FBI Still Using Shiny Objects to Distract from Their Flimsy Anthrax Case
The WaPo’s big takeaway from the Robert Mueller/FBI oversight hearing today is something I reported last month: Pat Leahy believes Bruce Ivins did not act alone. As Leahy said today,
If Ivins is the one who sent the letter, I do not believe in any manner that he is the only person involved in this attack on Congress and the American people. I believe there are other people involved either as accessories before or after. I believe there are others out there who could [should?] be charged with murder.
Now that the WaPo has caught up, here’s where this story has been and continues to go. The FBI is attempting to use the shiny object of their fancy new science techniques to distract from how crappy the rest of the evidence in this case is.
Both yesterday and today, when Mueller was asked about an independent review of the case, he said the FBI would have the National Academy of Sciences appoint a board of scientists to review the genetic analysis that led the FBI to believe that the anthrax used in the attack came from a flask in Bruce Ivins’ lab. When Arlen Specter asked to name some people to serve on that review board, Mueller said–as he responded to most questions about the anthrax case–he would have to get back to Specter.
But, more importantly, it’s not just that Americans are wondering whether the fancy new genetic analysis the FBI did is sound.
We’re worried about Pat Leahy’s seeming certainty that only scientists at Dugway in UT and Batelle in OH have the technical competence to make the anthrax used in the attacks; when Leahy made Mueller call FBI to find out if that were true, Mueller eventually responded that the answer is classified. We’re worried that the FBI’s explanation for how and why Ivins would have driven several hours to Princeton to mail the anthrax letters keeps changing from dubious story to dubious story–meaning even if Ivins made this anthrax, they have no proof he mailed it. And we’re worried that the FBI seems to have attributed Ivins’ wife’s beliefs to him in order to explain the choice of targets–even though Leahy’s apparent suspicion (that the attack was related to recent efforts to develop an offenseive bioweapons program) provides a much more plausible explanation for the targets.
In other words, the flimsiest aspects of the anthrax case have nothing to do with genetic analysis. But it’s through an independent review of the genetic analysis, and genetic analysis only, that Robert Mueller would like to use to reassure us that the case is sound.
worried that Mueller doesn’t know the timeline so good.
And what a lame response to question about Ivin’s security clearance. worried about that.
Don’t worry about Mueller knowing the timeline, EW has already helped him with it several times. He doesn’t seem grateful though.
Ket question to me seems to be: Was the anthrax weaponized and if so to what degree?
If it was weaponized to the degree the FBI originally implied, than Irvins can’t be guilty as he lacked the equiptment.
If it wasn’t weaponized, the number of labs where it could have been produced expands into the dozens. The number of persons with authorized access rises into the lhousands and the probability of unauthorized access rises as well.
The answer to this is classified, even though the FBI has publically stated it BOTH ways.
I wish I’d seen these arguements back when I was in high school, the vice principal would NEVER have got me.
Boxturtle (Admission: I usually deserved to be got)
What is it about the FBI or our Government that it can’t find the leadership it requires and that includes J.E. Hoover (big time). Robert Mueller has fallen to the level of an ass covering autocrat. His truthfulness is highly suspect and it’s time for him to go, the FBI too for that matter.
Why does this sound as reassuring as the auditors and regulators who looked at the books of Enron and said “Nothing to see here . . .”?
I’m worried about what Pervez Bush might do Next to avoid Accountability for his Lawless Junta.
@2
Boxturtle, I used to bribe the principal with ice cream. I deserved to be got a couple of times and actually had to serve detention once or twice, but not anywhere near as much as they wanted me to serve. (They did, however, try to prevent me from giving my valedictorian speech.)
Sure seems like Leahy is convinced it was part of a weapons program coming out of either UT or OH, huh?
I think he mentioned those UNCLASSIFIED locations. But the undercurrent I’m seeing suggests that there is at least one other location undeclared. Leahy is clearly in possession of significant non-public information, and it clearly doesn’t jibe with the story the FBI is telling.
