Dodging the pertinent question

Yesterday morning I posted a memo we received via email. The memo states that Phil Peters of the Lexington Institute is a former CIA agent and more importantly that the Institute has received money from Sherritt International, a Canadian firm that is trafficking in Cuban property for which there is a certified U.S. claim.
The reason this is important is because Phil Peters has access to policy makers in Washington in his role as a think-tank scholar. But Sherritt’s donations to the institute may well be a de facto lobbying fee.
Today Phil Peters issued a denial of sorts. He denied that he was a CIA agent. I suppose that’s possible since I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of a Peters’ CIA link but I will say that it’s routine for CIA agents to have state department covers. I know this because I am very familiar with a former agent who had such a cover.
But the CIA connection is not my concern. It’s not a sin to be a CIA agent, analyst or employee.
The Sherritt connection is what troubles me. Not for legal reasons but for questions of credibility.
Peters is oft-quoted in the media an expert on Cuba and his opposition to the embargo is well documented. But the fact that his opinions may be influenced by donations made by a foreign company with a vested interest in putting the embargo to bed damages his credibility in my opinion.
For the record, Peters does NOT deny that Sherritt has donated money to the Lexington Institute. The reader can judge for himself. I will take it as a confirmation that Sherritt has donated substantial sums to the Institute and that Peters is nothing more than a paid (unregistered) lobbyist at this point. Good work if you can get it, I guess.