Posted on 08/08/2008 11:44:22 AM PDT by Shermy
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today began asking tough questions of the Department of Justice and the FBI following the release of documents implicating Dr. Bruce Ivins as the only suspect in the Amerithrax investigation.
“This has been a long investigation full of missteps and mistakes. There’s been too much secrecy up to this point and it deserves a full and thorough vetting,” Grassley said. “There are clearly a lot of unanswered questions and it’s time to start a dialogue so we can get answers.”
Here is a copy of the text of Grassley’s letter.
The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530
The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20535
Dear Attorney General Mukasey and Director Mueller:
Thank you for ensuring that Congressional staff received an advanced briefing yesterday of the information released to the public in the Amerithrax investigation. The three affidavits provided represent an important, but small first step toward providing Congress and the public a full accounting of the evidence gathered by the FBI.
At yesterday's briefing, Justice Department and FBI officials invited follow-up questions after there had been time to read the affidavits. Indeed, there are many important questions to be answered about the FBI's seven-year investigation, the basis for its conclusion that Dr. Bruce Ivins conducted the attacks alone, and the events leading to his suicide. To begin this inquiry, please provide complete and detailed answers to the following questions:
1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins’s lab ("RMR-1029")?
2. When (month and year) did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill never had access to the anthrax used in the killings?
3. How did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the anthrax used in the killings? Was that because the FBI determined that Dr. Hatfill no longer worked at USAMRIID when the powder was made?
4. Was Dr. Hatfill or his counsel informed that Dr. Hatfill had been cleared of any involvement in the anthrax killings before the Department of Justice offered a settlement to him? Was he informed before signing the settlement agreement with him? If not, please explain why not.
5. Was Judge Walton (the judge overseeing the Privacy Act litigation) ever informed that Dr. Hatfill had been eliminated as a suspect in the anthrax killings? If so, when. If not, please explain why not.
6. Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation? If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s). If not, please explain why not.
7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick? Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?
8. If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
9. How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?
10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks.
11. Was there video equipment which would record the activities of Dr. Ivins at Ft. Detrick on the late nights he was there on the dates surrounding the mailings? If so, please describe what examination of the video revealed.
12. When did the FBI first learn of Dr. Ivins’ late-night activity in the lab around the time of the attacks? If this is powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation?
13. When did the FBI first learn that Dr. Ivins was prescribed medications for various symptoms of mental illness? If this is circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation? Of the 100 individuals who had access to RMR 1029, were any others found to suffer from mental illness, be under the care of a mental health professional, or prescribed anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medications? If so, how many?
14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?
15. After the FBI identified Dr. Ivins as the sole suspect, why was he not detained? Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office object to seeking an arrest or material witness warrant? If not, did anyone at FBI order a slower approach to arresting Ivins?
16. Had an indictment of Dr. Ivins been drafted before his death? If so, what additional information did it contain beyond the affidavits already released to the public? If not, then when, if ever, had a decision been made to seek an indictment from the grand jury?
17. According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide. These aggressive, overt surveillance techniques appear similar to those used on Dr. Hatfill with the apparent purpose of intimidation rather than legitimate investigation. Please describe whether and to what degree there is any truth to these claims.
18. What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?
Please provide your responses in electronic format. Please have your staff contact (202) 224-4515 with any questions related to this request.
Sincerely,
"The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."
But the current govt is not handling any or doesn’t have to for Saddam’s Baathi Regime.
Claims against Saddam are moot, but I’m not a lawyer, and god knows they can come up with some doozies.
That said, how pitiful, because of potential litigation we play these games. Bah!
Too bad. If the FBI weren't such bumblers in this case, there would not be ample reason for skepticism.
I don't believe Ivins did it. I believe he was hounded to death by the FBI, and now that he's dead, he's a convenient scapegoat with which to close the file.
Evidence presented so far does not convince me.
Attempts To Deceive Investigators
PROSECUTION: Investigators say that in 2002 Ivins submitted two samples of anthrax from the flask in question and that neither of those genetically matched the spores used in the attacks. Agents later seized the flask and found the anthrax in it did in fact match the spores used in the attacks. Taylor said Ivins did this "presumably to mislead investigators."
