FBI Director To Testify On Anthrax Case
UPDATE (3:29 p.m.): During congressional testimony today, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said evidence collected in the agency's investigation of former Army scientist Bruce E. Ivins is strong and backs up their theory that he is the lone culprit behind the 2001 anthrax attacks.
"There was a clear identification of the anthrax in the letters back to being referred or related back to the anthrax that was in the vial in Dr. Ivins' laboratory," Mueller said, in response from a question from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) about the strength of the government's evidence. "And that, in and of itself, would give you one means of eliminating others, although, to the extent that there was anthrax that had been distributed from that vial, we traced all of that anthrax and eliminated any other persons who may have had access or utilized that access as a suspect."
Mueller also said the FBI is in dicussions with the National Academy of Science to conduct an independent review of the government's investigation into Ivins.
***
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III is scheduled today to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to defend the government's case against an Army researcher accused of launching a deadly anthrax-by-mail attack in 2001.
The case against Bruce E. Ivins, the Fort Detrick, Md., scientist who committed suicide July 29 before investigators could publicly label him as the lone culprit, has been called into question by a small but vocal group of critics, The Post's Carrie Johnson reports.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and two other Democrats on the panel and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) have signaled their interest in questioning the extent and validity of the FBI's case against Ivins.
Check back for more details about today's hearing, which starts at 10 a.m.
By Derek Kravitz |
September 16, 2008; 9:55 AM ET
Previous: Cheney Misled GOP Leaders, New Book Says |
Next: Rangel's Money Woes, FBI's Anthrax, Palin's Ethics
Posted by: Old Atlantic | September 16, 2008 10:30 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.








If you have solid tips, news or documents on potential ethical violations or abuses of power, we want to know. Send us your suggestions.

Unfortunately I believe that we are limited in what we can focus on. I think that if we proceed with the partisan sideshow of prosecuting Bush admin. officials, healthcare will get lost in the brouhaha.
The Washington Post's permanent investigative unit was set up in 1982 under Bob Woodward.
By refusing to answer Congress's questions and claiming he didn't know, Mueller subverted the Constitution. The executive branch attacked the people and Congress with anthrax and the Director of the FBI refuses to answer Congress's questions.
The "US Attorney" Jeff Taylor was not approved by the Senate, ever. He has prosecution power over the government in DC. His manner of coming to this power is itself subversion of the Constitution. Congress needs to reassert itself. Congress is shirking its job to protect the Constitution and doesn't deserve to continue in office.
There is a corrupt bargain between the FBI and Congress. The FBI doesn't have to answer questions about anthrax murder and in exchange it won't prosecute or investigate Congress for the greatest graft in history.
When the people don't care they subvert the Constitution. That's what diversity immigration has brought us to.