The OTHER Sources for the Hatfill Stories

Over a month ago, I noted an LAT article naming three of the sources for the reporting that Steven Hatfill was a "person of interest" in the anthrax investigation. But it appears that Hatfill didn’t learn all of the sources–Judge Walton is preparing to hold at least one reporter in contempt for not revealing the sources for her Hatfill reporting.

A federal judge said Tuesday he will hold a former USA Today reporter in contempt if she continues refusing to identify sources for stories about a former Army scientist under scrutiny in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said reporter Toni Locy defied his order last August that she cooperate with Steven J. Hatfill in his lawsuit against the government. Walton indicated he would impose a fine until she divulged her sources, but that he would take a few more days to decide whether to postpone the penalty as she pursues an appeal.

The judge is also considering whether to find former CBS reporter James Stewart in contempt.


Walton previously ordered five journalists to reveal all of their sources. Stewart and Locy refused, saying Hatfill was partly to blame for news stories identifying him as a suspect after his attorney provided details about the investigation.

The story if interesting for two reasons. First, it seems to pinpoint who shared their sources (after reportedly being released to do so) and who didn’t. Judge Walton compelled testimony from five journalists–Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Allan Lengel, Toni Locy, and James Stewart–and Locy and Stewart are the only two for whom he is considering contempt.

Also, as I pointed out last month, Hatfill now appears to have the sources for leaks that actually weren’t that damaging–stories that made it clear that Hatfill was just one of a number of people under suspicion for the attack.

This is where this suit will get interesting. Many of the stories that Hatfill named in his suit complained about the revelation of facts pertaining to ongoing FBI searches: news that dogs searching for anthrax had responded to locations on Hatfill’s property.

The agents quietly brought the dogs to various locations frequented by a dozen people they considered possible suspects — hoping the hounds would match the scent on the letters. In place after place, the dogs had no reaction. But when the handlers approached the Frederick, Md., apartment building of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, an eccentric 48-year-old scientist who had worked in one of the Army’s top bioweapons-research laboratories, the dogs immediately became agitated, NEWSWEEK has learned. "They went crazy," says one law-enforcement source. The agents also brought the bloodhounds to the Washington, D.C., apartment of Hatfill’s girlfriend and to a Denny’s restaurant in Louisiana, where Hatfill had eaten the day before. In both places, the dogs jumped and barked, indicating they’d picked up the scent. (Bloodhounds are the only dogs whose powers of smell are admissible in court.)

The same article even states that the government didn’t have anything that it considered real proof against Hatfill.

But officials say they aren’t close to making any arrests in the case. "We’re still a long way from any proof that we could take into court," says one senior official.


Officials have been particularly careful to point out that Hatfill is one of "around 12" people they are looking at. They say he is not a suspect, or even a target of the investigation.

So it’s not like this article pinpointed Hatfill as the one target of the investigation–it did just the opposite.

Which is why I think things might get interesting from here. I’m not actually sure what the standard of secrecy for non-grand jury material is. But some of the stories Hatfill points to–and therefore the leaks–don’t support the case that the leaks pinpointed him and therefore ruined his career. Perhaps the government will settle to make this go away, but perhaps not; perhaps the government will push this trial, which might lead to more disclosure, rather than less.

Which raises questions about why three of the government’s sources would release reporters and up to seven others wouldn’t (Locy claims she has forgotten which of the ten people she spoke to were her sources, and Stewart says he shouldn’t have to reveal his sources since other law enforcement officers are on the hook already for the leaks). Is it possible the remaining sources are the really damaging ones?

Interestingly, Judge Walton seems to have little patience with journalists, like Locy, who can’t pinpoint their sources for a story.

"I’m not suggesting that Ms. Locy would not be truthful, but it would be convenient for reporters in this type of situation to say ‘I don’t remember’ and then be off the hook," Walton said. "That would be one way to avoid the serious consequences of the law."

