Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. to pay $2.8 million to settle anthrax lawsuit [Army scientist Steven Hatfill ......]
Reuters ^

Posted on 06/27/2008 3:39:56 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

U.S. to pay $2.8 million to settle anthrax lawsuit Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:36pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said on Friday it would pay former Army scientist Steven Hatfill over $2.8 million to settle his lawsuit accusing officials of violating his privacy rights by talking to the media and unfairly implicating him in anthrax attacks in 2001.

Hatfill, a bioterrorism expert who formerly worked at the Army Medical Institute of Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick in Maryland, has denied any involvement in the mailings of the anthrax-laced letters that killed five people weeks after the September 11 hijacked plane attacks.

In 2002, federal law enforcement officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, called Hatfill a "person of interest" in connection with the investigation into the anthrax attacks. Hatfill then sued various Justice Department officials, including Ashcroft.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anthrax; anthraxscarelist

1 posted on 06/27/2008 3:39:56 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EdLake

ping


2 posted on 06/27/2008 3:42:54 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Hope it’s Tax Free.Forever


3 posted on 06/27/2008 3:49:44 PM PDT by silentreignofheroes (Old Dogs and Children,and Watermelon Wine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So that’s where my money goes?

The perps should have to pay it from their own pockets.


4 posted on 06/27/2008 3:59:59 PM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silentreignofheroes

new YouTube video re Hatfill, Al Qaeda, the anthrax letters, the leaking etc.

The Anthrax Letters: Summons to Conquest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-NGKm4xxC4


5 posted on 06/27/2008 4:00:35 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
In this case the g-men are the perps and are protected. 2.8 million is probably less than they spent going after this guy with all the government tools and power at their disposal.

What surprises is me is that Hatfill walks. Innocence is irrelevant when government has a case to make.

6 posted on 06/27/2008 4:06:47 PM PDT by NEPA (Save a cow, tip a beer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

I’ll always believe Hatfill was picked to be the fall guy .


7 posted on 06/27/2008 4:10:17 PM PDT by silentreignofheroes (Old Dogs and Children,and Watermelon Wine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: silentreignofheroes

He was picked to be the fall guy to avoid a panic.


8 posted on 06/27/2008 4:52:55 PM PDT by Smogger (It's the WOT Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Thanks for the ping.

I posted my comments to another thread.

But, let me repeat this here: Anyone who claims that what happened to Dr. Hatfill is all the fault of the FBI just doesn't know what he's talking about.

This was the work of a bunch of idiot conspiracy theorists led by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg who led the media (particularly The New York Times) around by the nose.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

9 posted on 06/27/2008 4:53:53 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

$2.8 million is nowhere near enough. Must have had a crummy lawyer.


10 posted on 06/27/2008 5:34:07 PM PDT by txzman (Jer 23:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txzman

It’s actually $5.8 million according to other articles — the $2.8 million is the up-front payment and then the govt. buys Hatfield an annuity that will pay him $150K per year for the next 20 years. Of course that’s before his lawyer’s cut. Still, I don’t begrudge him the money — those bozos ruined his life. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg is the one who ought to be paying the settlement (not that she could afford it).


11 posted on 06/27/2008 5:52:05 PM PDT by Enchante (Barack Chamberlain: My 1930s Appeasement Policy Goes Well With My 1960s Socialist Policies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
It appears that she and her band of rumor mongering amateur detectives caused the FBI to waste considerable time and money on investigating an innocent man - time and money that should have been spent on the anthrax case. And by focusing the media's attention on Dr. Hatfill she may also have made it more difficult for the Justice Department to make a circumstantial case against the real culprit.

While I surely do NOT want to adopt Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's own irrational, vicious, and possibly actionable MO, I DO think it's reasonable to question if the results she got were the results she sought to get. IOW the results you list above.

Her efforts were certainly NOT casual, they were intense and the intensity lasted over a very long period and with NOTHING reasonable to back them up. Yet she persevered. She wanted something. It may have been to distract from and/or protect the actual perp(s). LOL, how do you like it when it's turned on you, Babsie?

