SOURCES? Adams, friends
(Photo: Getty Images)

New York Post columnist Cindy Adams is like the Bob Woodward of the D.C. Madam case, it seems, complete with her own Deep Throat. Adams was tipped off about impending changes within Deborah Jeane Palfrey's staff of lawyers well before anyone in the public or any legal aficionados involved in the case caught wind of them—her subsequent column has ignited new rounds of finger pointing on both sides of the case. .

Adams revealed on Wednesday that Palfrey was "not all that thrilled with whatever's whatevering" and said she plans to dump her criminal lawyer Preston Burton (who's represented Monica Lewinsky among others). Her intent, Adams wrote, is to "fight for new laws that will legalize prostitution from sea to shining sea."

Even an astute reader would assume Palfrey was herself the source. Who else would have such closely guarded info? Not so, Palfrey tells Radar. She and her lawyers never spoke to Adams, she says. And the information Adams reported was available only to Palfrey's legal team and to government prosecutors. So by process of elimination, "It appears the government leaked the information here to the New York Post in an attempt, I must surmise, to discredit me," Palfrey says. "The 'sea to shining sea' comment, in my opinion, is a dead giveaway since the court filing addressed only concerns about current counsel and the need to switch lawyers."

The government, of course, points blame right back at Palfrey. "I don't know for a fact, but I assume this information [given to Adams] came from Palfrey or one of her lawyers," Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, tells Radar. He adds that Palfrey's blame game is "ridiculous," saying, "Certainly our office did not leak this. We never provide copies of defense motions to the press."

Of course, we wouldn't want Adams to reveal her sources (and she hasn't returned our phone calls yet), but a little clarity on which side leaked the details would explain a lot.