Judy Miller, of course, pretty much got "off the hook" for the sources for much of her reporting on Valerie Wilson. She had to reveal Libby, as her first source for Valerie’s identity, though she never had to reveal the people who told Judy that Valerie worked under the name, "Flame." Of course, Fitzgerald and Judge Hogan were the ones making the decision to let her off the hook, not Walton; Walton just had to sit and watch Judy say, "I don’t remember" over and over again for a full day of testimony.

54 replies
  1. bmaz says:

    Is it possible the remaining sources are the really damaging ones?

    You would sure think that there is something to hide and some reason for hiding it given the circumstances and this particular judge, eh? If I were either of these two, this is not where I would perform the sequel to Sweat Judy Blew Lies without a damn good and hoary basis for doing so.

  2. Jeff says:

    she never had to reveal the people who told Judy that Valerie worked under the name, “Flame.”

    Why are you stating Flame was one of her working names? Is that still an inference or a guess, or is it a fact now?

        • freepatriot says:

          me thinks this is an old argument

          it has the smell of troll droppings about it

          there are some people out there in the innertubes who try to discredit plameologists by seizing on a trivial statement, twisting the content or meaning of that trivial statement, and then attempting to discredit the plameologist based on that repuglitarded reasoning

          I suspect we’re dealing with some phoenix type poster that lives under a bridge

          but I could be wrong

          • Ishmael says:

            Well, no one has a better nose for troll vomit than you Freepatriot – does “Jodi” still show up around here, in any of his/her multiple personalities?

            • freepatriot says:

              I didn’t wanna mention “it”, but I have thought about “it’s” absence

              I don’t know if this is a real “troll” situation. That ain’t my call

              but I remember a “Jeff” from tnh

              who could forget those posts ???

              did I ever mention that I thrive on controversy ???

              • Mauimom says:

                I banned Jodi. ANd then banned the two personalities she came back as. Took me a while to do it, but it’s done now.

                Thank you.

                “Not feeding the troll[s]” never seems to work: folks just can’t restrain themselves from putting forth their one scintillating argument that they know is going to have the gnome slapping his/her head, saying “I never thought of it that way,” and suddenly seeing the light.

                Not having to endure such attempted exorcisms is indeed a blessing.

            • freepatriot says:

              I just got suspicious cuz he suddenly popped outta nowhere when plamology was mentioned …

              I kinda thought jeff was ok, but I wasn’t sure

              and since it’s a dumb argument to be making …

              so you’re sure we don’t need the pitchforks and light sabers huh ???

              as you wish

              damn, I had the flamethrower all warmed up an everthing …


              and about the “other” one, I wondered, but I didn’t wanna mention it, thanks for that. I like controversy, but bullshit arguments ain’t controversy, it’s intentional disruption

      • Jeff says:

        That’s what I meant, whether the notion that someone told Miller that Flame was a working name for Plame Wilson was speculation (as you say it is) or something more.

        I’ll add that here you sound almost like a righty suffering from Fitz-itis:

        Of course, Fitzgerald and Judge Hogan were the ones making the decision to let her off the hook, not Walton

        • emptywheel says:

          Ut oh! God forbid I sound like a righty!!

          No, seriously, Reggie had nothing to do with the agreement that left Judy off with just revealing her Libby source, but he got stuck with the after effects of it in his court room. I would have loved to know who else Libby sent her to speak to–I highly doubt it was Armitage, not her style. And we now know she was chatting up Cambone at the time.

          All I was saying is that Reggie seems to want to avoid imposing such an agreement himself, and I do wonder whether the Judy spectacle has something to do with that inclination.

    • Ishmael says:

      I don’t think EW is stating that Valerie “Flame” ever worked under that name, just that this was the spelling in one of Judy’s notes and that she never had to say whether this was a mis-hearing or mistranscription on Judy’s part, or a deliberate error on the part of the “source”, or some idea that this would not be disclosure of a NOC agent’s identity.

  3. freepatriot says:

    is there any potential criminal charges over the leaks, or is all of this being done in a civil suit ???

