Quote:

More facts emerge about the leaked smear campaigns

New emails cause a Palantir employee to be placed on leave, and more focus is needed on Hunton & Williams

BY GLENN GREENWALD

TOPICS: WIKILEAKS, POLITICS NEWS

Right: John W. Woods, partner in the firm of Hunton & Williams
(updated below - Update II Update III Update IV)
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 Salons 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):
[URL="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4B1ZcdATRiI/TVpgbch71-I/AAAAAAAAC6Q/kU5H15Q56t0/s1600/barr.png"]

[/URL]
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.
Given my involvement in this story, I'm going to defer to others in terms of the reporting. But given the players involved and the facts that continue to emerge this story is far too significant to allow to die due to lack of attention. Many of the named targets are actively considering commencing civil proceedings (which would entail compulsory discovery) as well as ethical grievances with the relevant Bar associations. As the episode with Palantir demonstrates, simply relying on the voluntary statements of the corporations involved ensures that the actual facts will remain concealed if not actively distorted. The DOJ ought to investigate this as well, but for reasons I detailed on Friday, that is unlikely in the extreme. Entities of this type routinely engage in conduct like this with impunity, and the serendipity that led to their exposure in this case should be seized to impose some accountability. That this was discovered through a random email hack and that these firms felt so free to propose these schemes in writing and, at least from what is known, not a single person raised any objection at all underscores how common this behavior is.
Yesterday, I did a 20-minute interview with Sam Seder about this case and its significance, which can be heard on the player below (the transcript is here); see also, these important new facts discovered by Marcy Wheeler. I also recorded a 30-minute discussion yesterday with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, which he will post later today (I'll provide the link when he does), and I'll also be on MSNBC at roughly 4:00 pm EST discussing this and related matters.



UPDATE: The Guardian now joins The New York Times in reporting on this story, andsupplies some new, interesting details (and, naturally, Hunton & Williams failed to respond to requests to comment).

UPDATE II: Writing in Wired, Nate Anderson of Ars Technica has a truly superb account of what happened here, with a focus on the responsibility and knowledge of the executives at the implicated firms. The whole article should be read, but here's a sample:

By October 2010, Barr was under considerable stress. His CEO job was under threat, and the e-mails show that the specter of divorce loomed over his personal life.
On Oct. 19, a note arrived. HBGary Federal might be able to provide part of "a complete intelligence solution to a law firm that approached us." That law firm was DC-based powerhouse Hunton & Williams, which boasted 1,000 attorneys and terrific contacts.. . .
The three firms [HBGary, Berico and Palantir] needed a name for their joint operation. One early suggestion: a "Corporate Threat Analysis Cell." Eventually, a sexier name was chosen: Team Themis.. . .
Team Themis decided to ask for $2 million per month, for six months, for the first phase of the project, putting $500,000 to $700,000 per month in HBGary Federal's pocket.
But the three companies disagreed about how to split the pie. In the end, Palantir agreed to take less money, but that decision had to go "way up the chain (as you can imagine)," wrote the Palantir contact for Team Themis. "The short of it is that we got approval from Dr. Karp and the Board to go ahead with the modified 40/30/30 breakdown proposed. These were not fun conversations, but we are committed to this team and we can optimize the cost structure in the long term (let's demonstrate success and then take over this market )."
The leaders at the very top of Palantir were aware of the Team Themis work, though the details of what was being proposed by Barr may well have escaped their notice. Palantir wasn't kidding around with this contract; if selected by H&W and the Chamber, Palantir planned to staff the project with an experienced intelligence operative, a man who "ran the foreign fighter campaign on the Syrian border in 2005 to stop the flow of suicide bombers into Baghdad and helped to ensure a successful Iraqi election. As a commander, [he] ran the entire intelligence cycle: identified high-level terrorists, planned missions to kill or capture them, led the missions personally, then exploited the intelligence and evidence gathered on target to defeat broader enemy networks" . . . .
But before H&W made a decision on Chamber of Commerce plan, it had another urgent request for Team Themis: a major U.S. bank had come to H&W seeking help against WikiLeaks (the bank has been widely assumed to be Bank of America, which has long been rumored to be a future WikiLeaks target.)
"We want to sell this team as part of what we are talking about," said the team's H&W contact. "I need a favor. I need five to six slides on Wikileaks who they are, how they operate and how this group may help this bank. . . ."
After the Anonymous attacks and the release of Barr's e-mails, his partners furiously distanced themselves from Barr's work. Palantir CEO Dr. Alex Karp wrote, "We do not provide nor do we have any plans to develop offensive cyber capabilities . . . ." Berico said (PDF) that it "does not condone or support any effort that proactively targets American firms, organizations or individuals. We find such actions reprehensible and are deeply committed to partnering with the best companies in our industry that share our core values. Therefore, we have discontinued all ties with HBGary Federal."
But both of the Team Themis leads at these companies knew exactly what was being proposed (such knowledge may not have run to the top). They saw Barr's e-mails, and they used his work. His ideas on attacking WikiLeaks made it almost verbatim into a Palantir slide about "proactive tactics."