I think someone has been playing fast and loose with the bioweapons treaty and BushCo is afraid of it coming out.
My second guess is that the anthrax was never weaponized to that degree and that BushCo used it to whip up war talk knowing this full well. And BushCo is afraid of that coming out.
Boxturtle (Both might be possible)
OT on Miers
Mooting the question?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..s_contempt
More housecleaning.
Mueller must go.
I’m intrigued by Pat Leahy’s belief that there are accessories after the fact. Does he mean by this people covering up the attacks? or witnesses who after the fact should have come forward and didn’t?
Does Leahy’s “belief” rely on facts known to Leahy (and by extension, the FBI?).
I’m also intrigued by EWs @6 admission that “They” tried to prevent her from giving her valedictorian speech. Were there neocons running that school?
What kind of idiot goes to a Judiciary Committee meeting unprepared for so many easily-anticipated questions?
“I’ll have to get back to you”
Give me a Forking Break.
FunnyD
whose disgust knows no bounds.
He’s doing what he’s told by DoJ. He got called on it in the hearing, see EW’s prior blog.
He’s lying. He knows he’s lying. The entire panel knows he lying. He knows they know he’s lying. They know he know’s they know he’s lying. Kabuki, but without the makeup.
Boxturtle (Wishes they’d simply call him a liar to his face)
Thanks, mon
I think I was kinda-sorta axing a rhetorical question.
Sigh. Maybe Rachael will put this hearing in her “Ms Information” segment (important stories getting no coverage). She and, maybe, KO will be the only ones to mention it, I’ll wager!
FunnyD
“He’s doing what he’s told by DoJ”
I don’t think so. I don’t know what game he’s playing, or what his agenda is, but Mueller seems to be working from a different playbook than Rove, Cheney, Hadley et al.
Bob in HI
Well, I agree that he’s working from a different playbook from the one that that crew use, but I had the feeling today that the translation for “I’ll have to get back to you on that” is “Mukasey won’t let me,” or something close to that.
EW is right, though. It is so brazen, this attempt to deflect attention from questions about the investigation with the announcement of a mere review of the science. And Mueller did that willingly, two days in a row. The problem was so depressingly obvious to everyone, just as BoxTurtle says.
BoxTurtle – “They know he know’s they know he’s lying.”
That’s it in a turtleshell. The same game being played continuously, before any committee, press conference, all McPalin speeches. Endless but accelerating now by the day. Perhaps there is indeed some value in lying constantly, repeating lies, especially now that it is standard public procedure. Little chance of being called on it is there?
I feel like this program of deceit has been developed over the past few years (20 – 30 yr maybe) to the point that it is impossible to challenge. The gatekeeper is always there in some form to keep out (or eliminate) any inconvenient witness.
This means that there are other location(s) that we don’t know about. I wonder if Leahy does know about them. I need a clarification, if possible. Did Leahy say “technical competence to make the anthrax”? If anyone has a transcript, I’d like to know the exact phrase. There’s a big difference between make, develop, prepare or some other formulation.
Marcy, did you see this LA Times story this morning:
Scientist concedes ‘honest mistake’ about weaponized anthrax
Peter B. Jahrling, who aided the federal probe of the 2001 mailings, says he erred when he told White House officials that material he examined probably had been altered to make it more deadly.
By David Willman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — An acclaimed government scientist who assisted the federal investigation of the 2001 anthrax mailings said Tuesday that he erred seven years ago when he told top Bush administration officials that material he examined probably had been altered to make it more deadly.
The scientist, Peter B. Jahrling, had observed anthrax spores with the aid of an electron microscope at the government’s biological warfare research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md….
This thing is falling apart on every front…
Um, I’m wondering if the fancy new genetic analysis was done AT ALL. I haven’t seen a bit a hard data yet.