DEFENSE: Ivins' lawyer says there was confusion about what kind of sample the FBI had wanted — a "pure" sample or one that captured the mix of spores in the flask. Kemp says Ivins submitted a pure sample at first.
--------------------------------------------------
The mailed letters were photocopies. Early in
the investigation, much was made about the Feds
search for the machine that produced them.
Has there been any word about evidence on
that front?
19. Has Richard Jewell been polygraphed in the course of the investigation?
Pretty much everyone hostile to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That includes the entire democrat party, the countries that profited off Saddam during the oil-for-food scam, the countries that armed him and the countries that continue to arm Iran and other enemies of the west.
OTOH, who benefits from another lone gunman being nailed as the anthrax perp after 7 years of mystery?
The same folks. The "No WMD/No terror ties" lie has been the backbone of the antiwar movement. It's been their mantra since the beginning, going as far back as the first reports after 9/11 that Mohammad Atta twice visited the Iraqi embassy in Prague. Without that lie, there can be no legitimate objection to the Iraq war because the invasion would be completely justified. If it's proven that Saddam passed a WMD off to the 9/11 terrorists... it's game over. Nobody can make a peep about the invasion of Iraq and be taken seriously.
There are plenty of people out there with strategic and financial reasons for wanting America to fall on her face in Iraq. Iran, Russia and China to name three. And they have a great deal of power and influence in our government, our schools and our media.
I’m afraid that polygraph would merely show a flat line...
So, what to do ~ maybe if Grassley were to start pulling his questions out of Free Republic I might be willing to support him in this effort. As it is his ambition here is most likely to continue the coverup on all the Postal MTE that got contaminated with anthrax and then sent all over the country with mail shipments BEFORE the attack had even been detected.
Maybe he'd like to ask questions about that ~ particularly contaminated MTE in central NJ ~
certainly Congress has oversight, but for Grassley it seems to go beyond.
the man has been an FBI hater for many years
“
10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope
measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the
spores used in the anthrax attacks.
“
Good for Senator Grassley.
With those sort of analytical questions, we’ll find out if the FBI
has built an invincible case against Dr. Bruce Ivins...
or just decided to “punt”.
I suspect that if asked “question 10”, a fair number of people with
bachelors degrees in Chemistry would stumble in trying to explain why
employing isotopic descrimination could validate (or disprove)
the FBI’s case.
For the record, let me say that I’m open to the possibility that
Ivins was the guy.
But there are plenty of unanswered questions...how did a lone wolf
like Ivins produce what the FBI has (in press releases) produce high-quality weaponized anthrax with a very narrow margin of
particle size (without milling), coated with a polyglass coat, and
weakly charged to make sure it would suspend in air for enhanced inhalation?
These and other inconvenient questions/facts were raised in
The Wall Street Journal in anarticle from the Aug. 5 issue.
As I don’t have on-line access to WSJ, I re-post a similar passage from CNN.
FBI accused of hardball tactics in anthrax case
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/06/fbi.tactics/?iref=mpstoryview
(excerpt from end of article)
Peter Hotez, chairman of microbiology at George Washington University,
rejected the government’s contention that Ivins’ access to a sophisticated
lab device called a lyophilizer — used to dry anthrax — was in any
way damning.
And Richard Spertzel, a former colleague of Ivins at Fort Detrick,
said there was “no way” a lyophilizer could have created the fine
anthrax spores used in the 2001 letters.
In addition, Spertzel said, no one working at a U.S. government
lab could have produced such high quality anthrax in secret.
You’re kidding? They were about to indict this guy, they drove him to suicide, and they have “not fully explained” the presence of silicon?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/08/ST2008080803414.html
Since the fall of 2001, federal officials have made contradictory statements about whether the powdered anthrax contained a form of the mineral silicon. The presence of silicon dioxide — also known as silica — would be highly significant, suggesting that the bioterrorist took additional steps to ensure that the powder would not clump and would penetrate deeply into victims’ lungs. Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.
On Nov. 7, 2001, then-Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said at a news conference that the anthrax powder contained silica, a statement that implied that the bioterrorist had access to secret government formulas for making biological weapons.