    I’m kinda divided about forcing reporters to reveal their sources

    I supported Fitz, cuz we were talking about treason (still are) and judyjudyjudy ain’t a real journalist

    this case looks to involve some real reporters who accidentally got sucked in to a bushco disinformation campaign

    any idea why Hatfill was targeted ???(the real reason, not the bushco bullshit)

    did this guy spit on babs or something ???

    • emptywheel says:

      This is just civil.

      AFAIK, Hatfill was a person of interest because he was a person of interest. I actually think the other sources released the journalists bc what they said does not, in fact, support the privacy claim Hatfill is crafting. As far as we’ve seen, it doesn’t involve GJ material, and except for DENIALS that he’s the prime focus, it doesn’t involve stuff specific to him.

      Though I do support the same standards in a civil case as a criminal one. Wen Ho Lee had his life ruined because people were trying to use journalists in much the same way they were trying to use Judy. There needs to be some limits to the degree to which governmental actors can just ruin a person’s life in the course of political spin.

    • cboldt says:

      is there any potential criminal charges over the leaks, or is all of this being done in a civil suit ?

      This suit of Hatfill’s is a civil suit.

      In this case, the government is siding with the reporter, i.e., the government WANTS the reporter to keep the government source secret.

      Sometimes the role is reversed, and the government is trying to figure out who the leaker was. This time, the government may well know who the leaker is, and may well have leaked on purpose, but it darn well doesn’t want THAT to come out in Court.

      • PetePierce says:

        In this case, the government is siding with the reporter, i.e., the government WANTS the reporter to keep the government source secret.

        Sometimes the role is reversed, and the government is trying to figure out who the leaker was. This time, the government may well know who the leaker is, and may well have leaked on purpose, but it darn well doesn’t want THAT to come out in Court.

        Cboldt ya think? (the government leaked on purpose *g*)

  4. bmaz says:

    No, no no; Jeff is cool, leave him be. He is the one guy that knows this stuff as well as EW and they enjoy pimping each other on it. It is all good.

    • freepatriot says:

      and mccain is bragging about helping to bag abramoff

      and idea when you’re gonna release those files senator ???

      It’s tuesday, are we dead yet ???

      and is hillary offically dead yet ???

      that about sums it up for me

      gotta go …

  5. Jeff says:

    I would have loved to know who else Libby sent her to speak to–I highly doubt it was Armitage, not her style. And we now know she was chatting up Cambone at the time.

    Obviously, you’re gettin’ me by doing it again – we don’t know that the others Miller heard from were because Libby sent her to them. But that does remind me that I feel pretty confident Libby’s comment to Miller about the report that was sent up to the Hill was intended to indicate to her that there were folks up on the Hill who would be able to give her more information, and was a reference to the April 2003 report Libby reviewed when Schmall sent it to him on June 9 2003 – not a report that went up to the Hill back in 2002, which is how Miller interpreted it from her notes in retrospect (and perhaps even at the time, misunderstanding what Libby was telling her). That notion fits perfectly with Libby’s request to be identified as a “former Hill staffer,” and they fit together as an effort not just to keep OVP’s fingerprints off the leak but to make it look like it was coming from the Hill. And of course national security leaks from Congress specifically formed a longstanding pet peeve of Cheney’s – see, for instance, the minority report on Iran-contra – so it’s plausible that they knew what they were doing.

    As for Cambone, I can’t remember: do we know that she was chatting with Miller, or just that he made a suggestion to Libby about a topic to talk with Miller about (not that those two are mutually exclusive, of course)?

    • emptywheel says:

      We don’t know what he said. But we know he said it on June 5, and Libby subsequently interpreted it as proof that he would have remembered the June 23 meeting to be about [and here I’m extrapolating, but am fairly confident in the extrapolation given teh timing] mobile bioweapons labs.

      Cambone was an early source for Judy on the MBLs. She got leaked the CIA White Paper on May 21 from someone who presumably attended the briefing–a week before it was declassified. On June 5, she was just back from Iraq and giving credence to refutations of the Admin claims about MBLs. So I presume part of the goal for June 23–one Judy shared–was to get new reinforcement for the MBL story. But according to Judy, Libby didn’t want to talk abotu MBLs, at least not on June 23.

