Brandon, Lang Talk About Anthrax Investigation
BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We're awaiting a news conference with the former U.S. Army scientist Steven Hatfill, whom the Attorney General John Ashcroft has described as a person of interest in the anthrax investigation. We'll go to that news conference as soon as it happens. We're expecting it to begin momentarily. First though, here is CNN's Fredricka Whitfield with a news alert.</s>BLITZER: We're waiting for the start of a news conference in Alexandria, Virginia -- that's just outside of Washington, D.C. -- with the former U.S. Army scientist Steven Hatfill regarding his role in the anthrax investigation. Joining us now from Washington, two special guests: Pat Lang, he's a former Middle East analyst with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency; and Skip Brandon, a former assistant director of the FBI for national security and counterterrorism. Gentlemen, welcome back to LATE EDITION. Good to have you on the program. And as we await the start of this news conference, very briefly, Skip Brandon, tell our viewers in the United States and around the world why Steven Hatfill is viewed by the Attorney General John Ashcroft as a so-called person of interest in this anthrax letter investigation.</s>SKIP BRANDON, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FBI FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM: Well, in the first place, I guess Dr. Hatfill has basically made himself a person of interest through his various public pronouncements. We'll have another one today. But it does appear that the FBI thinks and the Department of Justice thinks that he had knowledge of how to produce anthrax. He may have had access to what goes into making anthrax. They are conducting an investigation. I would say that he's certainly not the only one they're looking at.</s>BLITZER: Well, he is only one, Skip Brandon, whose name has really become public, whose investigations are publicized, search warrants being released, being issued to go into this apartment. Why aren't other names out there?</s>BRANDON: I guess none of us, at this point, know that answer. For whatever reason, right or wrong, the searches conducted of his premises did get publicity. That's a very serious question, the Department of Justice will have to answer how that happened. That's not normal procedure at all. But I do think, like I say, there are certainly other people they're looking at.</s>BLITZER: After the news conference, Pat Lang, we're going to have a lot of time to assess, to analyze what we've learned. But going into the news conference, what's your take on this investigation of the anthrax letters?</s>PAT LANG, FORMER MIDDLE EAST ANALYST, U.S. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Well, I can well understand how Dr. Hatfill is in the universe of people of interest to the Department of Justice and the FBI. But as you say, it's curious that we don't know more about other people who are equally a matter of concern. And in particular, the continuous stories we keep hearing, about the fact that they keep looking for someone who is a source of domestic terrorism as the originator of these letters, all tends to play to the opinion on the part of the people of the United States there is something wrong with this investigation, and that it's dragging on too long, and that people just have taken positions that they may not be able to defend.</s>BLITZER: All right. Let's go to that news conference. Pat Clawson is a spokesman for Stephen Hatfill and a good friend. He's beginning to speak. Let's listen in.</s>PAT CLAWSON, FRIEND OF HATFILL: ... Hatfill, who is the Justice Department's so-called person of interest, whatever that is, in the anthrax investigation. Dr. Hatfill will be making a brief statement about what life has been like for him under this FBI investigation. He has quite a compelling message to tell the American people. I think you will all find it very interesting. Taking questions immediately thereafter will be Victor Glasberg, his attorney, and we'll try to answer any and all questions that you have. Over the last several weeks, Dr. Hatfill has been living a life of utter hell. It is important for the American people to realize that Dr. Hatfill has not been accused of any crime. He has not been named as a suspect by the Department of Justice. Instead, he is a so- called person of interest, whatever that means. He is going to tell you what that means from a firsthand viewpoint. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to introduce to you a great American patriot and my dear friend, Dr. Steve Hatfill. Steve?</s>STEVEN HATFILL, FORMER ARMY SCIENTIST: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Two weeks ago, I reluctantly appeared before the TV cameras to defend myself against the bizarre allegations that were appearing about me in the news media dealing with last year's anthrax attacks. These allegations were fueled by ongoing leaks from the Justice Department, and those leaks continue to this day. Several days ago, the Justice Department representatives confirmed to the Associated Press that there was no evidence linking me to the anthrax attacks. Despite this lack of evidence, I am still hounded by the FBI, victimized in a never-ending torrent of leaks and general innuendo from the United States Attorney General John Ashcroft and unnamed others, all of which is then amplified and embellished by the media. This assassination of my character appears to be part of a government-run effort to show the