CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Senator Grassley pushes for FBI answers to questions about its anthrax investigation asked in September 2008; FBI Director Mueller says the questions have been answered and sent to the DOJ

Posted by DXer on June 19, 2009

Lew’s new novel CASE CLOSEDCC - front cover - small

explores the FBI’s failed investigation of the 2001 anthrax case …

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

***

Senator Grassley pushes for answers

***

June 17, 2009 … Senator Chuck Grassley, in a written statement prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice, questioned Attorney General Eric Holder, and warned the department that “until we start getting some answers to these outstanding requests, I’m noticing my intention to hold certain Justice Department nominees.” Grassley said he has had letters go unanswered and questions for the record from hearings a year ago have yet to be answered.

Extracts from Senator Grassley’s statement are presented here (the entire statement is below) …

  • During the last three oversight hearings—with the department and FBI—I’ve started off my questions with a
    Senator Grassley

    Senator Grassley

    request for an explanation as to why I have not received answers to QFRs from both the FBI and the department.

  • I asked FBI Director Mueller at the March FBI Oversight hearing why the FBI has questions outstanding from the March 2008 and September 2008 hearings.
  • Director Mueller stated that the FBI had answered the questions and provided them to the department for approval.
  • He added that those responses were forwarded by the FBI to the department by December of 2008, some as early as June 2008.
  • I find this unacceptable and contrary to the repeated promises from nominees from the department to provide answers to Congress in a timely fashion.
  • Mr. Attorney General, at your confirmation hearing in January, you stated that you would “try to do all that we can, to make sure that we respond fully.  And in a timely fashion…”
  • You also asked for time to “check on the internal workings of the department to make sure that we’re doing it as quickly as we can.  And if we’re not, if I can’t give it to you, at least I can give you an explanation.”
  • Well it has now been five months since you’ve been confirmed, so I want to hear an explanation to why these answers are outstanding.

Here are the 18 questions asked in Senator Grassley’s September 2008 letter to FBI Director Mueller …

  1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins’s
    FBI Director Mueller

    FBI Director Mueller

    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?

Related Post …

* Who will lift the veil of secrecy

regarding the FBI investigation

of the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Here is the complete text of Grassley’s June 17, 2009 statement …

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this hearing today on oversight of the Department of Justice.  I appreciate you holding these oversight hearings to keep an open dialogue between the department and the committee.  I also appreciate Attorney General Holder appearing today.  Everyone on the committee knows that oversight is important to me and I’ve repeatedly asked tough questions of the department, regardless of who’s sitting in the White House.  While my duties as the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee will keep me away from today’s hearing, I will submit this prepared statement and some questions for the record (QFRs) for Attorney General Holder.

First, I am requesting information from Attorney General Holder about the role the acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California—and the department—had in referring allegations of misconduct by Inspector General Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).  Specifically, I want to know whether department regulations require a U.S. Attorney to obtain prior approval of any allegations of misconduct by non-department government officials prior to a referral for investigation or sanction.  If there are regulations, I want to know if they were followed in this instance by the acting-U.S. Attorney and who at the department knew of and who approved the allegations of misconduct prior to the referral.

I also want to ask the Attorney General about a letter I sent him about the department’s implementation of recommendations issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) earlier this year in a report about cooperation between the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The GAO report made specific recommendations for both agencies, including: (1) DOJ and DHS rework existing memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to clarify their jurisdiction in counternarcotics investigations (2) DOJ and DHS develop a more efficient cross-designation procedure for counternarcotics agents, and (3) increase ICE participation at DOJ run fusion centers.

As GAO noted, these “long-standing jurisdictional disputes have led to conflicts between DEA and ICE, with the potential for duplicating investigative efforts and compromising officer safety.”  It is my understanding the departments are close to an agreement, but that it is not yet finalized.  If and when that agreement is complete, I expect all the recommendations GAO made to be fully implemented.  Failure to implement all of these recommendations increases the risk to federal law enforcement agents and our ability to combat the flow of illegal narcotics.  I want to see leadership from Attorney General Holder and Secretary Napolitano to fix this problem immediately.

