The audit took place from 2002 until the end of 2005.
Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Pentagon IG found that the disclosures made as part of the audit were protected disclosures. However, that finding is made insignificant by the finding that he was not retaliated against because of the disclosures.
It is rather unbelievable that those involved in revoking his security clearance, placing him on administrative leave and making other administrative personnel decisions would not have known about his whistleblowing to the Pentagon IG.
Plus, the Pentagon IG destroyed records related to the investigation against Drake. From the McClatchy story:
static1.firedoglake.com/template/fdl/images/bqo.jpg); background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat;">static1.firedoglake.com/template/fdl/images/bqc.jpg) 100% 100% no-repeat;">"No one knows what was in the material," said a person with knowledge of the matter. "It might have been exculpatory. What is known is IG officials obscured the fact that such evidence might have been destroyed improperly."
"You could have a situation where the federal prosecutor was in good faith going forward with information from the IG that could have been challenged in regard to its veracity," the person said.
"They were on notice due to the New York Times warrantless wiretapping investigation that they originally thought Tom was a source for, even though he wasn't. They were on notice that first of all these were matters of extremely high public interest," Radack added. Yet, they destroyed records that were going to be part of potential litigation.
As for the fact that people in the office, which is supposed to investigate whistleblowers, are now blowing the whistle themselves, Radack declared, "It's that messed up. It's that dysfunctional that two people from the office are filing their own whistleblower complaints, specifically malfeasance--including malfeasance in the case of Thomas Drake."
The Government Accountability Project is representing these two people, who at the moment remain anonymous.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
