Reply #20: Many questions do remain. I'm curious how this intersects with the failed framing of Hatfill.

[robertpaulsen]

Did we ever find out who the confidential sources were for the five reporters subpoenaed that originally refused to name their sources in Hatfill's suit? Or were those names buried forever as part of a deal that won Hatfill $5.8 million?

Reporters ordered to disclose sources in Hatfill case

Five reporters must reveal the names of government sources who provided them information about bioterrorism expert Steven Hatfill during their investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, a Washington, D.C., federal trial court ruled last week. (Hatfill v. Gonzales, Aug. 13, 2007.) However, the court denied Hatfill's bid to try to learn the names of sources from a group of news organizations, including those that employ the reporters, at least until after the reporters are questioned.

This decision stems from Hatfill's lawsuit alleging that the government violated the Privacy Act, a law that bars the federal government from disclosing certain personal information about an individual without permission.

Earlier in the case, the five reporters at issue -- Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek; Allan Lengel of The Washington Post; James Stewart, formerly of CBS News; and Toni Locy, formerly of USA TODAY -- acknowledged many instances in which Department of Justice or FBI employees disclosed information about Hatfill. However, they refused to provide the names of the officials, who were confidential sources.

http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2007/aug/nw0823-5.htm

I'm curious about this in light of Greenwald's piece in Salon where he nails ABC News for propagating the lie about bentonite in the anthrax that they attributed to "four well-placed and separate sources". http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ Is it possible that any of these four sources might be the same person as any of the sources trying to frame Hatfill?

If anyone has any more updated info, let me know.