American people that it is proceeding vigorously and successfully with the anthrax investigation. Today, I again appear before the TV cameras. I want to look my fellow Americans directly in the eye and declare to them, I am not the anthrax killer. I know nothing about the anthrax attacks. I had absolutely nothing to do with this terrible crime. My life is being destroyed by arrogant government bureaucrats who are peddling groundless innuendo and half information about me to gullible reporters who, in turn, repeat this to the press under the guise of news. I want to give you, the American people, an idea of what it is like to be named a person of interest by the attorney general of the United States. John Ashcroft has now twice publicly told the American people that I am a person of interest in last year's anthrax attacks. Most recently, several days ago at a news conference in Newark, New Jersey, the FBI says I am not a suspect, and then it does not use the term, "person of interest." Mr. Ashcroft, however, continues to do this publicly, and I am here to complain about this and its consequences. My attorneys have filed an ethics complaint on Mr. Ashcroft's conduct, as well as that of others involved in this matter. And I will be very interested to learn how well the Justice Department will police itself. Mr. Ashcroft has repeatedly testified to his strong Christian values, and I highly respect him for this. Unlike many others, I was delighted when he was selected for his appointment to this high public office. In practice, however, by openly, repeatedly naming me as a person of interest, Mr. Ashcroft has not only violated Justice Department regulations and guidelines, which bind him as the nation's top law enforcement official, but in my view, he has broken the 9th commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness. I have never met Mr. Ashcroft. I don't know him. I've never spoken with him. And I do not understand his personalized focus on me. My lawyers can find no legal definition for a person of interest. I, however, have a working definition. A person of interest is someone who comes into being when the government is under intense political pressure to solve a crime but can't do so, either because of the crime is too difficult to solve or because the authorities are proceeding in what can mildly be called a wrong-headed manner. It then becomes unnecessary for the FBI and other authorities to produce a warm body, but since there's no suspect and the authorities have nothing on which to base a prosecution, they pick a serviceable target. This should preferably be a person about whom mysterious questions can be raised, someone with an interesting or colorful background. Then they give him a prejudicial label, "person of interest." And they leak appropriate rumor and innuendo to the press. Then they sit back and an watch uncharged and presumptively innocent person be picked apart by journalists looking for hot stories. It soon becomes inconsequential that the stories have no bearing on the crime at issue. What is useful is that the FBI can be seen to be on the job. The press is hot on the trail and the public is satisfied, as Mr. Ashcroft continues to say without any explanation that progress in anthrax letter attacks is being made. God help us all if the FBI's pursuit of Mr. Ashcroft's person of interest -- me -- represents that progress. I would like to tell you about how Mr. Ashcroft's progress has played out in my life and that of my loved ones. When you become a person of interest to the Justice Department, they will make small but carefully orchestrated leaks to the press designed to drive news reporters into a frenzy, in an effort to uncover every minuscule, tiny detail of your life. The press will do the majority of work for the FBI, uncovering every item of personal information, no matter how scandalous, ridiculous or insignificant to the crime at issue. When the New York Times reported that I had access to a secret cabin in the woods, the FBI brought me in and questioned me about it. Then they interrogated my friend, a very prominent Washington, D.C., lawyer, who invites me to dinner occasionally at his modern three- bedroom home -- not a cabin -- in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. Then they demand to search his house. A photo of the house then becomes featured prominently on the pages of a Northern Virginia daily, under a headline that says, "Linked to Anthrax." Friends and neighbors of the lawyer then stop coming to visit him because they were afraid of catching anthrax or some other disease or simply did not want to be associated with the incident. I helped bring into being a useful bio-defense training program for first responders, police and fire departments. Because of this label as a person of interest, reporters have -- some reporters have placed a malicious and absurd interpretation on this, and suggested it's not a blueprint for this, but it's a blueprint for the anthrax attacks. Rising to the occasion, the FBI grilled me about this. Almost a quarter century ago, I lived in a city that had a suburb named Greendale. The FBI and some in media willingly linked this with a nonexistent Greendale school that appeared in the return address on four anthrax letters. ABC News even reported as a fact that I lived next door to that nonexistent school for four years, citing unidentified government gumshoes. My entire life history has been laid out on the Internet by reporters and conspiracy nuts. My daughter, a policewoman in Detroit, with a child, even found her