U.S. Yields In Anthrax Lawsuit Standoff

[MADem]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10510-2005Apr22.html?nav=hcmodule
U.S. Yields In Anthrax Lawsuit Standoff
Some Questioning Allowed on Leaks


A federal judge ordered the Justice Department yesterday to begin providing testimony to attorneys for Steven J. Hatfill, the former Army scientist who is suing the government for identifying him as "a person of interest" in the anthrax investigation.

For months, the Justice Department had opposed Hatfill's attempts to begin deposing government witnesses, citing the sensitive nature of the investigation. Hatfill's attorneys said that stalled their efforts to identify the source of leaks in the massive probe.

Until yesterday, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton deferred to the government's concerns. But Walton also said that Hatfill must eventually have an opportunity to explore the subject, and the Justice Department told the judge that it is now willing to permit some questioning.

Hatfill filed suit in 2003, alleging that then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and other federal officials defamed him and violated his privacy. No one has been arrested for the anthrax-laced mailings that killed five people and sickened 17 in the fall of 2001, and Hatfill has said that he had nothing to do with the crime.

[Wilms]

1. Good. n/t

[MADem]

2. I guess not many are interested in this case

...but I find it fascinating. If that guy is guilty, he covered his tracks well. If innocent, he has one hell of a lawsuit.

[deminks]

3. Will Ashcroft be deposed?

<snip>

from above article:

The government, in its written submission to the court and in its statement yesterday, sought to preclude Ashcroft and other individual defendants from being deposed because the judge is still considering their claims of immunity.

But Hatfill's attorney, Thomas G. Connolly, objected, saying the exclusion of such key witnesses would further delay the case. Walton agreed and ordered the process to go forward, with some limitations.

<end snip>

I never dreamed it would get this far. I agree that the case is fascinating.

[MADem]

4. He should be, and if he has functional immunity, there should be

...no barrier to him testifying truthfully. Frankly, I hope they give it to him--it would be worth it just to get the damn truth, one way or another.

That immunity is a tricky thing though, it requires you to tell the entire truth, and if they catch ya in a lie, even a teensy one, they will hammer ya with serious jail time. And when you have immunity, ya can't take the Fifth (unless it is a fifth of scotch, and we know Calico Cat Boy won't even dance, never mind belly up to the bar!).

And if he tells the truth, then he has the issue of not serving his masters....could affect his profit margin down the road!