As I noted on Friday, the parties implicated in the smear campaigns aimed at WikiLeaks supporters and Chamber of Commerce critics have attempted to heap all the blame on HBGary Federal (“HBGary”) and its CEO, Aaron Barr.  Both Bank of America and the Chamber — the intended clients — vehemently deny any involvement in these schemes and have harshly denounced them.  The other two Internet security firms whose logos appeared on the proposals — Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies — both issued statements terminating their relationship with HBGary and insisting that they had nothing to do with these plots.  Only Hunton & Williams and its partner, John Woods — the central cogs soliciting these proposals — have steadfastly refused to comment.

Palantir, in particular, has been quite aggressive about trying to distance itself.  They initially issued a strong statement denouncing the plots, then had their CEO call me vowing to investigate and terminate any employees who were involved, then issued another statement over the weekend claiming that “Palantir never has and never will condone the sort of activities that HBGary recommended” and “Palantir did not participate in the development of the recommendations that Palantir and others find offensive.”  Such vehemence is unsurprising:  the Palo-Alto-based firm relies for its recruitment efforts on maintaining a carefully cultivated image as a progressive company devoted to civil liberties, privacy and Internet freedom — all of which would be obviously sullied by involvement in such a scheme.

But as Salon‘s Justin Elliott reports, there are newly emerged facts which directly contradict Palantir’s denials.  On Sunday night, Anonymous released an additional 25,000 emails from HBGary, and Forbes‘ Andy Greenberg was the first to make this discovery:

The emails also show that it was Barr who suggested pressuring Salon.com journalist Glenn Greenwald, though Palantir, another firm working with HBGary Federal, quickly accepted that suggestion and added it to the PowerPoint presentation that the group was assembling.

Greenberg is referring to this series of emails, first from HBGary’s Barr — addressed to Palantir’s Matthew Steckman and Eli Bingham along with Berico’s Sam Kremin (click image to enlarge):

This was the reply from Palantir’s Steckman to that email:

Roughly 15 minutes later, Steckman sent another email to Barr:  ”Updated with Strengths/Weaknesses and a spotlight on Glenn Greenwald…thanks Aaron!” — indicating he had included the slide featuring this scheme.  So much for Palantir’s insistence that they “did not participate in the development of the recommendations.”  As Elliott noted, ”Steckman’s role in creating the slideshow — which, it should be noted, also carries Palantir’s logo — would seem to contradict the company’s” denials.

Last night, both Elliott and I sent emails to Palantir’s General Counsel asking the company to reconcile this obvious contradiction.  In response, they issued a statement announcing that they “have decided to place Matthew Steckman, 26 year old engineer, on leave pending a thorough review of his actions.”  They added that Palantir “was not retained by any party to develop such recommendations and indeed it would be contrary to Palantir’s ethics, culture and policies to do so” (Elliott has posted Palantir’s full statement).

So apparently, if Palantir’s new version is to be believed, a 26-year-old engineer went off on his own and — without any supervision or direction — participated in the development of odious smear campaigns intended for two of the nation’s deepest-pocket organizations (Bank of America and the Chamber), potential clients which the emails repeatedly emphasize would be very lucrative.  I’ll leave it to others to decide how credible that version is, but I will note that several facts undermine it: 

First, another Palantir employee besides Steckman– Eli Bingham — was one of the recipients of Barr’s original email proposing this smear campaign.  Second, this proposal was being developed immediately before (and for consideration at) a conference call that included Hunton & Williams’ Woods, HBGary’s Barr, a Berico official, and both Steckman and Bingham on behalf of Palantir (see the bottom email here); was a 26-year-old mid-level engineer the only Palantir official aware of what they were proposing to H&W in order to attract the Bank and the Chamber’s business?  Third, there’s no question — as this article yesterday from The San Francisco Business Times documents — that at least three Palantir employees (Steckman, Bingham and Ryan Castle) were all sent emails containing the proposals to smear critics of the Chamber of Commerce, including ThinkProgress.  That article notes that these newly released emails “suggest that staff at Palantir Technologies, a high-profile data analysis company co-founded by ex-PayPal CEO Peter Thiel, may have helped prepare a proposal for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to undermine a pro-labor publication called ThinkProgress with dirty tricks.”  Whatever else is true, Palantir’s knowledge of and involvement in these proposals is more extensive than it originally claimed, and extends beyond the 26-year-old scapegoat just placed on leave.

But the real party here which deserves much more scrutiny is Hunton & Williams — one of the most well-connected legal and lobbying firms in DC – and its partner John Woods.  Using teams of people scouring all the available emails, FDL has done its typically thorough job of setting forth all the key facts and the key players — including from Booz Allen — and Woods is at the center of all of it:  the key cog acting on behalf of the Bank of America and the Chamber.  It’s Woods who is soliciting these firms to submit these proposals, pursuant to work for the Chamber and the Bank; according to Palantir emails, H&W was recommended to the Bank by the Justice Department to coordinate the anti-WikiLeaks work.

Despite being at the center of this increasingly disturbing scandal, Woods and H&W steadfastly refuse to comment to anyone.  As The New York Times noted on Saturday when reporting this story:  ”A Hunton & Williams spokesman did not comment.”  For a lawyer to be at the center of an odious and quite possibly illegal scheme to target progressive activists and their families, threaten the careers of journalists as a means of silencing them, and fabricate forged documents intended for public consumption — and then steadfastly refuse to comment — is just inexcusable.  Perhaps some polite email and telephone encouragement from the public is needed for Woods to account for what he and his firm have done.  In exchange for the privileges lawyers receive (including the exclusive right to furnish legal advice, represent others, and act as officers of the court), members of the Bar have particular ethical obligations to the public.  At the very least, the spirit — if not the letter — of those obligations is being seriously breached by a lawyer who appears to be at the center of these kinds of pernicious, lawless plots and then refuses to account to the public for what he did.