12 posted on 06/27/2008 6:37:36 PM PDT by Sal (Question Him, you're an attacker; Disagree with Him, you're a racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
The perps should have to pay it from their own pockets.

That might be too much justice to hope for , but I hope the trial judge still requires the journalist named IIRC Locy to identify the source .

13 posted on 06/27/2008 6:44:13 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
Anyone who claims that what happened to Dr. Hatfill is all the fault of the FBI just doesn't know what he's talking about.

BS. The FBI is employed with the expectation of professionalism and good judgment. Looney-Tune Conspiracy Theorists are not in charge of the FBI.

Get off your high-horse. I need to shoot it.

14 posted on 06/27/2008 6:46:55 PM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

what hyperbole!


15 posted on 06/27/2008 6:55:06 PM PDT by RDTF (my worst nightmare is being on jury duty sequestered with 11 liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sal
She wanted something. It may have been to distract from and/or protect the actual perp(s).

She made it clear what she wanted from the very beginning. She believed that the Bush Administration was behind the attacks, and that the Bush Administration did it to shoot down the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BTWC). She basically stated that at the BTWC in November of 2001.

She and a bunch of others who felt the same way decided that Dr. Hatfill was the "most likely" person to have done what the Bush Administration wanted. So, she began her campaign to get Dr. Hatfill publicly investigated.

The FBI checked out Dr. Hatfill as soon as his name came up, but they found no reason to suspect him. But to the conspiracy theorists, that just meant that the FBI was helping the Bush Administration in a cover-up.

The New York Times joined in, and the campaign went on for SIX MONTHS before Van Harp at the FBI caved in and began the public investigation of Dr. Hatfill.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

16 posted on 06/28/2008 6:31:25 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
The FBI is employed with the expectation of professionalism and good judgment. Looney-Tune Conspiracy Theorists are not in charge of the FBI.

Get off your high-horse. I need to shoot it.

I'm very comfortable up here on my high-horse, thank you.

As I said: Anyone who claims that what happened to Dr. Hatfill is all the fault of the FBI just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg began her campaign SIX MONTHS before Dr. Hatfill's name was made public.

She made speeches at scientific conventions, stating that she knew who sent the letters and that the government was covering up the crime.

She did interviews with newspapers all over the world, and they printed what she told them. Nicolas Kristof at The New York Times believed her and began a series of columns that pointed at Dr. Hatfill without actually naming him.

She made speeches at universities. She got people to write their congressmen.

She posted papers on the web site of the Federation of American Scientists stating the facts as she saw them.

THIS WENT ON FOR SIX MONTHS!

In June of 2002, shortly after posting a paper titled "What the FBI Knows," she was summoned before a Senate committee along with Van Harp, who was the head of the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

The staffers in charge of that committee believed what Barbara Hatch Rosenberg told them about Dr. Hatfill. When Van Harp called her an "amateur detective," the committee ORDERED Harp to apologize to her. They also DEMANDED that the FBI check out Dr. Rosenberg's accusations and they DEMANDED that Harp report back to the committee with his findings.

A week later, the public investigation of Dr. Hatfill began. (The FBI had checked him out as soon as his name came up in November of 2001, but they found no reason to suspect him.)

So, while "Looney-Tune Conspiracy Theorists are not in charge of the FBI," they can apply a LOT of pressure when they are believed by newspapers, by the public and by politicians who hold the purse strings which allow the FBI to operate. (In case you have forgotten, there was talk at that time of shutting down the FBI and creating a new agency that would be more interested in going after potential terrorists.)

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

17 posted on 06/28/2008 6:50:33 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
I'm very comfortable up here on my high-horse

Most are.

18 posted on 06/28/2008 6:55:57 AM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
Yeah, I know. I got it when I read your very long, but very good history on this evil witch.

