leaked to journalist Michael Isikoff. In fact, she’s been hiding a total of four emails from the public. We know this because if you cross-reference what Newsweek published with a 2002 memo Radack wrote to her boss that documented every email she exchanged with De Pue, four emails are missing. According to her memo, there were a total of 17 emails exchanged between her and De Pue:
But if you look at what Newsweek released (here), they only published 13 emails. Here are the missing emails from Isikoff’s story:
Either Radack cherry-picked what she leaked, Isikoff did it for her, or he did it without her permission and her 20 years of silence makes her complicit in a four-email coverup. In her book, she said that she took a copy of her emails home with her so she’s welcome to say that she lost four of them before leaking to Isikoff but, if that’s the case, why wouldn’t she disclose that to the public?
I reached out to Isikoff a few years ago to discuss an error he made in another article he wrote about Radack’s emails. He refused to discuss it until I identified myself, which seems like a weird way to interact with his readers.
What was in these four emails that Radack has been hiding from the public? Do they contradict her “whistleblower” story? Not that it particularly matters; my Deception in DC series has already debunked her story, and she’s been exposed as a fraud, no thanks to Isikoff, or any other journalist, for that matter, until now:
Perhaps more unsettling is her pattern of deceit, which has allowed her to remain deeply embedded within the truth and transparency movement and privy to whistleblowers’ secrets. We don’t know why she’s done what she’s done, nor whether she’s been operating on behalf of the U.S. intelligence community or a foreign intelligence agency, such as those controlled by the israeli government and known for their recruiting techniques. Is this why she’s been protected all of these years?
These are legitimate concerns in light of the severity of her actions, especially since she’s known for defamation, intimidation, harassment, illegal doxing, perjury, and wrecker ops within the WikiLeaks and activist communities, as are her associates. One wonders why everyone has remained silent about this story, including Edward Snowden, who has yet to dispute, over the last 13 years, that she’s his attorney. Is it because leftist and progressive circles don’t want to admit they have an operative within their ranks? Are they willing to sacrifice whistleblowers for silence? Is this being done deliberately?
For over 20 years, Radack has fooled the American public with a bogus whistleblower story that, it seems, required her to cover up four of her emails. She’s welcome to argue that the missing emails contain classified information and that’s why she didn’t leak them, but that still doesn’t explain why she purposely misled the public with a thread of emails that are missing context. Furthermore, she’s been completely discredited. Any explanation she might give is worthless and unbelievable.
Sources:
- https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3067190
- Jesselyn Radack v. United States (2004), Case 1:04-cv-01881-HHK, Document 4-14
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.