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

Archive for January 28th, 2010

* Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation.

Posted by DXer on January 28, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible”
“it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”
“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!!”
“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered what really happened?

******

Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records

it had no legal authority to have,

and then covered up its illegal activities,

does not build confidence

that the FBI is telling the truth

in its 2001 anthrax investigation

******

thanks to Chris for making me aware of this the article

FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed

  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation used lies and trickery to illegally obtain thousands of records, then issued after-the-fact approvals in an attempt to cover it up, a Justice Department (Inspector General) investigation released on Wednesday revealed.
  • One of the main problems surrounds the FBI’s unlawful misuse of the already-unconstitutional informal requests known as “exigent letters” to demand information.
  • And they knew it was illegal.
  • According to the DOJ report agents repeatedly and knowingly violated the law by invoking non-existent “terror emergencies” to get access to information they were not authorized to have.
  • “We concluded that the FBI’s acquisition of these records constituted a complete breakdown in the required department procedures for approving the issuance of grand jury subpoenas to obtain reporters’ toll billing records,” said the Inspector General’s report.
  • The FBI acknowledged in a statement released after the Inspector General’s report was made public that “the Bureau did not have in place adequate internal controls to ensure that the appropriate process was used and that appropriate records were kept,” though it insists that it has taken steps to purge illegally obtained records and to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
  • Some members of Congress have already reacted to the report as well. “This was not a matter of technical violations. If one of us did something like this, we’d have to answer for it,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont. “This was authorized at high levels within the FBI and continued for years.”

Josh Meyer writes in the LA Times (1-21-10) …

  • FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was unaware of the widespread use of the exigent letters until late 2006, when it was uncovered by the inspector general investigation, and he has since taken steps to correct the problem, according to the report and Mueller’s testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • Mueller acknowledged that there were “substantial weaknesses, substantial management and performance failures in our internal control structure as it applied to obtaining telephone records.” But he added that better internal controls and changes in policy and training have substantially minimized the possibility of similar errors in the future.
  • “We’ll look at the conduct and assign discipline as warranted,” Mueller said.

read the entire LA Times story at … http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-fbi-phones21-2010jan21,0,1861531.story

******

Read the Inspector General’s report on which these stories are based at … http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/exigent.pdf

LMW COMMENT …

Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation. And, since Mueller admits he was aware of these matters in 2006, is it not time to ask if any discipline has been “assigned.”

******

Posted in * questioning the FBI's anthrax investigation | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 Comments »