I just wanted to throw a little tiny bit of what that hideous, IMO near psychotic liar did to an innocent man right back at her. I would love to see HER in Hatfil's position of being regarded as the anthrax perp, being widely despised and condemned, losing her livelihood, relationships (if she has any) damaged... all because of unsupportable accusations.

Her target was the Bush administration, but she aimed at and shot an innocent man and I'd so love to see her get it right back in her face.

Also, IMO she is obviously trying to damage my country. What if I could level an accusation against her and destroy HER...

I don't think she's bright enough, honest enough, or decent enough to realize exactly what she did or to regret doing it if she did realize, but I would like to see her experience being on the receiving end. Yeah, I know it's not going to happen. Thank you for permanently recording exactly what she did, who and what she is.

19 posted on 06/28/2008 7:04:19 AM PDT by Sal (Question Him, you're an attacker; Disagree with Him, you're a racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sal

        In early August 2002, the head of the District of Columbia Field Office initiated a leak investigation related to Amerithrax information. The first leak investigation concerned leak of bloodhound story to Newsweek (according to email discussed in deposition of lead prosecutor Daniel Seikaly in which he repeatedly pled the Fifth Amendment). A memo from DC Field Office head Van Harp read:

TO: OPR

NSD

From: Washington Field
ADIC’s Office: Harp Van A (202) xxx-xxxx
***
Title: UNSUB
UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE AND/OR
MEDIA LEAK IN CONNECTION WITH THE
AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
***
[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]
The appearance of this information in the media affects the conduct of this investigation as well as the morale of the dedicated personnel who have expended enormous energy and effort on this investigation.

As such, I am requesting that either a media leak or OPR investigation be initiated. In the event a leak investigation is initiated then the enclosed LRM should be hand delivered to AAG Chertoff. [REDACTED]
        The investigation was closed in October 2002. The memo read:

Date: October 8, 2002
To: Mr. H. Marshall Jarrett
Counsel

Office of Professional Responsibility
United States Department of Justice

From: David W. Szady
Assistant Director
Counterintelligence Division
Subject: [REDACTED[

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.

[REDACTED]

***

        After a January 9, 2003 “exclusive” report by ABC’s Brian Ross that the FBI was focusing on Hatfill and was going to conduct a second round of interviews with other former and current government scientists so that they might rule them out by the process of elimination, the FBI initiated a second media leak investigation. This time it was to proceed with “extreme zeal.”

The memo read:

Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 1/13/2003
To: Director’s Office
Washington Field
From: Washington Field

Contact Richard L. Lambert 202-xxx-xxxx
Approved by: Harp Van
Lambert Richard L
Title: AMERITHRAX

MAJOR CASE 184

00: WFO

Synopsis: To request the opening of new OPR media leak investigation regarding captioned case.

[large redacted passages]

To demonstrate the seriousness with which the FBI views this matter, it is requested that the OPR inquiry commence with an interview of IIC Rick Lambert who will waive all Fifth Amendment privileges and accede to a voluntary polygraph examination to set a tone of candor, forthrightness and cooperation.

[redacted]

The instant matter is the second unauthorized media disclosure to occur in this investigation. Its potential detriment to the effective prosecution of the case is substantial. Accordingly, in the interests of both specific and general deterrence, the Inspector in Charge requests that this OPR inquiry be pursued with unprecedent zeal.”

A June 2003 email then shut the barn door long after the horse had left the barn door:

From: DEBRA WEIERMAN
To: Lisa Hodgson

Date: Wed, June 4, 2003 12:18 PM
Subject: AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION

Lisa: Please disseminate to all WFO employees. Thanks, Debbie

For the information of all recipients, Director Mueller has ordered that no one discuss the AMERITHRAX case with any representative of the news media. The WFO and Baltimore Media Offices have released several media advisories, which were coordinated with the US Attorney and FBIHQ, to explain specific milestones in the case. However, NO FBI WFO EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING MYSELF AND INSPECTOR RICK LAMBERT, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF AMERITHRAX, IS TO RESPOND TO ANY MEDIA INQUIRIES, THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS DEBBIE WEIERMAN IN THE MEDIA OFFICE. All inquiries from reporters or journalists received by any WFO employee are to be immediately referred to Debbie at xxx-xxxx, and she will handle.

