This might be an OS solution of induction–often used in real life but rarely (never?) seen as a solution among dramatica analyses. 
The transcript is from:
I just got a tip from our FBI source.
The secret cash fund financed Segretti.
Jesus.
All right, now, listen.
Chapin hired Segretti, we know that.
And we know Haldeman hired Chapin.
Haldeman has to be the fifth name
to control the fund.
Sloan knows.
We’ve only got four of the five
who controlled the fund.
It has to be Haldeman.
I don’t think we’ve got it.
We know the fifth
is a top White House official.
No one has said it.
No one’s denied it.
That still doesn’t prove it was Haldeman.
If you go to bed and there’s no snow,
and you wake up and there’s snow…
…you can say it snowed,
although you didn’t see it.
If we can’t prove the fifth is Haldeman,
we’re wiped out.
Everything in that campaign
is done with his approval.
Everybody who works under Haldeman
does so with his knowledge.
Everybody is under Haldeman
except the president.
Common sense says it’s Haldeman.
If we go and see Sloan,
and we tell him that we know…
…that he named Haldeman
to the grand jury…
Then all we would need to do
is have him confirm it.
Hi. SLOAN: Please.
We’ve already written the story.
We just need you to define…
Debbie’s in the hospital
and my in-laws are…
Two questions?
We understand.
Two questions?
The cash that financed
the Watergate break-in.
Five men had control of the fund.
Mitchell, Stans, Magruder, Kalmbach.
We have confirmations on those four.
We found out Haldeman’s the fifth.
I’m not your source.
All we’re asking you to do is confirm.
I’m not your source on Haldeman.
When you were questioned
by the grand jury…
You had to name names.
Of course, everything they asked.
All right.
Well, uh…
What do you think?
Say we wrote a story that said Haldeman
was the fifth to control the fund.
Would we be in any trouble?
Would we be wrong?
Let me put it this way.
I would have no problems
if you wrote a story like that.