  6. PetePierce says:

    1) Out of all due respect to the nose of a hound dog, anyone who spends much time with one will know there are all sorts of reasons for them to “go crazy” because of a scent at any given time, and they feel no compulsion to share it with the grunts at DOJ. A hound dog’s nose is about as reliable for pinpointing evidence as a lieograph aka a lie detector machine which can be spooked by all kinds of beta blockers and a variety of other pharmacologic agents, and has no standing in a court of law.

    2) DOJ has been about as successful at locating the source of the anthrax attacks as they have in finding bin Ladin–a 6′5″ individual travelling with a dyalysis machine and a posse of home girls. He is able to send videos to Al Jezeera, and CIA and all the other alphabet agencies can wiretap you and me but can’t figure out how to follow the messengers with the video tapes to the TV stations.

    3) A tactic as old as the world’s oldest profession that was used against Dr. Hatfill was to try to find a warm body, cliaming they’d caught the “person of interest” whether he or she had anything to do with sending the Anthrax. I never heard the term “person of interest” until Hatfill, but I lived in the U.S. for a whole bunch of years and never heard the stupid term “homeland” right out of an Ibsen play until the Bush numbnuts coined it and now use it with the reverence of some church artifact as if it’s somehow different from saying the U.S.–it’s da homeland now–and serious people are wiretapping the hell out of it.

    4) DOJ chelated the evidence early on, helping to kill the postal workers who first inhaled the spores, preventing a clueless CDC from moving in a way to workup the respiratory illnesses, diagnose, and treat, and as a result people died.

    CDC then said they didn’t believe the spores were concentrated enough to kill anyone, after the postal workers were dead and buried.

    (Bloodhounds are the only dogs whose powers of smell are admissible in court.)

    Bassett Hounds have every bit the power of smell as bloodhounds and I know one who will go crazy if the girl is the right girl or the restaurant is one he likes being around. We need more experiments that would turn US Attorneys and FBI agents into dogs, and then would clone them. We also need some that would turn “article III judges” who cow so much they can’t muster four cert. votes to give the ACLU a hearing X2 in the last 2 years, into a dog that would roll on its back and pee on itself. We have a lot of those today.

    I seriously don’t see how anyone could conclude that the FBI didn’t ruin Dr. Hatfill’s career. If what happened to him happened to any one of us, we would have a damn hard time paying the bills. They frigging decimated him. It is near impossible for him to get work as a physician. He might as well be “typhoid Mary” to the sixty fourth power.

    Please tell me how the FBI did not ruin Steven Hatfill, M.D.

    When Judy said “I don’t remember” over and over again, she was pissing on everyone including the NYT who dared to question that she made things up as a reporter.

  7. Leen says:

    I sure do not want to witness more protection for journalist like Judy “I was fucking right” Miller. That woman is drowning in the Iraqi people’s blood but it is obvious she could care less.

  8. Mary says:

    OT – I just have to comment on the cognitive dissonance I’m getting from hearing reports of ALL of Obama, Clinton and McCain issuing statements that include references to Cuban needing to release its political prisoners.

    And thanks for 36 Leen. I have it on my calendar, but it hasn’t received much build up.

    I never knew Bassetts had the same sense of smell as bloodhounds – I thought bloodhounds were in a category of their own. You live, you learn.

    • Ishmael says:

      Speaking of cognitive dissonance, how about Bush during his presser this morning, discussing how the “Castro brothers” should permit free elections! W and Jeb, the Brothers Bush, lecturing Cuba about free elections 90 miles away from Florida?

    • PetePierce says:

      To be scientific Mary, I’m emotionally biased, and Bloodhounds may well be in a category of their own. They’re great dogs, very sweet, but I’m a Basset freak. To me they are anatomical fashion statements. I took care of some Bloodhounds for a while, but I didn’t do any serious tracking or training. They “seem” similar–to me.

      There is a funny case in the old 5th Circuit 2 years before the Eleventh split from it in 1981 that reminds me of the goofey DOJ–FBI anD US attorneys were in all probability the leakers.