I thank everyone at WFO for their dedication to the job and to this office. I also thank you for your cooperation in this very important matter.

Mike Rolince

        In October 2007, the former Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Daniel Seikaly, was deposed in the civil rights action by Steve Hatfill about whether he was the source of leaks relating to Steve Hatfill in connection the use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation and the draining of ponds in Frederick, Maryland. Key stories appeared in Newsweek and Washington Post. Attorney Seikaly pled the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in connection with most substantive questions.

        Attorney Seikaly has had a very distinguished career. In 2001, Mr. Seikaly went from being Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Central Intelligence Agency to Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. There he supervised eighty-five Assistant United States Attorneys involved in the prosecution of all federal offenses in the District of Columbia. He also served as a technical expert for U.S. Department of State funded rule of law programs in Croatia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand. Before accepting the appointment to Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Mr. Seikaly was Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Central Intelligence Agency. While with the CIA, a profile at his current law firm’s webpage explains, “he conducted and supervised numerous investigations concerning allegations of misconduct by employees, contractors and vendors involved in CIA programs. In that position, he routinely interacted with senior officials within the intelligence community, other executive branch agencies and Congress concerning intelligence investigations.” The profile continues: “From 1996 to 1998, Daniel served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice and was Director of the Department’s Executive Office for National Security. There he was responsible for the coordination and oversight of the national security activities of the Department of Justice, including intelligence operations, international law enforcement, relations with foreign countries and the use of classified information. Reporting directly to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General and acting with their authority in national security matters, Daniel was a primary point of contact between the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies with national security interests such as the National Security Council, the Department of State and the Department of Defense.”

        Here are some excerpts from the deposition:

“Q. Hecalls this article, quote ‘An exclusive look at the search for the perpetrator of America’s worst bioterror attack.” Did you tell Mr. Klaidman [of Newsweek] that you were giving him an exclusive on this information?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI was acting on a tip when it searched the pond in Frederick?

Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that FBI agents had interviewed the acquaintance of Dr. Hatfill’s that was supposedly the tipster?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the acquaintance had told the FBI that Dr. Hatfill said toxic bacteria could be made in the woods and the evidence could be tossed in the lake?

        [deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI might drain the entire pond the month after this report?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

[Lawyer defending deposition] Mark, let me say something on the record so we all understand the assertion because the manner in which — or the type of questions you’re asking here. My client has been instructed to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege regardless of whether or not the answer to the question would be yes or no, because even if the answer were to be no, if he answered no to certain questions, I think an inference could be drawn from that as to what he does or doesn’t know.

So I just want to make sure you understand in terms of our Fifth Amendment assertion here is that he’s asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege to questions that may have a yes or no answer, and it’s not fair to assume that the answer to every one of these questions would be yes or no if he were to answer the questions. Does that make sense?

Q. It makes sense, but we will be seeking an adverse inference as to all questions where the fifth amendment is taken.

***

Q. Mr. Seikaly, do you deny any of the statements attributed to you by Mr. Klaidman with respect to the [Newsweek bloodhound story]

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q Is it actually even true whether the search of the pond was prompted by a tip?

Q. Are you aware of any information that might have been used as a predicate for the pond search having been obtained as the fruits of electronic surveillance?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that agents might be looking for a wet suit that could have been used to dispose of — that could have been used and disposed of by the anthrax attacker?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q. Did you give Allan Lengel of The Washington Post any information reflected in this article?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Mr. Lengel has testified that you told him the FBI search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill and that it was triggered by a hypothetical statement Dr. Hatfill has made about anthrax; is that correct?