name and home address published, a reckless and dangerous act that invites retaliation from criminals, as every police officer will tell you. Every misstatement, every minuscule wrong step, every wrinkle I've ever made in my life has become public, and I'm pillared for it. It is one thing to have your alleged faults and misdeeds publicly aired because you are seeking, as a candidate for a high office, but I am a private citizen, and one who has not sought the limelight. Remember your own travail, Mr. Ashcroft, when elements of your past were dug up by persons opposed to your selection as attorney general? I could dwell on this at length, but my principles bar me from doing so here. In any event, Mr. Ashcroft, you asked for that. I did not. And I wonder how you would cope, being on the end of a media frenzy that I have been enduring this entire summer. When you are labeled by the attorney general as a person of interest, presumptively responsible persons seem to lose all inhibitions in referring to you. When I first addressed the press, I pointed out my problems with Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a woman I do not know, I've never met, I've never spoken to her. Another person I've never met or spoken to and don't know is Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times. After transparently implicating me as Mr. Z, over a period of months he berated the FBI for not investigating me aggressively enough to suit him. He has never called me, checked his facts, asked for comment, contacted any of my representatives, anything, before he published. Following my first press appearance, Mr. Kristoff once again wrote about me. Once again, his column was inaccurate. He said, for example, that I had failed three successive polygraph examinations since January. This is a total lie. I have not taken, let alone failed, three polygraphs on anthrax since January. I had one polygraph session, which the FBI did administer to me in January, and I was told I passed and the examiner was satisfied that I had told the truth. In any event, Mr. Kristoff never called me about this allegation, nor did he call my attorney, nor my friend Pat Clawson, who's been helping me with this news media hurricane. Mr. Kristoff, why do you write such things? Why did you not at least check your facts or ask comment from me or my representatives? What have I done to injure you in this manner? I have another question, too. Why do you permit yourself to be used as a vehicle to leak irreparably damaging information about me to the public? Such as, for example, your statement that I was under constant surveillance by the FBI. It's bad enough that that statement is true, and I lived with the consequences. But must it be gratuitously broadcast so that others might keep away from me from fear of contamination? Why is it necessary, right or fair, Mr. Kristoff, for you to write these things? The answer, of course, is that I am a person of interest, as well as to Nicholas Kristoff and the attorney general, John Ashcroft. We are today distributing copies of my lawyer's communications with the Times and Mr. Kristoff about these matters, and will agree to publish an op-ed reply from me to what they have published about me for months. So far they have not agreed to do this, but keeping silent. When you are a person of interest, your home is subject to search based on statements in sealed affidavits which your lawyers are not permitted to see. The result is a search-and-seizure of your property, even as you stand with a hand of continuing cooperation extended to the FBI. Armed with a secretly obtained government search warrant, FBI agents can enter your home with impunity and take virtually anything they want, including your car registration, your tax records, your car keys, the deeds to your house, if you have one, your apartment, rental agreements, cell phone, pagers, unused bank checks, checks made out to you but not yet cashed, clothing. They can keep these items for as long as they want, unless you go out and retain and pay a lawyer and you can convince a judge that you should get your property back. It is definitely not good to be the girlfriend of a person of interest. My girlfriend was locked inside an FBI car and hauled off to FBI headquarters and interrogated for hours, without once being told she has the right to leave any time she wished. Her requests for a lawyer were delayed and made difficult. Her purse, although not on the search warrant, was taken from her and its contents examined after the interrogation process while she was being driven back to her residence. She was screamed at by FBI agents and told that the FBI had firm evidence that I had killed five innocent people. This was told to her by FBI agent Jennifer Grant and FBI agent Pamela Lane. Can you imagine that? The FBI trumpets that I am not a suspect, and the woman I love is told the FBI -- told by the FBI that I am a murderer. This is the life of a person of interest, Mr. Ashcroft. But that's not all. My girlfriend was told that she better take a polygraph examination and cooperate, or else. Her home checkbooks, computers, private papers and car were seized. As for her home, it was completely trashed, as is appropriate for the home of a girlfriend of a person of interest. Some of her delicate pottery was smashed. The glass on a $3,000 painting was broken. This painting was wrapped in bubble wrap, by the way. Neatly stacked boxes awaiting shipment to her new home were ripped open, instead of opened with due regard to their contents. Ladies and gentlemen, we