Last we heard from the FBI’s not-so-smoking gun in the anthrax case, USAMRIID admitted that they had no idea what kind of flasks of anthrax and other microbes its scientists had hidden around their labs, basically shredding the FBI’s claim that the anthrax used in the attacks on Congress and the Press could only have come from Bruce Ivins’ flask.

Now, we learn that the supposedly exact match between Ivins’ anthrax and that used in the attacks was not so close. (h/t fatster)

At a biodefence meeting on 24 February, Joseph Michael, a materials scientist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, presented analyses of three letters sent to the New York Post and to the offices of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. Spores from two of those show a distinct chemical signature that includes silicon, oxygen, iron, and tin; the third letter had silicon, oxygen, iron and possibly also tin, says Michael. Bacteria from Ivins’ RMR-1029 flask did not contain any of those four elements.

Two cultures of the same anthrax strain grown using similar processes — one from Ivins’ lab, the other from a US Army facility in Utah — showed the silicon-oxygen signature but did not contain tin or iron. Michael presented the analyses at the American Society for Microbiology’s Biodefense and Emerging Diseases Research Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.

The chemical mismatch doesn’t necessarily mean that deadly spores used in the attacks did not originate from Ivins’ RMR-1029 flask, says Jason Bannan, a microbiologist and forensic examiner at the FBI’s Chemical Biological Sciences Unit in Quantico, Virginia. The RMR-1029 culture was created in 1997, and the mailed spores could have been taken out of that flask and grown under different conditions, resulting in varying chemical contents. "It doesn’t surprise me that it would be different," he says.

The data suggest that spores for the three letters were grown using the same process, says Michael. It is not clear how tin and iron made their way into the culture, he says. Bannan suggests that the growth medium may have contained iron and tin may have come from a water source.

There are a couple of reasons why this damages the FBI operative story implicating Ivins. 

First, their chronology completely depends on Ivins’ late night work in his own lab at Ft. Detrick and assumes he was working from the "smoking gun" flask directly. Yet if the anthrax shows traces of being taken out of the flask, then it makes the FBI claim of a direct connection between Ivins’ flask and the anthrax used in the attack even more indirect. And clearly, if Ivins was working late in his lab the night before the anthrax was mailed, then he wasn’t taking the anthrax out of the lab to process somewhere with tin in its water. Furthermore, in all the searches of Ivins’ house and car, the FBI has never found any trace of anthrax spores–which is one of the reasons they posited that he worked on the anthrax in his lab.

And here’s one more weird thing. The FBI claims to have narrowed which labs with Ames strain anthrax might have been the source of the anthrax by tying the anthrax to something in Eastern Seaboard water. Yet now, to explain how tin may have ended up in anthrax purportedly tied to Ivins, scientists are pointing to water–presumably elsewhere–as the source.

Well, I suppose we could just wait for the National Academy of Science to recreate the FBI’s anthrax work to figure this all out, right? Apparently, though, they can’t even get the contract right to start work.

The academy is still in the process of drawing up a contract with the FBI that lays out an agreement to perform the study, says NAS spokeswoman Christine Stencel. 

I can’t help but wonder whether the contracting process here resembles the one used when the NAS cooked up a paper supporting Cheney’s killing of millions of fish in the Klamath basin (as reported by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker in the WaPo).

The thing to do, Cheney told Smith, was to get science on the side of the farmers. And the way to do that was to ask the National Academy of Sciences to scrutinize the work of the federal biologists who wanted to protect the fish.

Smith said he told Cheney that he thought that was a roll of the dice. Academy panels are independently appointed, receive no payment and must reach a conclusion that can withstand peer review.

"It worried me that these are individuals who are unreachable," Smith said of the academy members. But Cheney was firm, expressing no such concerns about the result. "He felt we had to match the science."