Finally, I want to point out my serious concerns with the department’s continued failure to respond in a prompt manner to letters and other inquiries from members of the Judiciary Committee.

During the last three oversight hearings—with the department and FBI—I’ve started off my questions with a request for an explanation as to why I have not received answers to QFRs from both the FBI and the department.  I asked FBI Director Mueller at the March FBI Oversight hearing why the FBI has questions outstanding from the March 2008 and September 2008 hearings.  Director Mueller stated that the FBI had answered the questions and provided them to the department for approval.  He added that those responses were forwarded by the FBI to the department by December of 2008, some as early as June 2008.  It has now been well over a year since those first QFRs were sent to the department by the FBI.

I also have a number of letters that have gone unanswered by the department.  I say unanswered because I’ve received a response to some of the letters and believe they fail to answer the questions asked.  In fact, I presented a full binder of outstanding letters and document requests I’ve made to the department and its subordinate agencies to Mr. Holder when he was making the rounds during his nomination.  I told Mr. Holder that he may want to clean up these outstanding requests from by the last administration so the new administration could start fresh.  So far, the responses I’ve received to those letters are insufficient and in some cases fail to answer the questions.

I find this unacceptable and contrary to the repeated promises from nominees from the department to provide answers to Congress in a timely fashion.  For example, Mr. Attorney General at your confirmation hearing in January, you stated that you would “try to do all that we can, to make sure that we respond fully.  And in a timely fashion…”  You also asked for time to “check on the internal workings of the department to make sure that we’re doing it as quickly as we can.  And if we’re not, if I can’t give it to you, at least I can give you an explanation.”  We’ll it has now been five months since you’ve been confirmed, so I want to hear an explanation to why these answers are outstanding.

I also questioned Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs, Ron Weich, about responding to congressional inquiries.  I asked Mr. Weich for his commitment to timely, responsive, and complete answers.  He stated that if he was confirmed he looked forward to responding to requests in a timely fashion.  Well, we confirmed Mr. Weich and it still seems to be business as usual at the department.

I’m tired of hearing nominees say one thing and do another.  At the March FBI Oversight hearing, the Chairman stepped out for a minute and I asked his staff to take note of something I’ve learned over the years.  I’ve learned that holding up nominees for an executive branch agency is an effective tool to get answers.  I don’t take the decision to hold up nominees lightly.  That said, I believe it’s time that the department got down to business and answered our questions.  So, until we start getting some answers to these outstanding requests, I’m noticing my intention to hold certain Justice Department nominees.  I’ll make sure my holds are open and transparent so that the department knows what they need to produce before I release the nominee.  Hopefully, this will get the attention of the Attorney General and the rows of Justice Department staffers sitting behind him.

I hope the Attorney General will provide answers to these important questions and work to provide the committee with the outstanding document and information requests I have.

8 Responses to “* Senator Grassley pushes for FBI answers to questions about its anthrax investigation asked in September 2008; FBI Director Mueller says the questions have been answered and sent to the DOJ”

  1. Ken Dillon said

    As I construe the shreds of evidence (www.scientiapress.com/findings/mailer.htm), Mueller was correctly exonerated of any possible blame for the 9/11 attacks because he had just assumed office a week before.

    But he was deeply involved in the high alert in the months following the attacks.
    If it is true that Abderraouf Jdey was the anthrax mailer and the shoe bomber of Flight #587, then Mueller was one of the main officials at fault for not stopping Jdey, an al Qaeda operative whose whereabouts (Montreal) were known.
    I think it is quite likely that, even before knowing about Jdey, FBI had found evidence that an explosive device had brought down Flight #587, but this was covered up by the Administration because it was deeply embarrassing and for fear of alarming the flying public, and Mueller must have been complicit.

    So when FBI first focused on Jdey as the likely Mailer and shoe bomber in September, 2004 (I had contacted them in early September with the evidence regarding Jdey, and within days airport security started intensive checking of passengers’ shoes), Mueller and Bush had a powerful motive to suppress any mention of him—to cover up their earlier cover-up of the Flight #587 bombing.