Anderson has written the definitive account thus far about the facts showing the involvement of each of these companies, and I encourage everyone to read his whole article.

UPDATE III: The discussion I had yesterday with Dylan Ratigan about this matter, along with a full transcript, can be found here.

UPDATE IV: Here is the MSNBC segment I did today on this story; the host was NPR's Matt Miller:

Magda Hassan Wrote:Running this thread to see if we can expose some Sunsteinian players in this and their masters. See where the strings trace back to.

• Darah Gregorian, NY Daily News "reporter" doing smear job on @ggreenwald came over from the NY Post.
• Defamation suit was filed against NY Post, Darah Gregorian and three of his colleagues in 2007 (?)
• Complaints "stem from Post Article, emblazed with the headline, Gender Bend Shocker, Kinky Sex Suit Gal is a Man' " t.co/9Jds41lbO0
• Court ruling: "Two allegations [against Darah Gregorian et al] might be considered actionable. First is [claim in NY Post article that] Plaintiff engaged in some form of criminal conduct.."
• "…The second statement which may be actionable pertains to the claim [in NY Post story] that Plaintiff was a promiscuous lying slut' " t.co/9Jds41lbO0
• You can read the rest of the court ruling in the defamation case against Darah Gregorian and his colleagues here: t.co/9Jds41lbO0
• Most of the claims against Darah Gregorian and the NY Post were dismissed & case was settled out of court. t.co/9Jds41lbO0
• But method of operation in story that led to defamation case against NY Post and Darah Gregorian looks familiar: as if someone handed Gregorian & Co a fat dossier on their target.
• If you read case against Darah Gregorian and NY Post t.co/9Jds41lbO0 not too hard to guess who might have passed them the dirt on the plaintiff.
• Plaintiff in defamation case against Darah Gregorian (@ggreenwald smearer) had earlier sued this guy: t.co/LdSSRNSh9C Sounds like a lovely fellow.
• So woman sues wealthy Wall Street bankster, claiming sex abuse. PDQ, damaging personal info about her shows up in Darah Gregorian story in NY Post.t.co/9Jds41lbO0
• I report, you decide. But to me, Darah Gregorian looks like a gutter scuttling parasite who feeds off the filth fed to him by his "sources."
• So this is "journalist" smearing @ggreenwald: bit.ly/1agFphy Like something you might find under a rock -- a wet, slimy one. This is what we've come to.
  http://storify.com/billmon1/a-look-at-a-smear-merchant
  
  
  

Magda Hassan Wrote:Running this thread to see if we can expose some Sunsteinian players in this and their masters. See where the strings trace back to.

Quote:Questions for Snowden

Did Edward Snowden decide on his own to seek out journalists and then a job at Booz Allen Hamilton's Hawaii facility as an IT systems administrator to gather classified documents about the National Security Agency's worldwide surveillance activities?By Walter Pincus, Tuesday, July 9, 10:15 AM


Snowden told the South China Post in June that he took the Booz Allen job in late March or early April because it "granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked."





"That is why I accepted that position," he added.
He worked less than three months at Booz Allen, but by the time he reached Hong Kong in mid-May, Snowden had four computers with NSA documents.
Was he encouraged or directed by WikiLeaks personnel or others to take the job as part of a broader plan to expose NSA operations to selected journalists?
In the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier on trial for disclosing thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, it was Julian Assange and his organization who directed the collection of documents, U.S. prosecutors have alleged. While Manning's lawyers contend there is no evidence to support that finding, prosecutors have said there are hundreds of chats between Manning and Assange and WikiLeaks lists of desired material.
In Manning's case, WikiLeaks and its founder, Assange, determined the news organizations that initially would receive the materials.
How did Snowden select his recipients?
In January, Snowden contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras using encrypted e-mails. Without providing his name, he claimed to have information about the intelligence community. Poitras told an interviewer last month that in February, Snowden had also had a similar first contact with Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for the Guardian newspaper. Greenwald wrote on June 10, "Laura Poitras and I have been working with him [Snowden] since February."
Barton Gellman, a contributing writer for The Washington Post, wrote last month that he, too, was first contacted in February, initially by Poitras and then indirectly by Snowden. Snowden again did not disclose his real name.
How did Snowden decide on these three individuals before he went to work for Booz Allen and before he apparently had all the documents he wanted to release?
Poitras and Greenwald are well-known free-speech activists, with many prior connections, including as founding members in December of the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation. One of its key goals is to support groups that engage in transparency journalism and support whistleblowers, including WikiLeaks.
Poitras had suggested Snowden contact Gellman, who had been part of a fellowship program with her at New York University's Center on Law and Security.
Greenwald had the byline on the initial June 5 Guardian story, and Gellman and Poitras were bylined on The Post's story on June 6.
Did Assange and WikiLeaks personnel help or direct Snowden to those journalists?