Smith also wasn’t sure that the Klamath case — "a small place in a small corner of the country" — would meet the science academy’s rigorous internal process for deciding what to study. Cheney took care of that. "He called them and said, ‘Please look at this, it’s important,’" Smith said. "Everyone just went flying at it."

William Kearney, a spokesman for the National Academies, said he was unaware of any direct contact from Cheney on the matter. The official request came from the Interior Department, he said.

It was Norton who announced the review, and it was Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove who traveled to Oregon in February 2002 to assure farmers that they had the administration’s support. A month later, Cheney got what he wanted when the science academy delivered a preliminary report finding "no substantial scientific foundation" to justify withholding water from the farmers.

There was not enough clear evidence that proposed higher lake levels would benefit suckerfish, the report found. And it hypothesized that the practice of releasing warm lake water into the river during spawning season might do more harm than good to the coho, which thrive in lower temperatures. [Read the report.]

[snip]

The science academy panel, in its final report, acknowledged that its draft report was "controversial," but it stood by its conclusions. Instead of focusing on the irrigation spigot, it recommended broad and expensive changes to improve fish habitat. [Read the final report]

"The farmers were grateful for our decision, but we made the decision based on the scientific outcome," said the panel chairman, William Lewis, a biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It just so happened the outcome favored the farmers."

But J.B. Ruhl, another member of the panel and a Florida State University law professor who specializes in endangered species cases, said the Bureau of Reclamation went "too far," making judgments that were not backed up by the academy’s draft report. "The approach they took was inviting criticism," Ruhl said, "and I didn’t think it was supported by our recommendations." [my emphasis]

 I wonder. Which of Cheney’s minions is negotiating with the NAS to do this anthrax study. And will that person convince the NAS to ignore the tin in the anthrax?

From Scott Shane’s article on USAMRIID’s little cataloging problem:

The anthrax case has underscored the threat of biological attack by biodefense insiders like Dr. Ivins, who have access to pathogens and the expertise to work with them.

The number of such researchers has grown rapidly since 2001, when the anthrax letters set off a spending boom on biodefense that led to a rapid addition of laboratories working on potential bioweapons, notably anthrax.

Before 2001, only a few dozen such facilities worked with anthrax. Today, the Centers for Disease Control has registered 219 laboratories to do so, said a C.D.C. spokesman, Von Roebuck. He said 10,474 people had been cleared to work with dangerous pathogens and toxins nationwide after background checks by the Justice Department. [my emphasis]

So we’ve learned two things in the last day. USAMRIID has not had a way of tracking what all its scientists have been working on (and therefore, any claim that Ivins could have been the only one who had access to the anthrax used in the attack is based on faulty evidence). And, as a result of the anthrax attacks, the number of labs working on anthrax expanded almost ten-fold, from roughly 24 to 219.

I guess they found a really effective way to quiet concerns that our work on anthrax violated treaty bans, huh?

Now, what do you make of the fact that USAMRIID, the lab at which Bruce Ivins was alleged to have made the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks, is having problems cataloging and tracking their high-risk microbes and biomaterials (h/t Danger Room)?

The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) has suspended research activities involving biological select agents and toxins. Army officials took the step on Friday after discovering apparent problems with the system of accounting for high-risk microbes and biomaterials at the Fort Detrick, Maryland, facility.

The lab has been under intense scrutiny since August, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) named former USAMRIID researcher Bruce Ivins as the perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks. Although the case never went to trial because of Ivins’s suicide on 29 July 2008, FBI officials have claimed that the evidence against him is indisputable and that he carried out the mailings using anthrax stolen from a flask at USAMRIID.

Officials have begun a complete inventory of all select agents and toxins at the facility. All experiments using select agents will remain suspended until the accounting is finished, which could take several weeks. Several USAMRIID researchers have been grumbling about the decision, which seems to have caught them by surprise, according to a government official not connected to the lab.

