Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
From: Howard, Roscoe, Jr.
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:42 P.M. (responding to email above which was at 6:39 P.M.)
To: Blier, William
Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine
Find out who the FBI opened their investigation with. Van says that they have — but wouldn’t that be OIG?
From: Blier, William
Sent : Tuesday, August 13, 2001 1:23 P.M.
To: Howard, Roscoe C, Jr.
Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine
Van has indicated to Ken that WFO opened the investigation and assigned it to a separate squad, but neither Ken nor any of the agents have been interviewed or have any other indication that an investigation is ongoing. OIG had not received a referral. Ken has prepared and I have approved a letter to Van from inquiring of the status of the “leak investigation.” I think the letter is consistent with the approach you articulated last night. Ken feels strongly about it and we should keep Van and the FBI honest. If we receive no response to the letter, perhaps we should send a copy of it to OIG. We will provide to you a copy of Ken’s letter. Thanks, Bill.
From: Howard, Roscoe C, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:55 PM
To: Blier, William
cc: Seikaly, Daniel; Leary, Mary Lou; Fredericksen, Scott
Subject: RE: Conversation with Glenn Fine
Bill — The letter to Van is fine. It should ask, specifically, what has been done to “open” the investigation. I have some problem with the FBI investigating its own [imagine the field day a publication would have with that]. You mentioned yesterday contacting the DAG and having him make the referral to OIG. We should consider that. As I said yesterday, I think we need to make sure we are doing the “internal inquiry” we represented to the press that we would do. Roscoe
From: Blier, William
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:57 P.M.
To: Kohl, Ken
Subject: FW Conversation with Glenn Fine
Ken,
Looks like we still have our jobs. Let me know what kind of reaction you get from Van. Thanks, Bill.
Confirming what I wrote earlier.
This seems to indicate that Van Harp knew who was doing some of the leaking, so he wasn't interviewing agents of the FBI. The leak was within the DOJ.
Newsweek's article about the bloodhounds was printed about this time. The FBI could have told Seikaly, Seikaly could have told Newsweek, and Newsweek could have put it in their August 12 issue which was actually published about a week earlier than that date.
So, if Van Harp executed his sting operation about 7 or 10 days before this email, everything falls in to place.
This is interesting stuff, but it's also very easy to misinterpret. On the 13th they're saying that the Washington Field Office (WFO) "opened the investigation and assigned it to a separate squad," but there's no indication of when that happened. All we know is that he's talking in the past tense. It seems very reasonable that it could have been 7 to 10 days prior if they already know that no agents were interviewed.
From: KENNETH KOHL
To: HARP, VAN, HESS, JOHN J., LAMBERT, RICHARD
Van / Rick / Jack
Yesterday, ABCNEWS.COM ran another Brian Ross article on the anthrax investigation (attached). The report states that “Federal investigators on the anthrax task force continue to focus on former government Steven J. Hatfill as the man most likely responsible for the bioterror attacks last year that killed five people, even though they have found no hard evidence linking him to the attacks.” The source of the story are described as “several officals who attended a recent task force summit meeting in Washington [who] talked with ABCNEWS on the condition of anonymity.”
The most disturbing aspect of the article is that the “officials are quoted as saying that [about 5 lines redacted].
***
[Comment: the quote redacted relates to the FBI’s plan to re-interview other current and former government scientists (i.e., under a non-Hatfill theory).
So Mr. Seikaly’s leak had the effect of letting the folks re-interviewed know they were under suspicion].]
April 11, 2003 notification to Attorney Glasberg stating:
“Each person interviewed denied, under penalty of perjury, having leaked any information to the media.”
OCTOBER 7, 2004 - TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE REGGIE B. WALTON:
THE COURT: HAS THERE BEEN SOME TYPE OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION COMING FROM THE TOP SAYING THAT THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND IF YOU ARE CAUGHT, YOU WILL BE FIRED AND PUNISHED? HAS THAT HAPPENED?