      The argument before the panel centered around a bloodhound, and the trial court was reversed and the good ole boy was acquitted. (Rare as hen’s teeth in a blood hound).

      UNITED STATES V ROZEN 600 F. 2d 494 (CA 5, 1979)

      SelectedCases Federal Court Where Deploying Doggies as Agents

      Ed Rozen was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in the trial court in the Southern District of Georgia.

      Local law enforcement in South Georgia had people and their trucks under surveillance. They followed them to a motel in Savannah, and then to a creek area accessed by boat and lost the guys. They then spotted one of the trucks and stopped it and it had 1460 pounds in bales of marijuana in the back. They later found the other truck with no one in it in the woods, and it contained 1720 pounds of marijuana.

      They promptly summoned Clyde, who was a well known bloodhound cared for by one of the prisons in Georgia. Clyde circled the truck with grass and no occupant, and followed a scent across a creek, during which time two officers with Clyde had to swim the creek to follow Clyde.

      After about 4 hours, Clyde found one of the men and the defendant asleep under a tree. The controversy evolved over which man’s scent Clyde was following or whether Clyde was following two scents at once.

      That was the government’s case; the only evidence they had on one Ed Rozen was that Clyde found him asleep under a tree after circling the truck.

      Appellant’s first, last and only appearance in the wide spectrum of activities was when he was found and arrested. Until that moment no one identified him as in the company of either of his brothers…. No marijuana was found on him, nor any visible evidence of burlap that might have come from coverings of the bales.

      We do not speculate whether the motion for judgment of acquittal would have to be granted if there had been sufficient evidence tending to show that appellant had been in the GMC. 2 The only evidence even tending to show appellant’s presence in the truck was Clyde’s pursuit of a scent from near the truck to the sleeping brothers. The only connecting factor is Clyde’s nose, and no one can do any more than guess whether Clyde was following the scent of David, the scent of appellant, or the scent of both. In this respect the case is similar to U. S. v. Reyess, 595 F.2d 275 (CA5, 1979).

      The government would like us to hold that the jury might have inferred that one or more of the defendants pushed bales of marijuana out of the plane and smeared the cabin with pineapple, but there was no direct testimony that Any of them did so, much less that All of them participated. Each of the defendants was entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined as an individual; the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant or any particular defendant participated in any way in the importation scheme beyond being present in the aircraft. 13
      Id., at p. 281. In like manner, a jury could not infer that the scent from the vicinity of the truck to the tree where appellant and his brother were sleeping was the scent of appellant, or the scent of both men, and that it was not the scent of only David. 14
      In addition, Clyde did not pick up the scent from the interior of the truck, or from any item removed from the truck, or even from its exterior. He “cut a tight circle” around the truck, found a scent and followed it. No doubt this is acceptable procedure for tracking down an escapee or fugitive, but it is not enough to support the chain of inferences that the government necessarily would have had the jury draw in this case when the motion for judgment of acquittal was made and denied, and that are argued to us on appeal i. e., that it may be inferred that appellant was a conspirator because he was aware of the presence of the marijuana in the camper body of the truck, and it may be inferred that he was aware because he had been in the truck. A scent picked up at some unspecified point near the truck, even if identified as the scent of appellant, would not permit the inference that appellant had been inside the truck or in any other position where he could see the bales of marijuana within the camper body. 15
      The test of sufficiency is whether the evidence, viewed as we have viewed it in the light most favorable to the government, could be accepted by a reasonably-minded jury as adequate to support a conclusion that appellant was guilty of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. U. S. v. Warner, 441 F.2d 821 (CA5), Cert. denied, 404 U.S. 829, 92 S.Ct. 65, 30 L.Ed.2d 58 (1971); U. S. v. Prout, 526 F.2d 380 (CA5, 1976). The evidence does not meet this standard, with respect to whether appellant knew of the conspiracy and, with that knowledge, voluntarily joined in it. 3 The government’s effort to win by a nose does not succeed. Obviously, appellant’s presence was highly suspicious, but this is not a substitute for evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt. 16
      Although it is certainly possible maybe even probable that Littrell was involved in the conspiracy, such speculation does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and juries “must not be permitted to convict on suspicion and innuendo.” 17
      Littrell, supra, 574 F.2d at 833. If appellant was not a participant in the conspiracy there is no evidence of possession. 18