The decision was announced by institute commander Col. John Skvorak in a 4 February memo to employees. The memo, which ScienceInsider has obtained, says the standard of accountability that USAMRIID had been applying to its select agents and toxins was not in line with the standard required by the Army and the Department of Defense. [my empahsis]

One key to the FBI case against Ivins, after all, is that he had complete control over the sole flask that contained the strain of anthrax used in the attack. But now we come to find out that, more than six months after his death, they still don’t have a sound inventory of what they have where?

I’d say that FBI case is looking weaker and weaker. 

Aside from the fact that Steven Hatfill’s girlfriend kept her own bottle of Cipro hidden inside a Mason Jar full of coffee, the most interesting part of the searches conducted on Steven Hatfill in 2002 is his Florida storage locker. It appears to be a collection of Hatfill’s toys left over from his days in Zimbabwe and elsewhere.

• Soldier of Fortune magazine
• Flight computer
• A confidentially marked document titled "Presentation Exercise Urban Guerilla Warfare" 
• Infantry training manual
• Military manuals and patches
• Zimbabwe phone book
• Blank diplomas
• Passport
• One foreign beret
• Document labeled "Proposals for the Use of Biological Weapons and Unconventional Warfare Operations"
• University of Zimbabwe letter
• Subversive warfare manual
• Jacket bearing Ames Research Center patch
• Helicopter manual

In short, the storage locker contained a lot of evidence that fleshed out the story of the FBI’s confidential witness (whose name is redacted from the affidavit). Hatfill was a mercenary in the Rhodesian military in the late 70s, at a time when the Rhodesian government was using chemical warfare and anthrax attacks against rebels. He had complained that the US was not taking the threat of a biological attack seriously–and said that it would take a "Pearl Harbor" attack to get them to take it seriously. He had  been engaged with–and thought about–biological warfare for two decades.

In addition to those toys and that past experience with biological weapons, the affidavit in support of the warrants explains, Hatfill had admitted that he kept some anthrax simulant in his apartment, and the FBI had found that he had Cipro prescriptions from January, July, September, October, and November 2001.

He might not be the kind of guy I’d invite to a dinner party (then again, he might have some really fascinating stories), but he’s also not someone who had been tied to the anthrax letters. He had the capability, maybe even a motive (in the same way Scooter Libby did). But no apparent ties to the deed (note, seven bullet points following the "Scope of the Search" are redacted entirely).

And interestingly, the reference to the mock mobile-bioweapons lab (purportedly a mock-up of what Saddam turned out not to have) he constructed is mostly redacted. And the affidavit is careful to always refer to the US’ "former offensive bio-program." Is it possible that FBI agents investigating the anthrax attack were unaware that a recipient of a dummy attack had written an article just weeks before the attacks describing, "Earlier this year, administration officials said, the Pentagon drew up plans to engineer genetically a potentially more potent variant of the bacterium that causes anthrax"?

One final point. The affidavit describes "several textile fibers" recovered from … a redacted location, suitable for comparison purposes. If I’m not mistaken, this affidavit (submitted on July 31, 2002) was written around the time–but possibly just before–the evidence was recovered from the mailboxes in New Jersey. Were these fibers mentioned in Ivins’ affidavits?  

Judge Lamberth has just ruled that the government has to unseal the materials it submitted to get search warrants related to Stephen Hatfill (h/t scribe).

This should be fun.

After all, it’s telling enough that the government doesn’t want us to see the search warrant application. And one of the reasons the government didn’t want to release the materials is because it wants to keep the identity of a confidential informant secret; I do hope we’ll be able to tell whether they had something more than people who had analyzed the writing on the envelopes to point to Hatfill. 

But given how flimsy the government’s case against Ivins remains, I look forward to seeing what they were thinking back earlier in this process.

I agree with all the comments littering bmaz’ trash talk thread: the new anthrax story still does nothing to prove that Ivins was the lone gunman. First and foremost, that’s because the FBI is still doing what it has been doing from the start–boasting of their fancy new technology to prove that the anthax came from a flask in Ivins’ office, without making an affirmative case Ivins was the one who used the material in the flask, and certainly without providing any evidence that Ivins was the one who mailed it. Even if Ivins prepared the anthrax, after all, that’s a far cry from driving to Princeton to mail it. 