have pictures of how FBI left this apartment, her apartment, which, at the time of the raid, was neatly prepared for a move to Louisiana, with all her belongings packed in nicely stacked boxes. This is one of the pictures. I refuse to allow my girlfriend -- to this treatment, as the girlfriend of a person of interest. She is not here today. I love you. I will not state her name here. And I ask the news media, please, for common decency, if you know it, please leave her alone. She will not make a statement. Let me return to my life as a person of interest. I am openly followed by the FBI agents and in cars and on foot, 24 hours a day. Going down to store for a pack of gum yields a parade of FBI cars sometimes following me closely as two to four feet from my rear bumper. And the FBI leaks for use by cooperative journalists the fact I'm being tailed 24 hours seven days a week. My closest, most personal friend was told by the FBI that they have firm evidence that I mailed the anthrax letters. He was asked by the FBI to confront me and have me confess this act to him in private. He tearfully asked me if the FBI's allegations were true. In complete violation of normal investigative procedures, the FBI have circulated only my photograph at a crime scene -- a photographic one-man lineup -- in an attempt to find someone to testify that they remember seeing me in the area almost a year ago. As a person of interest, you cannot win. The fact that you love and work for your country will be turned against you by means of the ridiculous suggestion that your patriotism prompted you to murder five innocent persons so that a statement can be made regarding our lack of preparedness against a biological attack. All this reminds me of Kafka's novel, "The Trial." Perhaps that story is the source of Mr. Kristoff's Mr. Z. All the above is what it's like living as a person of interest designated by John Ashcroft, the attorney general, and I cannot do anything about it. I haven't been charged with any crime. Again, the Justice Department has told the press that there is no evidence that I've committed a crime. I have to contend with a moving target of rumor, innuendo, fantasy, half-truths, and now the super-duper bionic bloodhounds that the FBI recently pulled out of a hat. The Justice Department has repeatedly claimed it's making significant progress in the anthrax investigation. I sure hope so, because I want the anthrax mailer or mailers found and punished to the maximum extent our society will allow. But what does any of this have to do with me? We know that four anthrax letters were mailed September 17, 18, and October 8 and 9, 2001. On these days, as indeed for many weeks after September 11, I and my colleagues at SAIC were working overtime in our McLean, Virginia, office on national defense issues. My time sheets from the company, which are being distributed here, show that on these days I worked respectively 14 hours, 13 1/2 hours, 13 hours, and 11 1/4 hours at the office. Yes, I know, it's possible that time cards could have been altered. Well, I'll tell you SAIC goes to extreme lengths to ensure this process can't happen. In addition, the FBI long ago interviewed all of my colleagues at SAIC, and each confirmed that I was, like them, continuously hard at work in the office during this entire period. All right then, I could have driven or surreptitiously somehow transported myself to Trenton or Princeton or wherever from the D.C. area, mailed the letters and returned unnoticed. With any luck, I would not have been caught speeding on the highway, and maybe I could have made the eight-hour round trip in enough time to return to work unnoticed and exhausted and continued with another 13-hour day. I have little to say about the nonsense of this sort. If it pleases you to advance and research this theory, then please the more power to you. As for me, I was living and working in the D.C. area the entire time when the anthrax letters were mailed. Mr. Ashcroft knows this -- or he should know this, notwithstanding my status as a person of interest. He should know, in fact, that while the anthrax letters are mailed from New Jersey and the first anthrax incidents occurred in Florida, I did not set foot in either of these states in September or October of 2001. We know, by the way, that some of the 9/11 terrorists did. The FBI's focus on me seems to have eclipsed the need for appropriate inquiry into elementary, scientific aspects of the anthrax investigation. It took the FBI seven months after the letter attacks before they turned to assistance to Bill Patrick, the top dry-powder biological warfare expert in our country. How sensible is that? What inquiries have been made into who received the Ames strain of anthrax at any time prior to the fall of 2001? Until the mid '90s, regulation of the traffic in dangerous bacteriological pathogens was very poorly controlled and poorly documented -- in some cases, non- existently documented. Saddam Hussein received his weaponizable strains of anthrax from the United States, from the American-type culture collection formerly in Rockville, Maryland. In the mid '90s, one Larry Wayne Harris, a self-proclaimed member of the Aryan Nation, made up a phony letterhead on which he requested some bubonic plague bacteria from the American-type culture collection. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the organism that causes the black death. As I recall, he received some of it by mail. Largely as a result of this incident, policies and procedures governing the availability of forms of transmission of dangerous germs were strengthened. It is generally known that anthrax bacteria can live for decades in the soil or other hospitable environments. I don't think previous samples can be accounted for. Again, we still have to learn if the powder in question in the anthrax letters was prepared by sophisticated methods known only to select scientists or by more crude methods using information readily available on the Internet. Speaking of the Internet, the American people should know that the complete top-secret recipe for making smallpox into a sophisticated dry-powder biological weapon was recently posted by the U.S. government on the Internet by mistake for several weeks when a mistake at the U.S. Patent Office resulted in this material becoming open source. Thank God the document in question has finally been removed from the Internet, but not before anyone with an interest, foreign or domestic, would have had time to view it and download it. To my way of thinking, the lack of proper scientific input into this investigation is best illustrated by the fact that I am the one who had to suggest to the FBI the blood tests that they could perform on me to help rule me out as a suspect in this terrible crime. The test measures antibody levels, which would mark either my exposure to anthrax recently or a recent anthrax vaccination, not one that I've had two years ago. At long last, the government has agreed to my proposal, and I'll shortly be providing blood samples as I originally suggested. I hereby openly request the FBI make public the full results of these forthcoming tests, their conclusions based on these tests, and the scientific basis for the tests and the conclusions. I also proposed to give handwriting samples to the FBI so that they may draw conclusions regarding the likelihood that I wrote the anthrax letters. Here, too, I openly request the results of this examination, including all work sheets and analyses, be made public when completed. I ask the media to please monitor these tests, and the press, for their release if the government is not forthcoming. The one certain progress that the FBI has made in this investigation is its inability to find any evidence connecting me with the anthrax letter attacks. This is after an eight-month inquiry, and Lord knows how much taxpayer money has been poured into this effort to uncover my presumed guilt. I believe that sensible persons involved in the anthrax investigation have concluded that I have nothing to do with the anthrax letter attacks. But they are in a rough place. If the FBI does not have me as a person of interest, then what does it have? What it has is a stalled investigation, characterized by a lack of proper scientific investigation and expertise, its single-minded dedication to the use of so-called profilers. Remember, these are the folks that described the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, as a well-dressed manual laborer. It has a lack of the most basic understanding of the relevant biology by many frontline and senior FBI investigators. It has an investigation that is characterized by the apparent avoidance any of any major avenue of inquiry, except the one decided upon by the attorney general. Most importantly, it is driven by a compelling and overwhelming desire that the FBI look good at any cost, regardless of the price in individual freedom, due process, common decency and civil liberties. I believe that I may actually get arrested when all this is said and done, and if it occurs, it will have nothing to do with anthrax. It will have everything to do with my being named the national person of interest. This title will first have caused painstaking inquiry into my past, the peccadillos and all. Second, it will have given the authorities enormous incentive to justify their massive financial expenditure and the thousands of man-hours of effort arising out of their pursuit of me, and their heedless exposure to me and defamation as a murderer. For these reasons, even as I stand before you proclaiming my innocence of this terrible crime, I believe I shall yet pay a price for having been named a person of interest. If Steve Hatfill isn't the anthrax killer, well, he spit on a government sidewalk or littered in front of a government building somewhere, something he shouldn't have done. I should imagine that a great many Americans, including a host of our nation's political, social and intellectual leaders will be at serious risk of some sort of prosecution under these circumstances. This is the fate of a person of interest. In the end, I will be put at risk for things that inherently lack interest, but because I have been falsely smeared as a person of interest. Remember, please, that you heard this from me first. I fear what time will do, with the FBI's new powers under the 2001 Patriot Act. What will this country be like 10 or 20 years from now? Will it be like the America I love and would unhesitatingly risk my life to defend, or will it evolve into a suspicious society where uncharged persons of interest live in fear of damaging police and media intrusion? I never thought I would live to recite the slogan of the American Civil Liberties Union, but I must tell you, after what I have been through, I wholeheartedly embrace its motto: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." My story is not all sad and negative. I have been buoyed beyond words by the support of my family, friends, past and current colleagues, and even strangers, who, since my first news conference, have warmly greeted me on the streets or in letters. I thank my employer, Louisiana State University, for its incredible sensitivity in balancing its obvious institutional needs in light of my status as a person of interest with my own personal needs and circumstances. Thank you. As poorly as my own government and much of the press have treated me, those persons who mean the most to me have stood by me unflinchingly. For that, ladies and gentlemen, I am eternally grateful. Thank you.