Senator Grassley Asks Attorney General To Explain Actions In Anthrax Case (about Hatfill)

AP ^ | September 18, 2002

[Shermy]

WASHINGTON - A Republican senator Wednesday questioned the Justice Department's actions against Dr. Steven Hatfill, who is categorized by the government as "a person of interest" in the investigation into the anthrax attacks.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to explain the government policy that prompted the Louisiana State University Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education to sever its ties to Hatfill.

The scientist was placed on administrative leave the day after the Justice Department's Office for Domestic Preparedness e-mailed instructions to "immediately cease and desist" from using Hatfill on any DOJ contract. LSU fired him Sept. 3, saying it had to fulfill its obligations to funding agencies and maintain its academic integrity. The university said it was not making any judgment as to Hatfill's guilt or innocence regarding the FBI probe of the anthrax attacks.

Grassley also asked the attorney general to explain the policy by which he publicly identified Hatfill as "a person of interest" in the criminal investigation of the anthrax attacks.

"It is important that the government act according to laws, rules, policies and procedures, rather than making arbitrary decisions," wrote Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and drugs. The Justice Department declined comment on Grassley's letter, citing the ongoing investigation.

Hatfill denies any involvement in the attacks and says the Justice Department is ruining his life by linking him to the crimes. The FBI says Hatfill is among some 30 scientists and researchers with the expertise and opportunity to conduct the attacks.

Hatfill's lawyer, Victor Glasberg, said he is pleased that "a senator has stepped up to the plate" on Hatfill's behalf.

The scientist has filed a complaint with the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, saying departmental policies were violated regarding the designation of Hatfill as "a person of interest" and the loss of his job.

[okie01]

"Hatfill speculated it was because he was against a treaty she was for, but I think he’s fishing there. She may have not liked his “type” she being a lefty, he allegedly fitting a “right wing” personality or something like that. Maybe lefties “contacts” led her down the wrong path. Don’t know. Maybe a law suit will find out.

"Any ideas or suggestions about the above are welcomed."

What FReeper could refuse such an offer?

Rosenberg may have keyed on Hatfill as soon as she discovered his Rhodesia connection. His claimed service with the Selous Scouts would be very provocative to a leftist.

Mix in the previous assertion by one of Rosenberg's associates, Dr. Meryl Nass, that a concurrent anthrax epidemic among black farmers in Rhodesia was actually the result of bio-warfare by the evil white government.

You can almost see the light bulb going on over Rosenberg's head. Though it may have been an embellishment, Hatfill's claimed Rhodesian service would represent prima facie evidence in a leftist's mind.

[Shermy]

Thanks Okie!

MyIdentity - speaking about how the Rosenberg "profile" caught hold in the press, it was sure interesting to revisit this one, and your posts there.

Riddle of the spores, The FBI and Anthrax

[Fred Mertz]

Shermy, your #19 is an excellent summary and a must read. Thanks for pinging me to it.

[OldFriend]

I find it very interesting that Freepers, myself included, have decided that the three muslim medical students are guilty as sin and this Dr. Hatfil is as pure as the driven snow.

If anyone can explain this to me I will keep an open mind. That said, I believe there is good reason for Dr. Hatfil to be considered a 'person of interest' and as such I don't think I want my tax dollars going towards his salary.

[UbIwerks]

With your analysis of Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's animus toward Steve Hatfield, you could get a job with master profilier, John Douglas.

[freeperfromnj]

I will keep an open mind. That said, I believe there is good reason for Dr. Hatfil to be considered a 'person of interest'

I completly agree. I think Barbara Hatch Rosenberg is given way too much credit here. I do not believe the feds needed her to point them in HF's direction. They were investigating all scientists with access and would have uncovered his past with or without her biased assessment.

[Mitchell]

a portrait suitable for framing

What a great turn of phrase!

[aristeides]

Good for Grassley! I phoned my two RAT senators, Sarbanes and Mikulsky, to complain about the government's treatment of Hatfill after his second press conference, but, even though he is a constituent of theirs, as far as I know, they haven't done anything for him (they also haven't sent me any mail in response to my calls, extremely unusual behavior for a politician.)

[The Great Satan]

I recommend that you carefully peruse the Amerithrax web site and also do a little digging into the background of FBI Special Agent Bob Roth, the agent who has been giving Hatfill all this grief. This is not a serious investigation. It's more like a Potemkin Village. The FBI may have a serious investigation going on in parallel (it is interesting that news reports say their effort is divided between two teams), but the Washington Field Office-based "Amerithrax" operation is simply a diversion.

[Shermy]

Thanks for the link.

For one, I went to the page "Linguistic/Behavorial Analysis of Anthrax Letters". I was surprised that there was no analysis of the qualities of the writer of the letter, let alone why this person would say "Allah is Great", if he meant it or it was a deflection. Who writes methodically and poorly like that? No analysis. Maybe there is one, but they sure aren't telling. Might be a foreign guy?

As for two investigations, they are probably 1. The first one and 2. Operation Rosenberg, shoved on the FBI by congressional inquiries and Justice Department politicoes. Heck, if the NY Times says Hatfill is the guy, case closed!

On the early, big day of news about Hatfill, various people came out to make their gloating appearances. I recall that five suits (lawyers?) with the Justice Department (not FBI people), one speaking, were all smiles, implying that great progress was being made, they're closing in, words to that effect. I think I mentioned that to Archy. The whole orchestration of events was like a "perp walk", without handcuffs.

Haven't seen the J.D. guys since. Perhaps because Ashcroft decided to get the face time in connection with this big bust, in retrospect something he might regret, and if appropriate, I hope he chastizes those who convinced him.

[Dudoight]

You make sense. I just worry that Hatfill is a Richard Jewel scenario. IF the guy is innocent, this is a real destruction of his life and livlihood. If he is guilty, I hope we get the goods on him and hang him high!

[OldFriend]

There are many inconsistencies in his public story. I'll not go into anything I have read but the man could not pass a lie detector test and someone sent an annonymous letter accusing an arabic scientist of being the sender of the anthrax stating personal information about the man. The man was exonerated....Hatfill worked was part of a team working with the man. There are just too many coincidences to be ignored, Just MHO.

[muawiyah]

One of them was a Sikh, right?

Or do you know something about their religious affiliation the rest of us don't?

[muawiyah]

The way the Justice Department and the FBi have handled their end of the anthrax investigation has been a grievous insult to 800,000 postal workers in this country!

It's a sick joke that the guy who concocted the Ruby Ridge coverup was put in charge of this investigation. All of those guys over there at DOJ and FBI involved in this ought to do us the favor of seppuku - soon - we need to get some real investigators on this case.

[Shermy]

Senator Grassley took an early interest in the matter.

[Shermy]

See #19 for my "Portrait of a Possible Frame Job", a take off on BHR's use of the term portrait in her January 2002 analysis.