That is ironic, similar to the time CBS called Jeb Bush's office to verify that vote caging had happened in 2000 Florida -- and then didn't report the story because his office said it didn't happen.

If I tell you my interest is to register new voters, and instead I create chaos before a vote, and not once but over and over, I hope you question my expressed aim.

Election fraud usually has a front to legitimize the project. Vote caging efforts usually front themselves as "legit" voter fraud prevention projects, for example.

The voters targeted by these calls and mailings are the same voters on whose backs our federal elections have been stolen for years and in precisely this way. Discount this group of incidents, because North Carlina is only one of the venues this group disrupted, at your peril.

The same database will be used to suppress these very votes in November. Do you really want to give these serial offenders the benefit of a doubt? If so, you are playing fast and loose with someone else's vote.

One only has to read Ivins' letters archived at FNP to see he supported socially "liberal" positions.

His wife seems to have had a connection to pro-life groups but there is no indication that he did. In fact, the email that is used to try to show that he is anti-choice does the opposite. Go look at where the "but" is placed. There is no there there. Many pro-choice people don't describe themselves as "pro-abortion".

It is also possible that the donations to the AFA were not submitted by Ivins himself but by his wife in their name as part of her own area of advocacy.

(Not to mention, if supporting the AFA makes one a terrorist, the whole American Enterprise Institute must be immediately investigated.)

They took out specific information, ("between 4 and 5pm") and replaced it with general information, ("late afternoon"). It's the New Anti-Reporting.

The change made me do the math in order to ask the question, why would someone withdraw that information? And the answer is, if you know Ivins was at Ft. Detrick at 4:XX, it's immediately obvious that he can't also be in Princeton by 5:00 pm and so, he didn't take time off to mail anthrax that day.

that the DoD is pissed at being scapegoated by DoJ. That might be a useful thread to pull.

The other thing is that the "stalking" story seems to be useful because it seems to demonstrate anti-social behavior. The thing is, the story seems just as distorted and padded as the rest of the FBI case is. I'll be following both, fyi.

Have a good break.

They can't place him at the scene and their story keeps changing. I've yet to see an independent expert agree that Ivins could have even produced the anthrax product with the skill and equipment he had. The motives they propose are ridiculous on their face. There is nothing in the mountain of Ivins' communications that indicate he was angry enough with anything or anyone to commit such a crime.

The mental health issue is all they really have right now. And the same emails that FBI tries to use to incriminate Ivins shows that he had good insight into his situation and that he had sought treatment as well as support from friends. He is not the "loner" of FBI fable and the "therapist" whom they coached into making multiple wild public claims, that the media repeated endlessly, has been discredited herself as having neither the credentials nor the sobriety to counsel anyone about anything.

One thing that gets lost is that while government propaganda mules like Apuzzo and Johnson and others forward the FBI's story, the FBI apparently has had people in Frederick and at Ft. Detrick sign non-disclosure agreements, effectively gagging them. I wonder how selectively those agreements were deployed. The effect has been to leave the field to the FBI narrative.

Over the weekend we find out via NYTs that Ivins did NOT attempt to deceive the FBI by submitting the wrong sample and we find out that the FBI knew that when they gave their briefing to serve "the public interest". Jeff Taylor continued to make the claim that Ivins did attempt to throw them off track. We also found out those envelopes were more broadly available than had been claimed.

It's enough to remind you that the FBI works out of the Bush Justice Department, isn't it?

There is an Aug 2 2002 NYTs article by Will Broad where the FBI boasts they have mapped out Hatfill's every living minute around both mailings. We know how well that worked out for them.

They not only can't place Ivins in Princeton on 9/17/01, they can't even find him in Frederick when he's clearly there. So, they close the case? They skipped that whole "building" part, as far as I can see.

http://tinyurl.com/6j9xnt

I believe emptywheel at firedoglake had it the next morning. atlargely also had it on Saturday.

but why it was made. The factlet was caught because CNN edited their story literally as it was being read -- from specific information (4-5pm) to more general information ("late afternoon"). This is not the first time that a "news" outlet has gone back into a story to unclarify it. The New York Times did that as well on another related story and that was caught by a poster at OpEdNews as well as by BradBlog.

What they did was show us exactly what to look at, right?