    However, it doesn’t really matter whether they had previously covered up the Flight #587 bombing because the evidence they came across in 2004 was embarrassing enough.
    FBI told the judge in the Hatfill case in October 2004 that it might be close to a breakthrough in the case.

    But then nothing more was heard of that, and FBI removed from its bio of Jdey information that he had studied biology at the U. of Montreal and listed him simply as a person on whom there was a reward for information.

    Consistently, Mueller has been very uncooperative with congressional committees regarding the case.

    He also specifically stated in the Senate hearing last September that he thought Bruce Ivins was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
    That is really hard to believe, and so it fits into the profile of an official skillfully covering up for his past misdeeds and those of others.

    For quite a while I thought that Mueller had caved into pressure from Bush, who was complicit and blameworthy in all this. But now I am inclined to assign Mueller a more active role in the cover-up, for he had his own reasons (because of his serious errors and his possible role in the Flight #587 cover-up) in addition to the powerful reason of wanting to protect his boss Bush.

    I would like to have a whole lot more detailed evidence and testimony on all this, but we have to work with what we have. This is the best interpretation I can come up with. The media have done a very poor job of investigating Mueller himself.

    Kenneth J. Dillon is the publisher of Scientia Press. Dillon has a B.A. in history from Georgetown University and a Ph.D in European history from Cornell University. After working for several years as an academic historian, he joined the Department of State, where he served in Turkey and in various positions in Washington, D.C.–in particular, as an intelligence analyst (two prizes for analysis).

    • DXer said

      Ken,

      Hi!

      FBI Director Mueller was ably assisted throughout by Kenneth L. Wainstein.

      Ken spent 19 years in the Department of Justice. From 1989 to 2001, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in both the Southern District of New York and the District of Columbia, where he handled numerous prosecutions, tried 25 jury trials, and presented 15 appellate arguments.

      In 2002, Ken joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation to serve as General Counsel, and later, as Chief of Staff to Director Robert S. Mueller.

      At the FBI, Ken was involved in a myriad of sensitive national security and criminal enforcement matters.

      Two years later he was appointed, and later confirmed as, U.S. Attorney in DC, where he tackled the investigationof high-profile cases including Amerithrax.

      Ken was confirmed by the Senate again in 2006, after being nominated as the first Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Justice Department.

      He stood up and led the new National Security Division, which consolidated DOJ’s law enforcement and intelligence activities on counterterrorism and counterintelligence matters, and he oversaw the Department’s role in regulatory mechanisms such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also led several national security initiatives, including the launch of a national, inter-agency Export Control Enforcement Initiative targeting illegal exports of sensitive technology and weapons components.

      That same year, Ken was named President Bush’s Homeland Security Advisor, with a portfolio covering the coordination of the nation’s counterterrorism, homeland security, and infrastructure protection.

      On the merits of the Ivins Theory, we can better judge things after release of the articles in the Emerging Infectious Disease journal next month.

    • DXer said

      A new UN document says Abd al-Razziq was a member of the Montreal cell with Jdey.

      A different source indicates that the US was hoping to indict him.

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/un-details-allegations-on-abdelraziks-terrorism-links/article1192826/

      “Secret documents released in error by the Canadian government reveal the George W. Bush administration wanted Canadian security agents to feed evidence so Mr. Abdelrazik could be indicted in the United States.”

      http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/NSQI22006E.shtml

      QI.A.220.06. ABU SUFIAN AL-SALAMABI MUHAMMED AHMED ABD AL-RAZZIQ

      Date on which the narrative summary became available on the Committee’s website: 22 June 2009

      Abu Sufian al-Salamabi Muhammed Ahmed Abd al-Razziq was listed on 31 July 2006 pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of resolution 1617 (2005) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf, or in support of” and “recruiting for” Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01) and Ansar al-Islam (QE.A.98.03).