If find it odd that there are no peer reviewed papers in the public domain on whatever this new technique is.
Of course, this could be classified. Or it might just be that the person who developed this groundbreaking technique hasn’t bothered to put together a paper yet.
Boxturtle (Only thing I’m convinced about in this case is that Irvins is dead)
And you probably won’t see it, either. It’s “classified,” of course.
It is a basic tactic of the Bush-Cheney regime to undermine the legal system by withholding evidence that is key to the prosecution’s case. It’s the basic “Trust us or die” tactic.
Bob in HI
How is it even acceptable that the Director of the FBI doesn’t know so many things that it is obvious he would be asked? How about the next Bushie who shows up in a committee hearing be provided a speakerphone, and whenever he answers with an “I’ll get back to you”, instruct him to call the knowledgeable party and find out right the f*ck now.
@9
There were Mormons running my school. They thought I intended to incite a riot.
As to Leahy, it seems clear he believes that only someone at Dugway or Batelle could have put the silica in/on the anthrax. Also, he probably knows that that September 2001 Judy Miller story describes a program in one or both of those places.
lol.
Cannot for the life of me figure out what you would be planning to do that the Mormons would fear could incite a riot. Hope you can tell us more. My first and only thought, you threatened to do a Patty Hearst and appear on stage with a supersoaker filled with coffee.
Some interesting links.
Leahy mentioned this article from the NYT on 9/4/2001, courtesy in part of Judy, Judy, Judy.
15 locations work with the Ames strain in the U.S., and 3 outside, as confirmed by Mueller today, but only a four in the U.S. practice powdering it, Dugway being a key site.
Virginia has not forgotten Monica
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/…..-0129.html
And the Ohio site is actually a CIA contractor, is that right?
If I’m not mistaken, I seem to recal reading at Ed Lake that Battelle Labs has a facility in Princeton, NJ, close to the contaminated mailbox. For some reason this and other Battelle related facts have not appeared in the FBI’s factoid list.
And yes, Battelle Labs is the Ohio firm with the CIA contract.
EW,
I can’t keep up but I am listening to the hearing now.
Two dates to add to the timeline. According to Spector:
April 9, 2007
Dr. Ivins received a letter that he was not a target in the investigation.
October 31st: His home was searched.
Spector: What happened between those two dates?
Also, I was narrowing down the time in which he changed his will to sometime after May when four scientists contacted him to let him know that the anthrax matched his vial.
“now that the WaPo has caught up” oh yeah.
Watching the evening news. Will be interesting to see what they say about Mueller’s testimony. Will be looking to see who addresses Palin the ‘reformers” unwillingness to testify and efforts to stop other from testifying. I just want to know if the regular folks can start not showing when they are subpoenaed?
For you lawyer folks. Are these what you call “precedents”?
Yeah, I was pretty sure Ivins didn’t whip that stuff up in the lyophilizer in the corridor. AND I’m not surprized that the FBI knows where it could have been done, AND that the answer is classified. There’s at least one place out there that out-Detricks Detrick, and to say it is black is no exaggeration.
Here’s a listing of Battelle’s Locations:
http://www.battelle.org/locations/index.aspx
Thanks for that; it would take quite a search to try to find the info I did not correctly recall. BL has a facilty in Fredrick, but not at Princeton, according to the guide you furnished.
I guess I’m being hopelessly spun by the media reports. I cannot keep straight whether the Leahy letter anthrax was or was not weaponized, nor can I tell whether Ivins’ anthrax was or was not a genetic match (including the genetic diversity that creeps in after anthrax is cultured) to the Leahy letter anthrax both before and after Ivins was made the prime suspect.
If silica was in/on the deadly Leahy anthrax (it presumably it was there at the time the letter arrived in the Senate office) then anyone involved in sending it would be an accessory and not an accessory after the fact.
