Chuck Grassley: “to begin with, Mr. Freeh, in his letter to the IG--just as Mr. Kennedy did with me--believes that he can interpret the…”

“to begin with, Mr. Freeh, in his letter to the IG--just as Mr. Kennedy did with me--believes that he can interpret the IG's report better than the IG can. He is saying to the IG, in effect, ``I don't care what you meant to say about Dr. Whitehurst. I care about what you said.'' He then plays a game of semantics and interprets the IG report as he wishes, not as the IG intended. Then, elsewhere in the letters, Mr. Freeh takes a few pot shots at Dr. Whitehurst and at the IG. I understand why he would take pot shots at the IG. After all, the IG did an independent investigation of the crime lab. He apparently, according to news accounts, found credibility in many of Dr. Whitehurst's allegations. And that contradicts the FBI's own findings, which were nothing more than a whitewash of the exact same allegations. And the whitewash was done under this current director, Director Freeh. And Director Freeh personally signed off on the review. So, yes, I understand what would motivate the FBI Director to go after the IG. But it is less clear why Mr. Freeh, before a subcommittee of Congress and later under his own signature, would go after Dr. Whitehurst. Why would the FBI Director involve himself, by misleading the public and the subcommittee, in an attack on Dr. Whitehurst? After all, Mr. Freeh recused himself from matters dealing with Dr. Whitehurst. Last week, I released the document showing the recusal. What kind of recusal is this? Is this part of a Kafka novel?”