Are you not reading your own postings? In another thread you posted another memorandum which included this:
The purpose of this memorandum is to notify your office of the closing of the FBI’s criminal investigation of the captioned media leak matter. It is the understanding of the FBI that your continued investigation of this matter will be pursued by your office.
And I replied this way:
It still looks like the FBI planted false information with Seikaly at the DOJ to see if he'd leak it. When he did, the FBI had no way to prosecute someone in the DOJ without help from the DOJ, so they let the people at the DOJ handle it. Seikaly left the DOJ, and he's still sweating out possible prosecution. The FBI got what it wanted: They stopped Seikaly from leaking any more information.
Not every criminal ends up in jail. This looks like a negotiated resulution that caused the least embarrassment to all concerned.
The bloodhound leak matter was evidently turned over to the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The OPR typically punishes people by getting them fired and/or by getting them disbarred. Seikaly left the DOJ. You may argue that he could have left on his own accord, but the facts do not support that belief.
From: Blier, William
Sent: August 11, 2002
To: Howard, Roscoe C, Fredericksen, Scott; Seikaly, Daniel
Subject: Conversation with Glenn Fine
Here is a summary of my conversation with Glenn about the anthrax leak investigation:
The manner in which investigations of leaks are allocated between OIG and OPR is somewhat less clear than you might think. If the universe of persons with knowledge is mixed, attorneys and agents, OPR and OIG will meet and determine who should do it, with OIG essentially deferring unless there appears to be a potential criminal violation. Glenn opined that his office is better equipped, with a staff of investigators, to handle a criminal investigation than is OPR. He was aware of the allegations in this case, but not of the potential leaking of classified material.
Neither OIG nor OPR open investigations based on news accounts. Both await a referral from a complainant (Hatfill) or from within the department (in particular, the DAG’s office). So far, his ofice has not received a referral and he does not believe OPR has either. Glenn said we could either wait to see what Hatfill does, or, if we think it is in the department’s or our Office’s best interest for an investigation to be opened, to talk to the DAG’s office and have the referral made by OGI by the DAG. Because Hatfill said he was going to make his referall to OPR, and because the substance of Hatfill’s complaints are not really criminal, Hatfill’s referall would probably result in OPR handling it (with OIG deferring).
Let me know if you want me to do anything further in this connection. Thanks, Bill.