      If nothing else can be salvaged from this case, testimony concerning Clyde deserves to be perpetuated. After the dog handler described Clyde’s experience and skill this ensued: 19

      MR. MC ABEE (prosecutor): Your Honor, at this time, I would like to submit to the Court that the testimony concerning Clyde, the bloodhound, entitles him to be considered as an expert in this case. And that the testimony of Mr. Powell concerning Clyde will be used in that light. 20
      MR. ENTIN (defense counsel): Your Honor, I would have to object. I think I ought to have the opportunity to confront and cross examine Clyde. 21
      MR. ENTIN: Your Honor, I think that the witness can testify as to what Clyde did, as to making him an expert in terms of putting him into the mind of an animal, I don’t think we can do that. I think he can testify that he took the dog and the dog led him somewhere, but as to anything else, I really don’t think that that makes him an expert. 23
      THE COURT: The dog or the man? 24
      MR. ENTIN: The dog was an expert, but the man was only carrying his leash. It’s an unusual situation. 25
      THE COURT: Well, I think if you give a full background of the dog’s training and the dog’s ability to smell . . . 26
      MR. MC ABEE: . . . It has happened in the state of Georgia on several occasions where a bloodhound such as Clyde have (sic) been qualified in State Court, sir. 27
      MR. ENTIN: Your Honor, I’m not saying we can’t qualify the dog, we can’t qualify the witness. 28
      MR. MC ABEE: Well, in this particular instance, Your Honor, it’s unlikely, Clyde has since died, I believe, so we don’t have Clyde to bring in before the Court. 29
      THE COURT: I’ll let him testify. 30
      MR. ENTIN: What about the application of the dead man’s rule? 31
      THE COURT: We don’t have communication between a dead dog so I’m going to let it in. 32
      Though successful in this appeal, counsel for appellant undoubtedly will always regret that in this colloquy, now enshrined in the official reports, he overlooked the confrontation clause of the Constitution. 33
      The conviction is REVERSED with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

      • freepatriot says:

        so basically, the SCOTUS ruled that you can’t cross examine a dog, so clyde’s testimony was stricken ???

        Damn, and I thought being a Supreme Court Justice would be kinda boring …

        • PetePierce says:

          This opinion was the 5th Circuit’s. The government chose not to appeal and seek cert. from the Supremes.

          This was a ridiculous and funny case to me because of the way the 5th circuit law clerk wrote the opinion, (notice the pun), but typically sad because you can extrapolate from this the way trial court judges bend over backwards to give the government whatever they want, even when common sense applied to the facts and the law mandate that they don’t.

          The 5th Circuit reversed and acquitted Mr. Rozen not just because their was no direct evidence that he was dealing drugs, and tongue in cheek they invoked the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution–since the dog was dead, but realistically because he was convicted based on the inference of the bloodhound’s interaction with Clyde’s handler and there was just no direct evidence that Rozen was dealing drugs based on the tracking by the bloodhound.

          “The government’s effort to win by a nose does not succeed.”THE COURT: We don’t have communication between a dead dog so I’m going to let it in. 32
          Though successful in this appeal, counsel for appellant undoubtedly will always regret that in this colloquy, now enshrined in the official reports, he overlooked the confrontation clause of the Constitution. 33
          The conviction is REVERSED with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

  9. chrisc says:

    wilkes update

    Wilkes’ attorney lawyer, Mark Geragos, asked Burns to allow Wilkes to remain free pending appeal, but the judge said Wilkes can’t be trusted to follow bail reqirements and ordered U.S. Marshalls to take Wilkes to jail immediately.

    Before sentencing, Burns rejected an effort by Wilkes’s attorney to throw out those verdicts. Defense attorney Mark Geragos claimed he did not have enough time to prepare for the trial and that prosecutors committed misconduct.