But in the documents released this Wednesday, the FBI clarified Ridge’s statement. The powder contained not silica but silicon, which was present “within the spores,” the documents said. There was no silica coating on the spores, as would be expected if someone had deliberately added the material to keep the spores from clumping.
Two government scientists with knowledge of the FBI’s investigation said the presence of silicon, while not fully explained, does not appear to be significant. The scientists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the silicon was probably an inadvertent contaminant and might have been introduced when the bacteria was being grown in the lab.
Still, numerous scientists and biodefense experts continued to complain that the FBI has not publicly addressed questions about silicon as well as other technical facets of the case. Many scientists, including colleagues of Ivins, say the evidence presented so far has not conclusively linked Ivins to the anthrax letters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/08/ST2008080803414.html
Since the fall of 2001, federal officials have made contradictory statements about whether the powdered anthrax contained a form of the mineral silicon. The presence of silicon dioxide — also known as silica — would be highly significant, suggesting that the bioterrorist took additional steps to ensure that the powder would not clump and would penetrate deeply into victims’ lungs. Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.
On Nov. 7, 2001, then-Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said at a news conference that the anthrax powder contained silica, a statement that implied that the bioterrorist had access to secret government formulas for making biological weapons.
But in the documents released this Wednesday, the FBI clarified Ridge’s statement. The powder contained not silica but silicon, which was present “within the spores,” the documents said. There was no silica coating on the spores, as would be expected if someone had deliberately added the material to keep the spores from clumping.
Two government scientists with knowledge of the FBI’s investigation said the presence of silicon, while not fully explained, does not appear to be significant. The scientists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the silicon was probably an inadvertent contaminant and might have been introduced when the bacteria was being grown in the lab.
Still, numerous scientists and biodefense experts continued to complain that the FBI has not publicly addressed questions about silicon as well as other technical facets of the case. Many scientists, including colleagues of Ivins, say the evidence presented so far has not conclusively linked Ivins to the anthrax letters.
It seems ANONYMOUS sources are being given credit here.
Let’s remind ourselves what Meselson (the disgraced US microbiologist) and Alibek (the crook defector who is now in hiding back in what-the F@#k-is-stan) said back in 2002 about “anonymous sources”:
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxundermicroscope.html
The Oct. 28 front-page article “FBI’s Theory on Anthrax Is Doubted” reported that silica enabled anthrax spores sent through the mail last fall to become airborne. The article quoted unnamed sources as saying that the spores had been formulated with a product called fumed silica, which, under an electron microscope, “would look like cotton balls strung together into strands that branch out in every direction.”
Both of us have examined electron micrographs of the material in the anthrax letter sent to Sen. Tom Daschle, but we saw no evidence of such balls or strands. In July 1980, the Journal of Bacteriology reported an “unexpectedly high concentration of silicon” to be naturally present in the outer spore coat of bacillus cereus, a close relative of bacillus anthracis. Is it possible that the unnamed sources misinterpreted silicon naturally concentrated in spore coats as something that was artificially added.
Until knowledgeable government investigators announce their results, statements attributed to anonymous sources or from persons who have not examined the actual evidence should be greeted with cautio
Bump.
So Who benefits from this?? OBAMA...a born and raised Muslim. Imagine that.
People seem to have an impossible time believing that the FBI and Justice Departments has become this politicized.
My answer to them is, look at the State Department. Or the CIA, for that matter. Every leftist in our government practices treachery on a daily basis. It is what they do. It is their nature.
If anybody needs evidence of this, just look at what they did to Hatfill.
It’s kind of typical for them. They were a very necessary agency in the days of Al Capone, but have since lost much credibility in law Enforcement.
They need restructuring and refocusing.
“Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.”
hmmm...I had never considered a soviet connection, but when you think about Putin’s tendency to poison his enemies in various unique and creative ways (polonium in your tea?) - I suppose that is another possibility.
Although, I’m not really sure what Putin would have gained from something like that.
In the other cases, he clearly wants to send a bold signal to those journalists and former spies who he held a grudge against.
Don’t know what the motive would be here.
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.