</s>BLITZER: So there we hear from Steven Hatfill directly. He's, as he repeatedly said, the FBI's so-called person of interest. The attorney representing Steven Hatfill is now about to speak, Victor Glasberg. Let's listen to what he has to say.</s>VICTOR GLASBERG, HATFILL'S ATTORNEY: ... received a number of complaints that have been filed. I've lodged them with all the known entities and individuals who are supposed to take care of government overreaching of the sort that we feel has been going on. You have them before you, and you can ask questions about them. I can characterize the complaints as coming down into three main categories. The first is, if you will, the utilization of very prejudicial terminology which has led to exactly the result that Steve Hatfill has been discussing. He's a person of interest. Let me suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, he is a person of no interest. Look on your right and on your left. There's a person there. What do you care about that person? Well, if that person were a person of interest, you might care. I might care about that transcript that you submitted in school 20 years ago. And how about that nasty divorce you were in? And that dog that you kicked over there, I know about that. That juvenile offense? Watch out! We don't care about that, because so long as people do the jobs they're supposed to do, more power to them, and we leave them alone. But if you become named a person of interest, then everything is on the table. And everything has been put on the table for this gentleman. That has happened because of the terminology used. The terminology has no sanction in law, it has no meaning, except it is a basis to open up someone's entire life to the grossest type of invasion that is imaginable, and you've heard Steve Hatfill describe some of the consequences here. The concerns that he is addressing are not new and are not unknown to the law. Let me take a moment of your time to give you a little bit of legal history. One of the most important documents in the history of American law is a famous essay written by two lawyers in 1890, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis. It's called "The Right of Privacy," and I want to read a little portion of it to you. You have to deal with the 19th century prose, but it'll resonate. "Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls `the right to be let alone.' Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precinct of private and domestic life, and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the housetops. "The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery." The article is thought of generally as being the first major articulation of the notion of a right of privacy in the United States, which right is recognized in most states in this country. That is the right that has been denied Steve Hatfill because he has been officially designated by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States as "person of interest." That's the first complaint. The second complaint has to do with the leaks. The leaks are set forth in the complaints themselves. I won't review them with you here. I think you're aware of them. For all I know, they were made to you. They are intolerable, and they should not be permitted, and appropriate action should be taken. With regard to the leaks, let me give you a little sidebar here. I was interested to read in yesterday's Post the expression of grave chagrin by Van Harp, the head of the FBI office here, who is currently in charge of the anthrax investigation. As you can read in this article, Mr. Harp was soundly criticized in a report for -- by the report of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, claiming that he had engaged in substantial misconduct relative to the Ruby Ridge matter. Well, it turns out that this report ended up getting leaked, and here is Mr. Harp. In a written statement, Harp said that leaks about his role in the Ruby Ridge inquiries violate all sense of propriety. Well, I don't know if that's true. It may. But I'll tell you this: The investigation that Mr. Harp is conducting of Steve Hatfill has as many leaks as the Titanic going down. So he should take his own instruction...</s>BLITZER: Victor Glasberg, an attorney representing Steven Hatfill, saying he's going to file formal complaints with the U.S. Justice Department in connection with the investigation of his client Steven Hatfill, a former U.S. Army scientist. He's been described by the attorney general of the United States as a so-called person of interest in the investigation. We just heard a lengthy, more-than-30-minute defense of Steven Hatfill by Steven Hatfill himself. The second time in two weeks he's now come forward and defended himself. He said, "I want to look the American people in the eye. I am not the anthrax killer." A strong condemnation of the tactics used by the FBI in this anthrax letter investigation, which resulted in the murder of five Americans. We are going to continue to follow this news conference. We are also going to get analysis from two experts, when we come back.