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]
ping
ought to be really drunk after all those fifth’s ping
Now, I want this guy, Daniel Seikaly, given a handwriting/handprinting test to see if he addressed the anthrax letters.
The family sebsite shows this family tree ~ http://www.seikaly.org/family_tree.html ~
Are we getting hot?
I’ll take ‘Ambiguous Article Titles’ for $500 Alex.
Seikely's boss should be dragged in for investigation.
Good catch. Don’t know about hot, but certainly a lot more interesting.
I watched Dr Hatfill’s press conferences and came to the conclusion that he was either the greatest actor in the world or completely innocent and will end up owning the FBI HQ. This questioning supports the latter.
Again, why was Daniel Jr. even employed on any sort of office close enough to the Anthrax Investigation that any of this stuff could get out?
Someone has some ANSWERS TO QUESTION, and it's time to go back to the earliest FBI statements on the matter and start making them rehash their stories.
I think this 'splains why the FBI tried to edge the Postal Inspection Service and its best field operations analysts from any contact with the investigation.
Time to bring in the Postmaster General and the Chief Inspector to find out why they caved so easily to the FBI pressure.
This could get fun.
I do wonder if Seikaly and Barbara Hatch Rosenberg run in the same circles ~ Hmmm!!!
And this stuff escapes the notice of the FBI analysts on the Anthrax Investigation team.
Time to bring in Babs too ~ put her on the grill!
Pretty good insight as to the kind of people who make careers in "government service." I'm sure he is just one of many who will do anything, regardless of the propriety, to promote his or his fellows interest. He can do so because he is above the law.
Think of him as an NGO spy or saboteur of some sort and you'll be on the right track.
“”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]””
Suurre, if it was Tinkerbell the Wonder Dog!
It is somewhat maddening though how excruciating it can be for people to get justice in this country these days.
Wouldn’t the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination apply equally at trial as at deposition?
When in 2001 did he move over from the CIA to the FBI?
“Reporters Say Hatfill Partly to Blame,” Associated Press, December 20, 2007
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggnSVGuQvX23iSN9fCYgtmUMsaBAD8TL9S181
The Stewart and Locy declarations, on their face, seemed persuasive when the journalists talked about all the contact with Dr. Hatfill’s attorney.
But I guess it is not fair to hold it against Dr. H that his counsel met with reporters and advocated his innocence.
I'm not 100% certain, but I think that only applies to the accused defendant in a criminal trial; I don't think it would hold true in a civil action.
Although I only ever rely on “Law and Order” and am loath to cite “Wikipedia”, counselor Wiki advises:
“Giving testimony in a trial or other legal proceeding that could subject one to criminal prosecution.
The right against self-incrimination forbids the government from compelling any person to give testimonial evidence that would likely incriminate him during a subsequent criminal case. This right enables a defendant to refuse to testify at a criminal trial and “privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings” (Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. Ct. 316, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 [1973]).
But I still find it amazing that a person in that position would give an interview on these factual issues — for example, without even having any connection between Dr. Hatfill and the park.
I mean, it’s not the same as when some web poster points out Ali Al-Timimi held his jihad summer camp in the Frederick park.
As explained in the flyer introduced by the Department of Justice in a different prosecution, in early July 1994, cooperation with Al-Timimi’s Society for the Adherence to the Sunnah, Washington, D.C., IANA held its first annual summer camp in English in Frederick, MD. The theme of the camp was “Living the Shahadah in America.” This is what Sheikh Ali was teaching kids at the 1st Annual IANA Summer Camp at Frederick, MD:
“Reflections on the Meaning of Our Testimony of Faith: ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” by Ali Al-Timimi.
***
“6 Wage Jihad in the Path of Allah
***
“Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and practice not the true religion (Islam), being of those who have been given the Scripture (the Jews and the Christians) — until they pay tribute readily and have been brought low. (The Qur’an 9:29)
The Prophet .. has said:
I am commanded to fight mankind till they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayers and pay the charity. When they do that they will keep their lives and their property safe from me.”
I mean, it’s almost as if the CIA brilliantly distracted the public from the real reason they searched the park with the cover of the Hatfill theory, which was first advanced by a lawyer for islamic militants who is still making the argument.
So I don’t want TrebleRebel to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, but let’s flesh out the story with some basic facts. When did this fellow move over from the CIA to the DOJ? I’ve emailed him to ask but not heard back.
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.