2 comments on “Fact Check Update: Whistleblower/GAP Attorney Shoots the Messenger in Response to Fact Check”

1. mspbwatch January 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm

   One reason why Radack might be skittish about the role of OSC in handling non-public disclosures, and thus might not give it the prominence it deserves, is because of its sheer absence in her own whistleblowing ordeal.

   From Radack v. DOJ:

   Blowing the whistle is not without risk, as critical decisions are often made without access to relevant information. For instance, Radack’s apparent motivation for submitting the e-mails to Newsweek stems from the fact that she believed they were wrongfully suppressed when, in fact, they were submitted to the court three months before, where they were then placed under protective order:

   Aug. 09, 2005 Court Opinion:

   In June 2002, Radack heard a broadcast on National Public Radio stating that DOJ claimed it ‘never’ took the position that Lindh was entitled to counsel while in custody in Afghanistan. Compl. ¶ 27. The broadcast led Radack to believe that Flynn never disclosed her emails to Bellows or the court ‘because [she] did not believe the Department would have the temerity to make public statements contradicted by its own court filings.’ Id. Still unaware that the emails had been turned over and were subject to a protective order, Radack disclosed her emails to Newsweek magazine where they appeared in the online version of the magazine on June 15, 2002.

   July 17, 2006 Court Opinion:

   Radack eventually came to believe that the e-mails she collected were not produced in their entirety. Radack, however, was unaware that a number of the e-mails she suspected were withheld were in fact submitted to the court, ex parte and under seal, for an in camera inspection in connection with the government’s motion for a protective order. On April 1, 2002, the court granted the government’s motion for a protective order and prohibited disclosure of the PRAO emails.

   Radack also frequently made much of her “unemployability,” but it’s worth asking: why hadn’t she filed a complaint for retaliation with OSC or MSPB? Both exercise jurisdiction over DOJ employees…

2. mspbwatch January 6, 2013 at 3:18 pm

   When glibness and ignorance backfire: http://www.scribd.com/doc/119200958/DOJ-WPA-twitter-exchange

   Clueless and arrogant: what GAP does best.

Comments are closed.