But even within their shiny object story about the flask, there are reasons to doubt. For example, when the story dismisses a second flask because of an erroneous lab notebook entry, we get no detail about what that entry is or who made it.

Initially, agents thought Ivins divided his spores into two flasks and kept one in a different building, which would have increased the number of people with potential access. That belief was based on a lab notebook entry that turned out to be erroneous, agents said.

After all, if the FBI’s own lab book has these errors, then why should we trust them? If it’s an error in Ivins’ own lab notebook, are they suggesting he was trying to confuse them? The error, by itself, certainly doesn’t dismiss the concerns.

Then there’s the question of the different qualities of the anthrax samples used in the attack.

Differences between the two grades of anthrax powders used in the attacks — the earlier batch sent to New York news outlets was coarser and darker than the powder mailed to the Senate — confirm that there were at least two production runs. Bureau officials knew they were looking for someone who had repeated access to Ivins’s flask as well as talent for sophisticated spore preparations. 

As freep points out, there’s no reason to believe someone accessed the flask in Ivins’ office twice, just that someone created samples specific to each attack. Furthermore, how can you make this argument without having some explanation for who sent Judy Miller fake anthrax? There’s every reason to believe that her non-attack was part of the larger scare; if so, then you’d need to acknowledge that some of the attack anthrax wasn’t anthrax at all.

Here’s how they dismiss the many complaints that no one at Detrick had experience drying liquid anthrax into powder:

Ivins normally worked with liquid anthrax spore solutions, not dry powders, investigators acknowledge. Ivins’s colleagues insist that he had no experience with "dry aerosols" of anthrax spores and would not have known how to make them.

But drying the spores turned out to be no obstacle at all, FBI scientists said. It required only one more step, using a common laboratory machine known as a lyophilizer. Ivins had one in his lab.

"Because he grew spores on a daily basis, he was in a position to make [the powder], and no one would be the wiser," Montooth said.

Apparently, the FBI has dismissed all the issues about expertise drying anthrax to the consistency of that used in the attack by pointing to a piece of equipment. No really–it was as easy as toasting a bagel in a toaster oven. 

Finally, the thing that disgusts me is the way the WaPo ends the article, suggesting that all those associated with victims of the crime believe it is solved:

The only solace, he said, came on the day the Amerithrax team sat down with family members of the victims of the attacks. In an FBI conference room, Montooth laid out the still-secret details of the seven-year investigation.

"They thanked us," Montooth said, recalling the families’ reaction. "They said, ‘We believe you got the right guy.’ "

Ending the article that ways seems to give it a sense of finality: if the families of victims are convinced, then of course the FBI must be right!

Funny, no one thought to ask Patrick Leahy, the recipient of one of the attack letters, whether he "believes the FBI got the right guy." Because we know that he still has all the concerns we’ve got about the 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.

Oops, missed Pat Leahy’s opening statement, but the hearing is being streamed here. After babbling about how poor Curt Weldon was the victim of a nasty FBI leak, Specter is at least asking some specifics about the anthrax investigation.

Leahy interrupts Mueller just as he’s pitching his great anthrax investigation.

Leahy: I’ve thought about throughout this time. You briefed me in Vermont. These weapons that were used against the American people and Congress–are you aware of any facility in the US that is capable of making the anthrax besides Dugway in UT and Batelle in OH? Other than those two?

Mueller: Fifteen in the US and 2 overseas. 

Leahy: Are there any other facilities capable of making this anthrax?

Mueller: I do believe there are. I would have to get back to you.

Leahy: At some point we’re going to take a break and please get me that information, because I know of no others besides those two. I’m aware of the article from September 4 reporting a program of secret research on biological weapons, project has been embraced by Bush Administration. Weapons used against Americans were right after that. 