  10. Mary says:

    39 – I don’t think anyone even pretends that fair elections can be had with the Bush Boys.

    Here’s a short diary at kos:…..818/459877
    that links, at the end, to a piece by Scott Horton in now out Harper’s – on, what the Republicans have done to DOJ.

    I’m not going to link to the piece directly, bc what the diary has isn’t a link to a Harper’s site and I’m not that sure he hasn’t just scanned in the article as a pdf and is hosting it on his own site and I’m not sure how kosher that is if he did it, so instead I’m going to just link the diary and encourage the purchase of the mag.

  11. rosalind says:

    and more Wilkes action from S.D. Union Tribune:

    U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns urged Wilkes to admit his wrongdoing, something he politely refused to do. “Today is a day to own up,” Burns said. “A guy who cares at least about his family should come clean to them.”

    “Mr. Wilkes, you have not indicated any sense of contrition to this day,” he said. “I’m not big on sending a message, but I do think people will pay attention to what happened here,” Burns said.…..lkes2.html

  12. Mary says:

    BAE = Frozen Assets…..340854.ece

    Bandar Bin Sultan, the former Saudi Arabian ambassador to America, has been hit by a court order in effect freezing some of his US assets, as part of a class-action lawsuit over bribery allegations at British defence giant BAE Systems.

    The lawsuit accuses BAE directors of “intentional, reckless and negligent breaches of their fiduciary duty”.

    All of which gets me to thinking – maybe a lawsuit against the ATT Directors for the illegal wiretap assistance and some civil fraud allegations for failure to disclose potential liability? Something to putter around with.

  13. Mary says:

    45 – thanks for the case info. Is this what they based the movie, Dead Dogs Don’t Sniff on? *g*

    I’m similarly biased – German Shepherds are my blind spot.

  14. PetePierce says:

    It is my hope that

    1) As many reporters as possible and as many news organizations as possible will be forced to pay Dr. Hatfill

    2) As many reporters as possible will spend 18 months in Casa BOP in the custody of the people they whored for at DOJ including several Assistant US Attorneys and FBI case agents.

    I hope Reggie throws away the key on Ms. USA.

    NYT articles Steven J. Hatfill, M.D. including litigation against NYT

    Did The New York Times State Secrets to defend themselves in Dr. Hatfill’s suits? You just betcha it did.

    Steven J. Hatfill v. The New York Times Company

    Clueless Media and Settlements Offered to Dr. Hatfill

    Hatfill Appeallate Opinion I

  15. FrankProbst says:

    Random thoughts:

    1. “Eccentric scientist” is redundant.

    2. The weaponized anthrax that was released was more sophisticated than anything that had been seen before. Whoever was behind it knew what they were doing. Hatfill was–and still is–one of the few people out there who might have been able to pull this off. He’s either guilty, or multiple people are trying to make it look like he’s guilty. (I favor the latter choice.)

    3. I thought he lost his job because he had faked his credentials. That’ll get you burned almost anywhere. Yes, the heightened scrutiny from this case led to that discovery, but I have little sympathy for someone who sues and tries to argue, “If it wasn’t for you, my wrongdoing would never been caught!”

    4. If I were a jury member on this case, my only question would be whether or not what was printed about Hatfill was accurate. I’ll assume that the statement that he was being looked at is on the level. All that’s left is whether or not the bit about the dogs is true. If it is, then I think he should lose his case. On the other hand, if it was bullshit, he should win. I don’t see why we have to breach reporter/source privilege to figure this out. All we need are the dog handlers. If they confirm the story, then I really don’t care who the leaker was. On the other hand, if the dog handlers say, “The dogs didn’t bark,” or “The dogs went nuts at a bunch of different places, not just Hatfill’s,” then the media is guilty of publishing highly prejudicial bullshit, and they should have to pay for it. I would hope that they would burn their source in the process, but I wouldn’t really care one way or the other. If you’re going to hang someone out to dry over barking dogs, you’d better be damn sure you got the story right.

Comments are closed.