A. That Mr. Lengel testified about that?

Q. Is it correct that you told Mr. Lengel about those things?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. How did you know that the FBI’s search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q. Why did you decide to disclose information to Mr. Lengel about the pond search?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up to that point included a clear box with holes that could accommodate gloves?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up that point included vials wrapped in plastic?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Do you specifically deny making any statement that Mr. Lengel has attributed to you?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q. How did you know that tests for the presence of anthrax bacteria on the equipment were continuing after two rounds of tests produced conflicting results?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Why did you disclose that information to Mr. Lengel?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the search of the pond in Frederick netted nothing but a hodgepodge of items that did not appear to be linked to the case?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q If we take the dates from Exhibits É, it appears that you disclosed investigative information to Mr. Lengel for articles that appeared in January 2003, May 2003, June 2003 and August 2003. Is that right?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q. É Do you know whether you ever saw this e-mail before?

A. I don’t believe I have.

Q. Okay. Let’s look at the partially redacted paragraph. It says, quote, “WFO [Washington Field Office] has opened a leak investigation in an attempt to find out who spoke to Newsweek Magazine over the weekend about the bureau’s use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation,” closed quote. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And the date of the email is August 5th, 2002.

A. That’s correct.

Q. The investigation that’s referenced here is about the story that you gave Mr. Klaidman, is it not?

A. Assert my Fifth Amendment Privilege in response.

***

Q. Okay. In the bottom e-mail, when Blier begins, “here is a summary of my conversation with Glen about the anthrax leak investigation.” Now, Bill Blier worked for you, did he not?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know what Mr. Blier was referring to when he referred to, quote, the anthrax leak investigation?

A. I believe that it was an investigation involving the possible compromise of classified information is my understanding. I did know about an investigation in that.

***

Q And do you know whether that had anything to do with bloodhounds or Newsweek?

A I don’t believe it did but I don’t know.

***

Q You were aware of an anthrax investigation, yes?

A. I was — I was aware that there was a discussion of an investigation involving the compromise of classified information arising from the anthrax investigation, the Amerithrax investigation. I do recall knowing that we were — we and the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Justice Department were concerned about this and were seeking to find out who compromised the classified information.

***

Q. Did you think it remarkable in any way that bloodhounds could track a scent from anthrax letters that were ten months old to a Denny’s in Louisiana where someone had eaten the day before?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

His daughter has represented Ali Al-Timimi pro bono in defense of his prosecution for sedition.

   


20 posted on 06/28/2008 8:03:33 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
The New York Times joined in, and the campaign went on for SIX MONTHS
before Van Harp at the FBI caved in and began the public
investigation of Dr. Hatfill.


Hopefully, Van Harp's folding will be a prime case-study for
young FBI trainees.
To show them how FBI assets can be wasted (and how much money
it can cost) when FBI investigations are guided by academicians
and hack journalists.

It's something to ponder: how many true "bad actors" got away
while all those FBI resources were being used to dog Hatfill.

As for Hatfill, Dubya should give him The Medal of Freedom.
For not cracking under the unrelenting pressure of The FBI,
The New York Times, and a crank professor.
21 posted on 06/28/2008 8:27:46 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VOA
Hopefully, Van Harp's folding will be a prime case-study for young FBI trainees.

Yes, there are LOTS of lessons to be learned from this.

People endlessly blame the FBI, but the facts show that the leaking of information about Dr. Hatill was mostly done by lawyers in the Department of Justice. Attorney General Ashcroft's improper statements that Dr. Hatfill was a "person of interest" didn't come from the FBI. It was a statement from the head of the DOJ.

Hidden withing ZACKandPOOK's endless post is information which shows that the FBI tried to stop the leaks by stopping the leakers. In one case, they caused the "leak" of ridiculously FALSE information that bloodhounds had gotten Dr. Hatfill's scent off the anthrax letters. They told it in confidence to the top lawyer in the Washington Office of the DOJ, and that lawyer promptly leaked it to Newsweek. That lawyer is now out of the DOJ.

But I think it's also important to realize that the Hatfill case almost certainly needed to be resolved before the FBI could arrest the actual culprit. If they didn't, they'd have to stand up in court in the Hatfill lawsuit and explain why they harrassed Dr. Hatfill while they were all but certain that someone else was the culprit.