Now into questions.

Leahy: You commented on corporate scandals. There will be investigations regarding possible fraud or lawbreaking in those areas?

Mueller: 1400 investigations and 24 investigations looking at larger corporations who may have engaged in "misstatements."

Leahy: The USG is on the hook for 800 billion to 1 trillion–almost as much as the Iraq war–and I suspect that everyone wants to know if there was fraud.

Leahy: New guidelines. You say no broad new authorities. We’re unable to get a review of that, we have not been briefed. It’s been as superficial briefing as possible. I was surprised by your statement. Under the proposed guidelines, line FBI agent would be able to use several new intrusive methods at threat assessment level. 

Specter: Did you personally review the evidence and conclude there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Mueller: Yes.

Specter: WRT the hairs on the mailbox, why no effort to swab Ivins for DNA until the time he committed suicide.

Mueller: I would have to get back to you.

Specter: I’m going to send you a letter. When you anticipate designating an independent group of experts. 

Mueller: We are asking NAS to identify experts to serve on panel.

[Note: what about the non-scientific evidence???]

Mueller: I will consider whether you can name people.

Specter: What’s there to consider.

Mueller: I’m not familiar with how NAS does these reviews.

Specter: If we want to have an independent group, would you turn over the evidence?

Mueller: Open to third party review, especially when it comes to the science.

Specter: I’m asking for you to let this committee to participate in this objective group.

Specter complaining that he was in the middle of giving FBI more authority with PATRIOT when he discovered the warrantless wiretap program.

Mueller: It was not our program. My understanding was that Congress had been briefed.

Specter: We’re the principal oversight officers for the FBI.

Specter: I can’t get an answer from General Mukasey on the Weldon letters, what am I supposed to do, go into his office and look myself? Self help? Bob Mueller comes from a long line of trial lawyers. I looked over the anthrax evidence and I have grave doubts about the sufficiency of evidence for beyond reasonable doubt. If we don’t pave the way for the newspapers to tell us how are we going to find out?

[Note: this is the same Arlen Specter who whined that Schumer used too much time in asking Comey about the hospital confrontation. He has gone way over.]

Leahy: 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 be charged with murder.

Mueller: I have told you that in the investigation to date we have followed every lead to find out if anyone else was involved, we would pursue that. 

DiFi: The full committee wasn’t briefed on warrantless wiretap program until 2006. Your comment that members were fully briefed, that’s not accurate.

DiFi listing interrogations that don’t use torture that have good results, including Abu Zubaydah.

DiFi: On the 27th of November in 2002, legal counsel Spike Bowman received a memo, he did not receive it for months. Legal analysis of interrogation techniques. It goes on to say that information received through these methods would not be introduced in US, maybe not in military tribunals. Intent of user for judge or jury to decide. Those who employ these techniques may be indicted if the user had requisite intent. 

DiFi hitting on the fact that the FBI was warned, but didn’t collect information to support war crimes cases. Also trying to find out when Mueller first became aware. 

DiFi: Did this Spike Bowman memo ever got to the AG or the President?

Mueller: I don’t think so.

Grassley’s birthday.

Grassley: Unanimous consent to have my statement made part of the record, documents and letters. Major developments in anthrax investigation. After years of focusing on Hatfill. Ivins committed suicide. This is one of the longest investigations in FBI history. There will probably never be a trial. Congress and the American people deserve a full accounting. Unanswered questions. A thorough Congressional investigation is needed. I appreciate director referring to NAS, but the NAS would not be reviewing interview summaries, GJ testimony, other investigative documents. The Academy would not be reviewing the detective work. Wrote to AG and Mueller seeking answers, I have not received a reply. 18 questions. Highlight one: when the FBI first learned of Ivins’ late night access to lab? Those records available from early in investigation. Shouldnt’ his late-night lab access have led you to focus on him earlier in investigation instead of focusing on Hatfill. When did FBI obtain those records.