Poitras and Greenwald have had close connections with Assange and WikiLeaks. In December 2010, Greenwald said of the British arrest of Assange: "Whatever you think of WikiLeaks, they have not been charged with a crime, let alone indicted or convicted. Yet look what has happened to them. They have been removed from [the] Internet . . . their funds have been frozen . . . media figures and politicians have called for their assassination and to be labeled a terrorist organization."

In a June 2012 Guardian column, Greenwald wrote, "As a foreign national accused of harming U.S. national security, he [Assange] has every reason to want to avoid ending up in the travesty known as the American judicial system."
On April 10, 2012, Greenwald wrote for the WikiLeaks Press's blog about Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. government officials.




Since last year Poitras has been working on a film on post-9/11 America, with a focus on the NSA and in which Assange and WikiLeaks are participating. Assange confirmed this in a May 29 interview on Democracy Now's Web site.
In that same interview, Assange previewed the first Greenwald Guardian story based on Snowden documents that landed a week later. Speaking from Ecuador's embassy in London, Assange described how NSA had been collecting "all the calling records of the United States, every record of everyone calling everyone over years. . . . Those calling records already [are] entered into the national security complex."
Did he know ahead of time of that Guardian story describing the U.S. court order permitting NSA's collection of the telephone toll records of millions of American Verizon customers and storing them for years?
Snowden's releases reflect another WikiLeaks technique: directing materials to suit specific audiences at specific times.
While in Hong Kong, Snowden told the South China Post that the United States was targeting China's mobile-phone systems along with Internet hubs run by two Chinese universities. That release came while U.S. officials were pushing Chinese cyberwarfare as a major issue.
On Sunday, as Snowden seeks asylum possibly in a Latin American country, Greenwald, again on Democracy Now, described an article he co-wrote in Brazil's O Globo newspaper: "NSA is systematically tapping into the telecommunication systems of Brazil and intercepting, storing and monitoring millions upon millions of telephone calls and emails of ordinary Brazilians, the kind . . . that we reported was taking place in the United States, as well."
Meanwhile, Snowden is reportedly in Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport with WikiLeaks handling his legal representation and public relations operations.

What other roles the group played in getting Snowden to this point remain a mystery.

Quote:Walter Pincus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Walter Haskell Pincus (born December 24, 1932) is a national security journalist for The Washington Post. He has won several prizes including a Polk Award in 1977, a television Emmy in 1981, the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in association with otherWashington Post reporters, and the 2010 Arthur Ross Media Award from the American Academy for Diplomacy. Since 2003, he has taught at Stanford University's Stanford in Washington program.[SUP][1][/SUP]


Biography

Pincus was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Jewish parents Jonas Pincus and Clare Glassman. He attended South Side High School, Rockville Centre, New York and graduated from Yale University with a B.A. in 1954.[SUP][2][/SUP] Before being drafted into the U.S. Armyin 1955, where he served in the Counterintelligence Corps in Washington, D.C. from 19551957, he worked as a copy-boy for The New York Times.[SUP][3][/SUP]
In September 1954 he married Betty Meskin, with whom he has a son, and in May 1965, he married his second wife Ann Witsell Terry, who is from Little Rock, Arkansas, with whom he has one daughter and two sons.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Career

