We left off with federal attorney John De Pue and Jesselyn Radack discussing the situation after they realized an FBI agent had interviewed John Walker Lindh over the previous weekend. On December 10, 2001, at 1:54 pm, De Pue wrote, “We are trying to figure out what actually transpired…It may well be that the questioning was for intelligence purposes and that he was questioned as any other prisoner of war would be.”
She responded, but we don’t know what she said because internal Department of Justice records show that she selectively withheld four emails she had written to him before leaking a larger cache of attorney-client privileged communications to journalist Michael Isikoff approximately six months later (see Chapter 3.2)
Whatever it was, her response alarmed him to the point that he wanted the FBI contacted immediately:
From: De Pue, John
Sent: 12/10/01 2:11 PM
To: Radack, Jesselyn A.
If what you are telling us is true—and I am sure that it is—the FBI needs to b alerted at once.
But Radack had no intention of involving the feds. She responded to his email twice. She initially wrote back, “The part about the interview possibly needing to be sealed? It’s premature to conclude that yet. I need more factual information.” Exactly one minute later, she told him not to contact the FBI:
From: Jesselyn Radack
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:19 PM
To: John De Pue
I wouldn’t alert the FBI yet.
I wouldn’t alert the FBI yet. Not only was she uncertain as to what advice to give him after spending what was likely less than 10 minutes researching the case, but here we have a federal attorney working in the DOJ’s ethics department directing another federal attorney to withhold information from the FBI—the very agency that had just conducted an interview with Lindh and may have been planning to interview him further.
This is the same woman who has spent the last two decades targeting the FBI with unsubstantiated allegations about an alleged ethics violation because some unknown figure that she’s never identified “unambiguously told” her that Lindh was represented. Now, here she was blatantly instructing De Pue not to contact them.
The only evidence we have of anyone deliberately hiding information in the Lindh case is her. We have four missing emails and now this: An ethics attorney telling another federal attorney to keep the FBI in the dark about an ethics violation they may have committed. During an interview that took place on approximately February 18, 2014, she told The Whistleblower Interview Project a completely different story:
This is undoubtedly shelved under fiction at your local library because here’s what actually happened: De Pue called her up, told her that Lindh had been interrogated over the weekend, and then she threw out some non-recommendation recommendation that she didn’t want passed along to the FBI, let alone, one assumes, to the military on the ground. Furthermore, De Pue wasn’t fine at all with Radack’s response, and he voiced his concern 10 minutes later:
OK. However, I am somewhat leery about continuing to question w/out some understanding concrnng [sic] such ethical constraints and whether Miranda warnings are being given.
It’s outlandish for her to casually lie to an ever-complacent liberal and independent media about how “they” were going to pass along her communications to the FBI, when her emails clearly prove she told De Pue to keep what she said to himself. As to who she meant by “they” is anyone’s guess because, God forbid, these journalists ask her.
The reality is that De Pue was alarmed by the situation based on what she said in an email that she’s deliberately concealed from the public. But despite his growing concern that Lindh might be questioned further, without any clear answers about what that meant ethically, she told him to keep his mouth shut.
And I’m going to keep beating this poor, dead horse for the remainder of this series: Not that any of this mattered because unlike what Radack has told you for the past 24 years, she didn’t bring down the government’s case against Lindh because attorneys can’t use an ethics violation in federal court to suppress their client’s statements, and that’s why Lindh’s attorneys never argued it in court. She lied and lied and lied.
Sources:
- https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3067190
- https://time.com/7213150/apple-cider-vinegar-scammer-shows/
- http://www.thewhistler.org/interview-project.html
- https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk
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.