Mueller: Have to get back to you. Drafted answers.

Leahy: I have to emphasize, the getting back to us is very difficult to us here. The answers go to DOJ, they sit on them, and we never get the answers. They sit on them, it’s a dark hole over there. Grassley has asked legitimate questions over the last year. As Chair, I insist we do get the answers. Some questions can be answered this morning. I will ask you to get on the phone and get answers.

Mueller: One second. [confers] I have some limited information but I’d prefer to confirm it over the break. 

Grassley: Shouldn’t that have caused you to focus on Ivins instead of Hatfill. 

Mueller: Key disclosure was when we were able to match the genetic markers, spring 2005. At that time, it triggered a number of investigative steps. It was at that juncture that the investigation took on a new focus. 

Grassley: FBI waited years to set the record straight after FBI switched directions. Why did you wait until after settling Hatfill’s suit and clearing Hatfill’s name?

Mueller: Generated appropriate steps during the investigation. Lawsuit focused on leaks. 

Mueller: We had to eliminate people who had gotten the anthrax. While it shifted focus of investigation, we had to determine who was responsible, anybody who may have had anthrax. There were a number of persons who had been employed by USAMRID. 

Grassley: was anyone punished for those leaks? 

Mueller: One person canceled as a result of confirming something, one ongoing investigation.

Feingold: FBI has made some grave mistakes in recent years, particularly with NSLs, the FBI doesn’t have the ability to police itself. As Leahy already described, guidelines allow assessment, which allow physical assessment, pretext, recruiting of informants, all with no reason for suspicion whatsoever. So long as it’s a national security threat or collecting foreign intelligence, you can pick someone from the street. Since no reason for suspicion is required, I believe this makes racial profiling possible. These guidelines contain an exception for national security cases. Do you agree that it would be ineffective for the FBI to engage in racial profiling. 

Mueller: Absolutely.

Feingold: When these are finally published, I believe there will be a public outcry. Why can’t you solicit the feedback of people?

Mueller: input from ACLU, privacy interests, draft of guidelines, elicited suggestions, have had an openness that’s far different than before. 

Durbin: Guideline question. In most instances, there has to be factual predicate. Is national origin or religion a sufficient factual predicate in investigations related to terrorism. 

Mueller: No.

Durbin: Torture and investigative techniques. I called you to mention that I was going to bring up. 2005, I asked about reports about FBI agents witnessing detainee abuses.

[Just out walking the dog–what’d I miss?]

Whitehouse: DOJ review of investigation of warrantless wiretap. More detail in two-part series [referencing Gellman]. Oath of office confers duties and responsibilities. Greatest failing still pursued by extremists who have controlled White House decision-making. Expects agencies to bow before the will of the White House, even when honor, duty, and statute confer responsibilities. Leads to dangerous culture where yes-men and toadies become Constitutional norm. 

[Goes on to applaud Mueller for his role in putting duty over obedience.]

Whitehouse: I will say the new guidelines unhinges the FBI from some of its traditional roles. It would be helpful in addition to sharing the new guidelines to allow some senior folks to come and brief those members who are interested what the affirmative protocols is in those investigations. I suspect the guidelines are written in the negative, and don’t disclosre the administrative function that oversees them. 

Cardin: We need to find a way in addition to the NAS investigation to give people more confidence in investigation. 

Cardin: I represent MD and with it Ft. Detrick. MDers have a right to be concerned that those working in Detrick are working safely. Ivins had security clearance until July 10. Why was his security clearance maintained to such a late point. Did the FBI recommend that his clearance be changed? Did we not have credible information.

Mueller: I would have to get back to you on a specific timeline. There was no overt action until November 2007. At time when search warrant was requested, we advised USAMRID of our concerns. At that point, while his security clearance maintained, his access to relevant spaces at USAMRID. No longer had access to compounds he had access to prior to that day. 