MS. SHAPIRO: THERE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE TOP. THERE HAVE, INDEED, YOUR HONOR.
OCTOBER 7, 2004 - TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE REGGIE B. WALTON:
THE COURT: HAS THERE BEEN SOME TYPE OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION COMING FROM THE TOP SAYING THAT THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND IF YOU ARE CAUGHT, YOU WILL BE FIRED AND PUNISHED? HAS THAT HAPPENED?
MS. SHAPIRO: THERE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE TOP. THERE HAVE, INDEED, YOUR HONOR.
This is all very interesting, but it's just stuff which proves what I've been saying about the sting operation is true.
Back in message #144 in this thread, TrebelRebel wrote:
Thanks for the exhibits - I’m sure Ed doesn’t want to see them - since they prove he is wrong about everything.
Would you please post something that proves me wrong? I'd like to see what TrebelRebel was talking about.
Or was he just posting nonsense as usual?
That's weird. Why would they redact part of an ABC news report? It looks like the January 9, 2003, article I have on my web site.
I don't see anything that matches what you posted, though. The closest I see is this:
Officials attending the meeting also told ABCNEWS that FBI agents plan another round of interviews with other persons of interest, including some current and former government scientists.
As I explained in post #19 above, “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 full passage redacted states:
“Officials attending the meeting also told ABCNEWS that FBI agents plan another round of interviews with other persons of interest, including some current and former government scientists.
‘It’s an attempt to rule out anybody else who has come across our radar,’ said one investigator. ‘Then, we can focus entirely on Hatfill,’ the investigator said.”
According to FoxNews, it turned out that it was Hatfill they were able to rule out. The blind sheik’s son who had spoken alongside Al-Timimi — Mohammed Abdel-Rahman from the AQ WMD committee — was arrested the next month, along with KSM. Hambali was captured in August. He pointed to where the extremely virulent anthrax was found. The FBI searched Kabul and Kandahar areas under the theory it was stolen in the US and was brought there etc.
I sent you about 70 exhibits. But at least some of pdfs (e.g., vol 10 and 12) are as big as 20 MB and am still working out how to email them.
But I would be glad to email Vol 11 containing the above media leak documents to anyone who emails me that they want them.
I will be integrating the deposition testimony here and other exhibits here:
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
There are limits on the size of what can go via email.
When I run into those limits, I put the item on my web site and tell the other person where to find it. They can then download it, and, when they are done, I delete the file.
Thanks for sending me what you did.
TrebelRebel may have been concerned that your theory as to how the bloodhounds were used omits any mention of smurfs:
Q. And then you would take all the Smurf sightings, compile them , and analyze them?
A. Correct.
***
Q. would you agree with me that the dogs did some kind of sniffing activity?
A. Yes.
Q. And so they’re not doing interviews, lifting fingerprints?
[A] Yes
Q. I mean, they’re doing work with their noses. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree me on that?
And whatever work they did with their noses, the sniffing, we’ve talked about before, there was was a record made of those efforts?
A. Yes.
Q. And the record was the — now I can’t remember the name of it.
A. The deployment sheets.
The witness described what was on the deployment sheets:
“A. Yeah, date and time; case identification; what scent article we would be using; place that we were conducting the search; the response, the outcome of the search; the response, the outcome of the search. Witnesses, and keeper of the — that particular note or that deployment sheet. And things like GPS coordinates; “
“6. DOJ objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for disclosing the identities or conduct of any officials, agents, or employees of the CIA.”
Folks attending the December 4, 2002 briefing meeting on the Task Force progress outside of DC area included Kevin FBI-Trenton, Bill FBI-NY, David USPIS-NJ, Jim USPIS-NJ, Bill USPIS-NJ, Marty USPIS-NJ, Ed FBI-Newark, Stuart USAO -NJ, Ken FBI - Newark, Tony - FBI-NY, Bill FBI-NY (JTTF), Kevin NYPD (JTTF) and Tom FBI-NY (JTTF).