      Additional information:

      Abu Sufian al-Salamabi Muhammed Ahmed Abd al-Razziq has been closely tied to senior Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01) leadership. He has provided administrative and logistical support to Al-Qaida.

      Abd al-Razziq was closely associated with Abu Zubaydah, listed as Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Hussein (QI.H.10.01), Usama bin Laden’s (QI.B.8.01) former lieutenant responsible for recruiting and running Al-Qaida’s network of training camps in Afghanistan. Abd al-Razziq recruited and accompanied Tunisian Raouf Hannachi for paramilitary training at Khalden camp in Afghanistan where Al-Qaida and other listed entities were known to train. Abd al-Razziq advised another individual concerning Al-Qaida training camps prior to this individual’s departure for these camps. Abd al-Razziq also told this individual that he had been personally acquainted with Usama bin Laden while attending one of these camps himself. Abd al-Razziq has also been associated with the Ansar al-Islam (QE.A.98.03) network. Abd al-Razziq was a member of a cell in Montreal, Canada, whose members met in Al-Qaida’s Khalden training camp in Afghanistan. Members of this cell with whom Abd Al-Razziq was closely associated included Ahmed Ressam and Abderraouf Jdey. After training in the Khalden camp, Ressam attempted to attack Los Angeles International Airport in conjunction with the Millennium celebrations in January 2000. Jdey has been closely linked with Al-Qaida operatives and involved in plans for conducting hijacking/terrorist operations.

      In 1996, Abd al-Razziq attempted to travel to Chechnya to participate in the fighting but never made it there. In 1999 he journeyed to Chechnya in the company of others wanting to participate in fighting but was never able to travel further than a small area of Chechnya under the Russian control.

  2. DXer said

    Senator Grassley asked in his August 7 letter:

    “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.
    Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick? …
    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?
    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?”

    Didn’t the FBI in fact provide Senator Grassley answer to these questions and they were just unresponsive and too vague to be meaningful?

    To be meaningful, the response would have to indicate the answer to the following question.

    Did the U of Mich researchers submit a sample of the Ames that Ivins supplied? LSU and U of Michigan were subpoenaed in mid-Oct 2001 after testing showed the mailed anthrax was Ames?

    In patents, Tarek Hamouda and James R. Baker, Jr. thank Ivins for supplying them with Ames. In late Aug 2001, NanoBio relocated from a small office with 12 year-old furniture to an expanded office. DARPA asked for some of their product them to decontaminate some of the Senate offices. The company pitched hand cream to postal workers. The inventors company, NanoBio, was funded by DARPA. NanoBio got a $3,150,000 defense contract in 2003. Dr. Hamouda graduated Cairo Med in Dec 1982. Came to US in 1994 after finishing his microbiology PhD at Cairo Medica. TH presented in part at various listed meetings and conferences in 98 and 99.

    The U of Mich authors thank:
    Bruce Ivins, Patricia Fellows, Mara Linscott, Arthur Friedlander, and the staff of USAMRIID for their technical support and helpful suggestions in the performance of the initial anthrax studies.
    Martin-Hugh-Jones, Kimothy Smith, and Pamela Coker for supplying the characterized B. anthracis strains and the space at Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge). The researchers found that their nanoemulsion incorporated into the growth medium completely inhibited the growth of the spores. (In 1999, Dr.Kimothy Smith moved to the Arizona lab, bringing with him the lab’s first samples of anthrax.”) The patent explained that “Diluted, they have a consistency and appearance similar to skim milk and can be sprayed to decontaminate surfaces or potentially interact with aerosolized spores before inhalation.”

    A March 98 press release had provided some background to the novel DARPA-funded work. It was titled “Novavax Microbicides Undergoing Testing at University of Michigan Against Biological Warfare Agents; Novavax Technology Being Supplied to U.S. Military Program At University of Michigan as Possible Defense Against Germ Warfare.” “Various formulations are being tested as topical creams or sprays for nasal and environmental usage. The biocidal agent’s detergent degrades and then explodes the interior of the spore.”