Cardin: I would appreciate it if you would confirm that to the committee. Info we received it was a counselor raising issues about his mental statement.

Mueller: If there are privileged records we do not have access to them.

Cardin: Important that clearance be monitored.

Cardin: 2008 elections. Actions to prevent repeat of activity from 2006 and 2004 elections, voter fraud that took place in close proximity to elections, makes it hard to ensure voters can participate. What role with the FBI play to be constructive in enforcement of our laws. 

Leahy: Assessment that allows an agent to conduct indefinite 24-hour overview. Why not include policies in regulations?

Mueller: Framework. Techniques that could be used in any situation.

Grassley: If the FBI had the lab access records in 2002, why did it take so long to analyze them?

Mueller: We obtained thousands of lab records. 

Grassley: According to info released by FBI, material in envelopes contain silicon. Scientists in Sandia conducted blind tests, unlike materials in attack envelope, flash contained no silicon.  Can you explain who silicon ended up in envelopes?

Mueller: Issue of silicon at outset, not outside sample, but part of growth process. I’ll get back to you.

Grassley: Why should we have to wait to get document requests until internal oversight is done? Are you held up by DOJ policy?

Mueller consulting with lawyer. Huh.

On CSPAN3 and via the Committee website (though the latter didn’t work for me).

The two big issues will be the new guidelines for FBI investigations–which may allow racial profile–as well as the laughable case the FBI made that Bruce Ivins was the sole killer in the anthrax attack.

In an opening stated, Jerrold Nadler revealed that the FBI would not give staffers on HJC the new guidelines–they were able to see the guidelines, but not keep a copy. Nadler made a back-handed suggestion that the FBI had done so to prevent Congress from providing influence on those guidelines.

Mueller says the new guidelines are in the process of implementation and says they have [with emphasis] been briefed to HJC’s staff. 

I guess input would be too much to ask. 

Mueller on Ivins: "Special concern for the victims of the mailings … provide special information … included information about science developed for the investigation…. developed for the investigation … we have initiated discussions with National Academy of Sciences to undertake a review of the scientific approach … have provided as much information as we can."

Conyers starts out impatient: This has been months we’ve been trying to get a response to the seven questions I put to you."

Mueller: I’ve always made myself available … when it comes to QFRs, it goes through review and there is some delay. We worked to get to it back to you as soon as we could yesterday. We do our level best to get you responses as soon as we can. I will also sit down and discuss issues that may be on your mind.

Conyers talking about a raid conducted by 200 officers to find out who paid for the Cuyahoga County Dem Chair’s driveway paving. Mueller will get back to Conyers.

Nadler: Congratulations for your role in standing up against abuse of power [referring to Gellman’s exceprts of Angler]. In understanding bottom line of investigation and how accurate we can take it to be, it’s important to understand murder weapons: contained silica. Some observers say it may have been sophisticated additive, requires special expertise, former boss of Ivins says he did not have. Briefing last month, govt scientists say anthrax contained no additives. Scientists say a percentage higher than 1/2 of 1 percent has never been found naturally. What was the percentage of weight of silicon?

Mueller: I’d have to get back to you.

Nadler: You can tell us what that percentage was. Only handful of facilities having the expertise to make such a power–CIA contractor in OH. Were those facilities ever a target in investigation?

Mueller: You can assume we looked at every laboratory that had both type of Ames anthrax and individuals capable of undertaking drying of anthrax.

Nadler: And addition of silica, if that turns out to be the case. Why zero in on Detrick?

Mueller: Would have to get back to you. We developed morphology used in letters. That led to identifying the vial that was labeled RMR1029 found in Ivins’ laboratory. Clear identification of the anthrax in the letters that was in the vial. That in and of itself would give you one means of eliminating the others. We traced all the anthrax distributed from that vial.

Nadler: Do you agree there may be need of independent review of evidence, would bureau cooperate, what downsides could there be?

Mueller: Will request National Academy of Science to review it. Independent review. 

Nadler: Get back to us with percentage of silica and why these other facilities ruled out.

Bobby Scott: Abusing your right to vote. Something FBI would have an interest in?

Mueller: With DOJ, we would examine. 

Scott: Mortgage fraud, looking at individuals, or the systematic problem?

Mueller: Local level, 24 investigations at corporate level, misstatement of assets. 500 indictments. 1400 cases of local variety, 24 of corporate variety.

Maxine Waters and Conyers are trying to hammer on who would investigate the vote-caging using lists of foreclosures.

Artur Davis: SCOTUS hasn’t ever ruled on basis for police encounter v. basis for investigation.

Well, that wasn’t all that interesting. I’d imagine Pat Leahy’s hearing on oversight tomorrow will be a bunch more interesting.

Remember the rationale the FBI gave for why he sent anthrax to Senators Daschle and Leahy?

In 2001, members of the Catholic pro-life movement were known to be highly critical of Catholic Congressional members who voted pro-choice in opposition to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Two of the more prominent members of Congress who fell in this category were Senator Tom Daschle, then Senator Majority Leader; and Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both recipients of the 2001 anthrax mailings. 

The FBI suggested Ivins was ardently pro-life, which contributed to his selection of Leahy and Daschle as targets.

Problem is, they never actually prove that Ivins was ardently pro-life. Rather, they describe him discussing his wife’s pro-life activities as head of the local Right to Life group.

On July 10, 2002, in an e-mail to a friend, Dr. Ivins identified his wife, [redacted] as the President of the Frederick County Right to Life, as well as having connections to many other pro-life/anti-abortion groups. 

They go on to include another excerpt from the email that suggests he considers himself pro-life–though it also suggests he is not entirely sure an anti-choice stance is the true Christian stance.

Dr. Ivins later states in the same e-mail, "I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-life, but I want my position to be one consistent with a Christian.

Without providing the context of that sentence, Ivins’ use of the conjunction "but" in the sentence does more to suggest Ivins has some doubt whether traditional pro-life activities are Christian than it does to prove that he–and not just his wife–was ardently pro-life.

Yet the claim that Bruce Ivins was pro-life was the primary reason the FBI gave for why Ivins targeted Daschle (they brought up the PATRIOT Act, but focused more on Leahy’s involvement in slowing the passage of the bill). In addition, the FBI explained the "Greendale School" reference on one of the envelopes because of the couple’s joint membership in the American Family Association (with no indication that Bruce Ivins–and not his wife–was the active subscriber of their materials).  

Which is why it’s so damning to the FBI case that Ivins wrote instructions in his will that if his family refused to cremate him and scatter the ashes, he would give a huge donation to Planned Parenthood.

Six weeks after Bruce E. Ivins killed himself, the cremated remains of Mr. Ivins, the Army scientist and anthrax suspect, are stored at a funeral home here, awaiting the outcome of an unusual probate court proceeding.

In a will he wrote last year, a few months before the Federal Bureau of Investigation focused the anthrax letters investigation on him, Dr. Ivins wrote of his wish to be cremated and have his ashes scattered. But fearing that his wife, Diane, and their two children might not honor the request, he came up with a novel way to enforce his demand: threatening to make a bequest to an organization he knew his wife opposed, Planned Parenthood.

“If my remains are not cremated and my ashes are not scattered or spread on the ground, I give to Planned Parenthood of Maryland” $50,000, Dr. Ivins wrote in the will. Court records value the estate at $143,000.

Ivins’ clever trick with the will in no way indicates he was pro-choice. All it does is show that he gambled his wife’s own opposition to choice was stronger than her desire to bury him. But it does make it clear that his wife was the anti-choice zealot in the household, not him. The membership in the American Family Association and the articles opposing Leahy and Daschle? There’s no reason to believe Ivins cared about them or even read them.

But if Bruce Ivins wasn’t an anti-choice zealot, then several more pieces of the FBI case fall apart.