Dina Temple-Raston is drinking the kool-aid. She went on and on spewing hearsay from her FBI "sources" about how close they were, after opening the story with how much work actually remained.

The only facts she could present concerned the state of the investigation, which was pretty tepid--the Grand Jury had yet to even hear the case in its entirety, much less deliberate on an indictment, and the DOJ had not even reviewed the case to give it the go or no-go for prosecution.

Ok, that was useful. She then went on to reveal some of the history of the investigation--about how the Hatfill fiasco was handled, and how guilty Hatfill appeared, how many circumstances there were indicating his guilt, poor FBI waaa, waa, and how a "fresh" investigator then focused on Ivins. Sound like the tail wagging the dog?

In any case, the facts, as revealed, painted the picture of the FBI digging really deep for anything/anyone to pin this on. The lack of facts relative to Ivins, painted a picture of her cozying up to the FBI, repeating hearsay, and without facts, trying desperately to paint her "sources" in the best possible light.

The descriptions of Hatfill really torqued me. She describes some of the strange "behaviors" and circumstances which the FBI targeted him for, none of which were illegal, as if that was some sort of justification.

If this is the best the FBI can do at this point, I think we are all in for a really sad and tragic finish--but it will probably take six months or so. I get the distinct impression that this investigation was headed nowhere from the start.

The sig is the NPR link.

Glenn, what poor taste to so thoroughly trash the social worker who asked for some protection because she felt in danger. Damn. You could have made your point in another way.

As for the lame--dare I say MSM--excuse of "It's in the public record," well, a lot of us including myself have information in the public record that we wouldn't want printed in a widely-read blog. You have to balance the value of publicizing this information with the character assassination that it naturally entails, and in this case, I think your balance is way off. (One can see your flip attitude toward her illustrated by your initial posting of her home address.)

Also, your point is weak. I heard a report on NPR over the weekend that Ivins' siblings had no kind or sympathetic words for their brother (if I remember right, one said that he was glad he was dead), so it's not just the social worker saying this guy had problems.

Glenn, I think your blog is the best thing on the Internet. Outing ABC News' bad reporting and cover-up is just one small example of why I appreciate what you do. (Indeed, I hope you and I can play cards together when we're in the internment camp ten years from now!) So I'm calling you out on this with a great deal of respect and love for your overall fine work.

Oh, and I have dealt with those "types of people, and I'm not "one of them". But, you know, nice try.

That is, of course, if they were actually FBI agents.

Lets focus on what the key points

1) What was Ivins grade(s) over the last 8 years?

2) What access restrictions (treatment for mental disorders) would have been placed on Ivans as a result of his USMID employment?

3) Does Ft. Detrick have its own in-house counseling service?

It's absolutely relevant to her credibility - the implication of arrests for drug paraphenalia and DUI is that she's either an alcoholic, a junkie, or permanently stoned.

Where did you get your attitude on drug use -- Refer Madness?

While having two DUI convictions certainly implies very questionable judgment -- and are arguably worth noting in this context -- the implications you take from those convictions are a huge stretch.

I cringed when I saw Glenn's column today. But, when I saw the comment someone left last night offering a link to Duley's court records, I also understood that it was only a matter of time. IMHO, here we have Glenn the lawyer defending someone who is now deceased. Someone who our so-called-liberal-media is working to convict in the court of public opinion. It seems entirely reasonable to me that when the court of public opinion is all that is left, and the basis for the accusations against Ivins are suspect, that Ivins' defense occur in the court of public opinion as well. I've no doubt that every single thing Glenn has posted about Ms. Duley's history would be front and center had Ivins' case gone to a real trial.

I suspect, although I do not know, that Duley was offered/assigned Ivins' case. Why? Only the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows. I don't see Ivins seeking Duley out for treatment. Why Duley accepted this case also puzzles me. I've seen highly credentialed psychiatric professionals with years of practice and court expert testimony experience cringe when handed cases that are not nearly as potentially explosive as this. Whatever Duley's education and experience, it seems clear to me that she was in over her head from the very beginning. And, I didn't need much more than a screen shot (The Smoking Gun), or pdf (NPR), of the Protective Order she filed to figure it out.

I actually feel sorry for Duley. As best I can tell, she's just one more pawn in some sort of governmental cover-up. But, she lives to tell her tale. Ivins doesn't.

I just lack the tools at present to check the status of ABC's compliance with the order (i.e., refused, appealed, stayed pending settlement discussions, etc.)

It's worth noting that on June 29, 2008, the Frederick News Post ran an article about Duley and her use of the anti-addiction prescription drug suboxone in her 'practice' (specifically, her 'support groups') at Comprehensive Counseling.

There is nothing newsworthy in the article. Suboxone has been available by prescription since 2002.

The article featured a photo of Duley, holding a bottle of suboxone. Never mind that she's not a doctor and cannot prescribe suboxone or that any drug treatment is well outside her scope of practice. Yet the paper talks to her like she's an expert. Clearly, the FNP didn't do much digging on Duley -- if so, they would have discovered her own history of substance abuse, which would make her less credible.

Given that Steven Hatfill settled on June 27, 2008, it's very curious indeed that Duley is suddenly appearing in a newspaper as an expert therapist on June 29.

Whose idea was this article? How did Duley come to be the expert source? When did the FNP first contact Duley about an interview?