    In a presentation at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) on September 26, 1998, Michael Hayes, a research associate in the U-Michigan Medical School, presented experimental evidence of BCTP’s ability to destroy anthrax spores both in a culture dish and in mice exposed to anthrax through a skin incision. “In his conference presentation, Hayes described how even low concentrations of BCTP killed more than 90 percent of virulent strains of Bacillus anthracis spores in a culture dish.”

    Dr. Baker, by email, advised me that Ivins did the studies involving Ames for them at USAMRIID. He reports: “We never had Ames and could not have it at our UM facilities.” (Where did Michael Hayes do his research?)

    An article in the Summer of 2000 in Medicine at Michigan explains: “Victory Site: Last December [December 1999] Tarek Hamouda, Amy Shih and Jim Baker traveled to a remote military station in the Utah desert. There they demonstrated for the U.S. Army Research and Development Command the amazing ability of non-toxic nanoemulsions (petite droplets of fat mixed with water and detergent) developed at Michigan to wipe out deadly anthrax-like bacterial spores.”

    An April 2001 report described testing of decontamination agents at Dugway. Edgewood tested nanoemulsion biocidal agents during this time period, according to a national nanobiotechnology initiative report issued June 2002. APG/Edgewood built a Biolevel-3 facility in 2001. By Oct 02 had 19 virulent strains of anthrax, including Ames. A 96 report at Edgewood involved irradiated virulent Ames provided by J. Ezzell that was used in a soil suspension. Another article discusses Delta Ames supplied to Edgewood by the Battelle-managed Dugway, subtilis, and use of sheep blood agar. Did the U of M researchers supply a sample used in their research? How many morphs did it contain?

  3. DXer said

    Rep. Holt in March 2009 introducing anthrax investigation bill –

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=anthrax+Holt&docid=696602722484&mid=C870EB9EBDC483D6D38DC870EB9EBDC483D6D38D&FORM=VIVR3

  4. DXer said

    You’ve read the novel. Now see the movie! (and check out that soundtrack)

    Anthrax Killer
    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=anthrax+letters+&first=1&docid=991318835511&mid=2E48BC47D99C32FC28B52E48BC47D99C32FC28B5&FORM=VIVR15

  5. DXer said

    Lew,

    I believe the Grassley letter you reference was dated August 7, 2008 rather than September 18.

    Salon Radio: Charles Grassley on the anthrax investigation
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/08/20/grassley/

    September 18, 2008 was the date of the hearing at which FBI Director Mueller said they had drafted answers and they were being held up at DOJ. Are you sure that the response has not been cleared by DOJ and provided to Senator Grassley? As of September 2008, Director Mueller said that they had already drafted some answers that were awaiting approval by DOJ.

    Video of earlier September 18, 2008 questioning of FBI Director Mueller on anthrax investigation
    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Senator+Grassley+&first=61&docid=653906805342&mid=EAB8761227E84CED7EDDEAB8761227E84CED7EDD&FORM=VIVR23

    At the September 18, 2008 hearing, Senator Grassley commented that American people deserve a complete accounting of the FBI’s evidence and a thorough investigation is needed. He says he appreciates the referral to the NAS but note that the NAS review would be limited to science and not evidence, and he thinks we need a review of both. He said in September 2008 that he had not received a response to his 18 questions. He said in September 18, 2008 that they had drafted answers and the answers had to be approved. This was in September 2008. It is now 9 months later. Senator Leahy harshly criticized the failure to provide answers. Congressional oversight does not appear to exist — it has proven to be mere window dressing and the DOJ’s apparent failure to pass on the FBI’s answers in the past 9 months.

    I think FBI Director Mueller is not only a “straight-shooter” as one Senator says (and I think all Senators view him that way), but he is hands-on and very smart. He went from being US Attorney to a line homicide prosecutor who answered his own phone. This is a seasoned homicide prosecutor who knows how to evaluate evidence.

    He is the last, best hope of Amerithrax.

    But surely both he and Attorney General Holder appreciate that Congress has an oversight role and that the FBI and DOJ needs to timely respond to inquiries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: