In a stunning reversal, Mary McCarthy is apparently denying she leaked CIA Prison story (even thoug, if she admitted to the act the CIA would have a signed statement to the contrary I would think):

A former CIA officer who was sacked last week after allegedly confessing to leaking secrets has denied she was the source of a controversial Washington Post story about alleged CIA secret detention operations in Eastern Europe, a friend of the operative told NEWSWEEK.

The fired official, Mary O. McCarthy, “categorically denies being the source of the leak,” one of McCarthy’s friends and former colleagues, Rand Beers, said Monday after speaking to McCarthy.

What is going on here? Kerry comes out defending McCarthy while CNN is reporting she is a serial leaker. And now key Kerry campaign member Rand Beers who (a) quit the NSC right before Joe Wilson leaked his guts out and (b) admitted knowing Joe and Valerie’s roles in the Plame Game and that Wilson was on the Kerry campaign at the time of the Wilson was making his wild statements.

Does Newsweek report any of this? Some. The parts about being on Kerry’s campaign. They also note Beers many connections to Mary McCarthy at the NSC under Clinton. The connections to the Wilsons? Nope. It seems Beers is only saying she did not leak the CIA prison information. Well, the reporting on this small part of it has been speculation because of the links to Dana Priest:

The only journalist so far identified by government sources as one of the unauthorized persons with whom McCarthy admitted contact is Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, who last week won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing details of a secret airline and prison network that the CIA operates to detain and interrogate high-level Al Qaeda suspects.

Maybe the media over speculated. But something is up with Beers coming out like this. Maybe they are just good friends – or maybe they have other ties. Newsweek does find some hints from the administration that some may have jumped to conclusions:

A counter-terrorism official acknowledged to NEWSWEEK today that in firing McCarthy, the CIA was not necessarily accusing her of being the principal, original, or sole leaker of any particular story.

Interesting walk back here. But they are still charging she leaked classified information. It seems maybe McCarthy could be singing songs to federal investigators as Mac Ranger said in his post today. Newsweek jumps to the opposite conclusion:

But the fact that McCarthy evidently is denying leaking the CIA prison story to the Post—and that other key information for stories revealing CIA detention and rendition operations originated with unclassified sources—does raise questions about how far the Bush administration will be able to press its crackdown on suspected leakers.

Well, the typical answer is the media is wrong. Could be McCarthy is part of other high profile leaks, and some we don’t know about. There are some excuses being floated someone with more knowledge will need to knock down:

The sources told NEWSWEEK that because McCarthy’s alleged acknowledgements that she leaked classified information were made as a result of an inquiry based on polygraph examinations, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for prosecutors to use any admissions she made in trying to put together any criminal prosecution. One of the sources, a law enforcement official close to the investigation, noted that polygraph evidence is normally inadmissible in criminal court cases because of judicial doubts about the reliability and credibility of lie-detector machines. Also, the official said, witnesses submitting to a polygraph examination usually give up their rights not to make self-incriminating statements. The use of any admissions McCarthy gave under these circumstances for a criminal investigation would therefore be problematic, the official indicated.

My understanding is the confession is still valid. This sounds like disinformation to me. The polygraph was one of probably many indicators of her action. It was probably used to get her to finally confess. The article then goes on to quote Larry Johnson. Nuff said there.

You want my opinion? Sounds like a piece sent out to start to discredit polygraphs. All the stories today sound like arguments for the defense eminating from Dems and the media.

One name I keep finding at the bottom of all these interesting articles in the post is Lucy Shackelford. Her names pops up with Pincus and Priest and Milbank all the time. For example:

Staff writers Dana Milbank, Susan Schmidt and Dana Priest, political researcher Brian Faler and researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

Do some googles with her name and scandals and you will see lots of hits. Something to ponder in a future post I fear.