Leahy believes there may be accessories after the fact (people in the know who are not coming forward and are therefore criminals after the fact. Criminals because two people died from contact with the Leahy letter). I found the following Sen. Leahy interview published Sept 5, 2007 by the Vermont Daily Briefing where Sen. Leahy states as much. (I apologize if this has already been reviewed in prior posts)
clarification: if the anthrax was coated on the outside by ‘fumed’ silicon, then this is evidence of weaponized anthrax–implying state sponsor. If on the other hand the anthrax naturally produced a silica coat (not silicon coat) or incorporated silica inside itself (as apparently a close cousin to anthrax “b. cereus” does), then the sample of anthrax is not necessarily weaponized (read: obtained from a government lab).
However, the lack of culture medium debris in the Leahy sample indicates at the very least that someone took great care and time to produce pure samples. Such a person would know plenty about anthrax to know its extreme ability to float and kill anyone who inhaled its spores.
Nonweaponized anthrax of this variety is still a weapon.
Am I understanding the silicon/no silicon timeline correctly:
Was the silica/silicon issue pushed to prove a biolab source when the FBI thought they had Ivins pegged as the anthrax mailer? Then the “no silicon” meme being pushed more now that the FBI’s timeline doesn’t implicate Ivins? This way we don’t have to implicate another goverment lab?
I tried the same analysis you are working here a while back; not sure when, but not long after ivins came into the public discussion. Problem is, the uncertainty as to exactly what the involvement of silica/silicon was, or even whether there was any involvement, and whether there was a difference between the first wave samples and second wave samples – it has all been confused and clouded by contradictory and ambiguous statements since the get go. it is all over the road; there is no way to really get a grip on it without a more definitive evidence set.
Don’t have time to collate my sources (still dealing with being in the middle of millions of people without power), but there were significant differences between the first and second wave samples (photographic evidence is available). ‘Weaponized’ is a loaded term. The anthrax sent to the Senate was definitely ‘weaponized’ in the sense that it was processed to make it easier to inhale. One of the things we should have learned from the attacks is that many of the assumptions made about anthrax as a weapon were wrong. Indeed, in tinfoil hat land I would assert that maybe somebody did learn those things and that was the whole point.
“One of the things we should have learned…” and “somebody did learn those things, and that was the whole point”.
WO, When you can find the time, I’d like to hear you amplify on these points. I assume that what you mean by “the whole point”, is a reference to the purpose of the mailings, and that’s an avenue worthy of exploration.
PS I agree about the term “weaponization”; I suggest we consider (in this forum) the term “refined” or “improved”.
There are enough scientists at Ft. Detrick and other bioweapon research facilities and plenty enough scientists brought in on the case as consultants by the FBI that I find it odd a ‘more definitive evidence set’, as you say, has not been provided to the public to date.
If it implicated Ivins as the anthrax mailer and implicated him as the sole mailer, I suppose it would have been placed out there by now. Better for the government to keep things murky.
Molecular biologist and bioweapons consultant Prof. Matthew Meselson was quoted in a link I read that the FBI showed him electron micrographs of the anthrax mailings. Meselson did not see any sign of silicon coating nor of milling to achieve uniform size. Maybe he is in a position to tell us more, but perhaps he signed a nondisclosure form with the government.
The first time I saw Meselson speak about the anthrax attack was on the evening news right after people died from anthrax. Meselson “helpfully” suggested that we need to know more about this anthrax strain. That it could have been bioengineered to be resistant to Cipro and all known medical treatments of natural anthrax.
Many of you are on the right track.
On August 31, 2008 I sent Senator Leahy my 2700 word article from Dissident Voice about why Ivins must be innocent, and I explicitly make the case that the FBI’s role here is to divert attention from our illegal bio-weapons programs at Dugway in Utah and Battelle Memorial Labs in Jefferson, Ohio, which are revealed in the key Sept. 4, 2001 article in the NY Times, as dairymaid mentions above.