No one from Ohio or Wisconsin. The logical inference is that the POIs are in the DC or the NJ/NYC area and thus Ed’s theory can be ruled out.
Interrogatory response:
Dr. Hatfill has incurred the following expenses as a result of the Agency Defendants’ actions:
- Approximately $20,000 to renovate girlfriends’ apartment and replace furniture given away in anticipation of move to Baton Rouge.
- Approximately $14,000 lease on truck to complete apartment renovations.
- Approximately $2,400 insurance for Chevy truck used in renovations.
- Approximately $3,000 for apartment deposit and rent paid in Baton rouge in advance of move in June 2002.
- Approximately $2,500 moving expenses paid to Allied Moving for first move to Baton Rouge from Washington, DC in August 2002.
- Approximately $750 Roundtrip airline ticket from Baton Rouge to Washington, DC
-Approximately $500 trip to clear out storage facility in Florida
-Approximately $3,000 medical/dental bills due to being uninsured from loss of employment
-Psychiatric treatment by Dr. Catherine May - expenses detailed on documents that will be produced to Agency Defendants pursuant to appropiate protective order.
-Legal fees and expenses incurred - to the extent possible, these are detailed on documents that will be produced to Agency Defendants in response to their document requests.
-unknown amount for storage of belongings in Frederick, MD while in Baton Rouge.
If anyone doubted that Dr. H was on Cipro due to nasal surgery his doctor for the September 2001 is listed.
From January 11, 2006 Deposition of Dwight Adams:
“THE WITNESS: I think any prosecutor or investigator would be concerned about information, especially wrong information, being put into the press that would damage an investigation.
BY MR. CONNOLLY:
Q How would it damage an investigation?
A It could indicate which way the investigation is going. It could signal to the perpetrators what we are attempting to accomplish, and maybe you have not even gotten to that point yet in the investigation. So you — they or the person — the perpetrator of this crime could have been destroying evidence, for example.
A I don’t think I was concerned about the investigation but I was concerned to see a lot of
wrong information particularly related to the science of the investigation appearing in the press.
***
Q Could it help the perpetrator map the investigation, the FBI’s investigation if it knew who the FBI
was interested in, at least speaking to?
A Yes.
***
Q Earlier you testified that regarding the scientific aspect of the investigation there was information that simply in your view too sensitive to share to the public about the particular characteristic of the organism sent in the mail. Is hat correct?
A In so many words, yes, sir.
***
Q Did you feel like you had the same restrictions in informing the senate, congress or staff in terms of what it is you would reveal to them about the particular characteristics of the organism that was sent?
A As I’ve already stated there was specific information that I did not feel appropriate to share with either the media or to the Hill because it was too sensitive of information to do so. It would show too much of where were were going and what we hoped to accomplish. But in more broad terms I was able to at least give them the sense that, one, we clearly knew what we were dealing with and how were going to get to the answers of who might be responsible for this.
***
I just recall we were restricted or told to hold back in talking about specific individuals or specific techniques and just give a broader view of —
A *** It was the director [Mueller] stating that the briefing would be fine but we need to keep that type of information on individuals and other things close hold and not reveal that. I also remember that the director himself went — when we actually were before the two senators.
***
Q Did you have a sense that Ms. Rosenberg, and I’m not going to ask you what she told you about the science, okay, but did you have a sense that she was briefed in on the organism but had a good sense of what it was?
A No.
Q Was she misinformed?
A Yes.
Q You could tell that immediately, correct?
A Related to the science, yes.
***
Q You found that in fact the information she provided at least on the science side you didn’t find very credible.
A That’s right.
***
Q I just want to go the very bottom there it says, “Follow Up Action : SC Carey pointed out that the FBI never precluded looking at international origin of anthrax.” Do you see that?
A Yes
Q Do you have any recollection of Mr. Carey or anyone else making sure the staffers understood that the FBI hadn’t explicitly limited their pool of candidates who could have been involved in this domestic source?
A Yeah, I recall that being a topic of discussion on occasion, yes.”
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.