After his discharge from the Army, Pincus spied on American students abroad for the Central Intelligence Agency, writing an article which appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on February 18th, 1967, the headline, "How I Traveled Abroad on C.I.A. Subsidy. "I had been briefed in Washington on each of them," he wrote "None was remotely aware of CIA's interest." (See "Dark Alliance" - Gary Webb p. 464-466 if you are interested in more than the tip of the iceberg.)
Pincus worked at the copy desk of the Wall Street Journal's Washington edition, leaving in 1959 to become Washington correspondent for three North Carolina newspapers. In a 18-month sabbatical he took in 1962, he directed his first of two investigations for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under J. William Fulbright. The investigations into foreign government lobbying led to a revision of theForeign Agents Registration Act. In 1963, he joined the Washington Star, and in 1966 he moved to the Washington Post, where he worked till 1969. In 1969 till 1970 he directed another investigation for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, looking into U.S. military and security commitments abroad and their effect on U.S. foreign policy, which eventually led to the McGovern-Hatfield amendment to end the Vietnam War.[SUP][3][/SUP]
In 1973 Pincus tried to establish a newspaper, aiming at University towns with bad local newspapers, but without success.[SUP][4][/SUP] Believing that he would later buy the magazine,[SUP][5][/SUP] he had become executive editor of The New Republic in 1972, where he covered the WatergateSenate hearings, the House impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon and the Watergate trial. In 1975, after he was fired from the New Republic,[SUP][6][/SUP] he went to work as consultant to NBC News and later CBS News, developing, writing or producing television segments for network evening news, magazine shows and hour documentaries, and joined the Washington Post the same year.[SUP][3][/SUP]
At the Washington Post, Pincus reports on intelligence, defense and foreign policy.[SUP][7][/SUP] He has written about a variety of news subjects ranging from nuclear weapons and arms control to political campaigns to the American hostages in Iran to investigations of Congressand the Executive Branch. For six years he covered the Iran-contra affair. He covered the intelligence community and its problems arising out of the case of confessed spy Aldrich Ames, allegations of Chinese espionage at the nuclear weapons laboratories.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Pincus attended Georgetown Law School part-time beginning in 1995 and graduated in 2001, at the age of sixty-eight.[SUP][8][/SUP] He has been a visiting lecturer at Yale University and since 2002 has taught a seminar at Stanford University's Stanford-in-Washington program.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
Involvement in the Plame affair

Main article: Plame affair
In October 2003, Pincus cowrote a story for the Washington Post which described a July 12, 2003 conversation between an unnamed administration official and an unnamed Washington Post reporter. The official told the reporter that Iraq war critic Joe Wilson's wifeValerie Plame worked for the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) nonproliferation division, and suggested that Plame had recommended her husband to investigate reports that Iraq's government had tried to buy uranium in Niger. It later became clear that Pincus himself was the Post reporter in question. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald issued a grand jury subpoena to Pincus on August 9, 2004, in an attempt to discover the identity of Pincus' secret informant. On August 20, 2004, the Post filed a motion to quash the subpoena, but after Pincus' source came forward to speak with investigators, Pincus gave a deposition to Fitzgerald on September 15, 2004; he recounted the 2003 conversation to Fitzgerald but still did not name the administration official.[SUP][9][/SUP] In a public statement afterward, Pincus said that the special prosecutor had dropped his demand that Pincus reveal his source.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] On February 12, 2007, Pincus testified in court that it was then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, swerving off topic during an interview, who had told him of Plame's identity.[SUP][10][/SUP] Pincus was interviewed about his involvement in the Plame affair, and his refusal to identify his source, in the first episode of Frontline's "News War".[SUP][6][/SUP]
Honors and awards

Pincus has won several newspaper prizes including the 1961 Page One award for magazine reporting in The Reporter, the George Polk Award in 1977 for stories in the Washington Post exposing the neutron warhead, a television Emmy for writing on the 1981 CBS News documentary series, "Defense of the United States", and in 1999 he was awarded the first Stewart Alsop Award given by the Association of Foreign Intelligence Officers for his coverage of national security affairs. In 2002 he was one of six Washington Postreporters who won a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting,[SUP][11][/SUP] and in 2010 the Arthur Ross Media Award from the American Academy for Diplomacy.[SUP][12][/SUP]
See also

• Operation Mockingbird
  

References

• ^ "Walter Pincus". American Academy in Berlin.
  
• ^ [SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] "Walter Pincus". NNDB Profile. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
  
• ^ [SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] [SUP]c[/SUP] [SUP]d[/SUP] "Walter Pincus". Nieman Watchdog. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
  
• ^ Seibel, Andrea (March 7, 2009). "Der Online-Journalismus wird überschätzt". Die Welt (in German). Retrieved October 27, 2011.
  
• ^ Sherrill, Robert (March/April 1976, Vol. 14 Issue 6). "The new regime at The New Republic". Columbia Journalism Review. p. 23.
  
• ^ [SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] "Interview Walter Pincus". Frontline. July 14, 2006. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
  
• ^ "Walter Pincus". The Washington Post.
  
• ^ "Georgetown Law Establishes Degree Program for Journalists". Georgetown University. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
  
• ^ "Profile: Walter Pincus". History Commons. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
  
• ^ Sniffen, Michael J. (February 12, 2007). "Journalists Name Additional Leak Sources". Associated Press.
  
• ^ "The 2002 Pulitzer Prize Winners: National Reporting (Citation)". The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved 2008-09-10.
  
• ^ "Arthur Ross Award for Distinguished Reporting & Analysis on Foreign Affairs". The American Academy of Diplomacy. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
  

External links

• Walter Haskell Pincus Spartacus Educational Biography
  
• C-SPAN Q&A interview with Pincus, August 19, 2012