Posted on 12/20/2007 4:52:43 AM PST by TrebleRebel
Anthrax: Source of Fishy, Shaggy Dog Stories Pleads Fifth December 20th, 2007 by Ross E. Getman
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 with Newsweek and Washington Post stories about the use of bloodhounds and the draining of ponds in Frederick, Maryland. 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, Daniel 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 recent deposition:
“Q. … calls 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 …, 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. … 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]
Muawiyab, I picture this instead being the relevant background.
“The Go-To Lawyer of ‘Northern Virginiastan,’” ABA Journal, September 2007
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/the_go_to_lawyer_of_northern_virginiastan/
“Ode to Anthrax: the US-Based Falls Church, VA and Chicago-area Hamas Fundraisers”
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/anthraxandalqaed.html#Hamasand
Muawiyah, what building are you referring to? Ali was with Ken in Discovery Hall on GMU campus. There were no postal facilities in that building, right? And Ali wasn’t located with Ken in any other building. Are you referring to some other business venture Ken had at some point?
There is a connection between Ali and Ken (by reason of being in the same department, sharing a fax and maildrop etc). But there is no connection between any lawyer in the matter and Ken.
I don’t think the location of postal offices in Alexandria has bearing on analysis. Ali’s Dar Arqam center was at 360 S. Washington, Falls Church.
Although someone would have to ask him or Attorney AHY, I picture the lawyer in the article above as being the one who got the firm involved pro bono. He is an associate of Stanley Cohen, Lynne Stewart’s former partner.
Ken had several business ventures and several offices. This particular operation was not a laboratory ~ just business offices with lots of good parking and no campus parking police.
Cheers!
And what I’m saying that unless it was PW2 (Discovery Hall) on GMU campus, Ali was never at that location. Ken’s Hadron’s offices were on GMU campus. The Hadron people were intermixed with the GMU people. It was a secure building with sign-in at the entrance. I don’t know of any other business office he had at the time so unless you have an address that I can corroborate, I’m not sure you associate him with any address at the time other than at Discovery Hall. GMU PW campus.
._.-.
Ken and company had office space on Richmond highway right at the Beltway.
All pre-GMU. Hadron has been around for a long time.
read
Current story on a Columbia University related mad bomber type ~ with two links you get Babs Rosenberg and who knows what else.
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.