There are lots of lessons to be learned here, and it isn't yet over. Hatfill's appeal in his lawsuit against the New York Times is still pending.

And, of course, the actual culprit still hasn't been arrested.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

22 posted on 06/28/2008 8:50:18 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All
FWIW, while the media continues to make no mention of the conspiracy theorists, the written statement from Dr. Hatfill's lawyer Mark Grannis does mention the conspiracy theorists:

The leakers, their accomplices in the press, and a handful of conspiracy theorists deprived Dr. Hatfill of his professional reputation and the employment he could otherwise have expected. As a result of the media circus they created and sustained, Dr. Hatfill must now carry on his scientific work largely independently. This settlement will help him to do so.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

23 posted on 06/28/2008 9:02:22 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
Oops. I forgot to mention that Grannis' statement can be viewed by clicking HERE

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

24 posted on 06/28/2008 9:08:36 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

There is no basis for Ed’s suggestion that the documentary evidence or my commentary supports his view regarding how the bloodhounds were used. It’s just his theory that is not supported by the expert who testified at deposition regarding use of the dogs — and is contradicted by that testimony. I don’t recall that he link the deposition even though I recall giving it to him.


25 posted on 06/28/2008 11:28:13 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Mr. Seikaly moved over from the CIA on September 29, 2001. He was born in Haifa (Palestine) in 1948. His sister-in-law, head of an institute on contemporary affairs at Georgetown, told the Washington Post years ago that in her private life (but not her day job) she was a Palestinian activist. To be born in Palestine, she says, is to be political. Her husband, Daniel’s brother, spoke along with her in 2002 about how it was important not to rush to attribute terrorism to Bin Laden. She wrote and published on the subject. Daniel the leaker’s daughter now represents Al-Timimi pro bono. The judge has refused to let pro bono counsel access to the classified material and has restricted it to main counsel, a professor at GWU.


26 posted on 06/28/2008 11:34:28 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Some excerpts from McClellan’s book -

“Looking back on the post 9-911 period, however, I think that one event with an enormous impact on President Bush’s mind-set has been almost forgotten by many people — the anthrax attacks.

***
“One of my new duties in the post-911 White House was helping Ari Fleischer to stay on top of this potential bioterrorist threat. I stayed in contact with my counterparts at the Department of Health and Human Services, and began working closely with Lisa Gordon-Haggerty, an exceptionally bright and tireless public servant who worked in the counterterrorism unit of the National Security Council under Richard Clarke. Lisa was running point for the NSC on the anthrax attacks.

[Then he describe nervousness over a possible case of smallpox.]

He says Ari “replied with a joyful shout, “Yes! It’s syphilis! He’s got syphilis.”

On bentonite, he says:

“Ari relentlessly pursued the story and “continued to badger a variety of people at ABC to see if they were going to correct the story” in the days after it aired. On October 31, ABC backtracked from its previous report, saying only that “a further chemical analysis” had ruled out bentonite in the anthrax, although it did contain silica, which is “not a trademark of any country’s weapons program.”

***

“The influence of the anthrax attacks on policymaking within the Bush White House shouldn’t be underestimated.”

***

I know President Bush’s thinking was deeply affected by the anthrax attacks. He was determined not to let another terrorist attack happen on his watch and to challenge regimes believed to be seeking weapons of mass destruction.”

There is nothing in Mr. McClellan’s book that supports Ed’s central and mistaken view that silica was not detected. In fact, he quite plainly says the opposite but Ed has not seen fit to mention or quote the excerpt.

The only difference between BHR’s theory and Ed’s theory is that hers had legs because, for example, Hatfill knew the same leading anthrax scientists Ali worked in the same building with. For example, he once gave a talk in San Diego alongside William Patrick and Ken Alibek. Ed and BHR both have substantially the same “bioevangelist” theory.


27 posted on 06/28/2008 11:39:02 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson