Full Version: Sandy Berger
Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger is now under investigation by the Department of Justice for allegedly spiriting away secret documents from the National Archives. Berger allegedly stole the documents when he visited the archives to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 committee.
He has denied allegations that he was motivated by anything other than a desire to aid the 9/11 commission.
Berger stepped down from his advisory role in the Kerry campaign in response to the allegations. 9/11 commission spokesman Al Felzenberg stated that the commissioners have no reason to believe that the findings would change the outcome of the report and that they believe they "had access to all materials needed to do [their] report".
Democrats are questioning the timing of the announcement; they are claiming political motivations behind the announcement considering the fact that the investigation has been underway since October.
CNN Article
New York Times Article
Fox News Article
Questions:
1.) Do you think that Mr. Berger intentionally removed the documents from the Archives? If so, why?
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
QUOTE(CNN)
Sources said that among the documents Berger took were drafts of a Clinton administration "after-action" report on efforts to thwart the so-called "millennium plot," a suspected al Qaeda attack planned around the New Year's holiday in 1999.
<snip>
Berger, who was national security adviser during President Clinton's second term, said in a statement Monday that the removal of the papers was unintentional.
He said he returned everything he had after the National Archives told him documents were missing, "except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded."
<snip>
Berger, who was national security adviser during President Clinton's second term, said in a statement Monday that the removal of the papers was unintentional.
He said he returned everything he had after the National Archives told him documents were missing, "except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded."
He has denied allegations that he was motivated by anything other than a desire to aid the 9/11 commission.
QUOTE(CNN)
Law enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.
That latter allegation drew a sharp response from Berger associate and former White House lawyer Lanny Davis, who challenged any unnamed official who makes such an accusation to come forward publicly.
"I suggest that person is lying," he said. "And if that person has the guts, let's see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks."
That latter allegation drew a sharp response from Berger associate and former White House lawyer Lanny Davis, who challenged any unnamed official who makes such an accusation to come forward publicly.
"I suggest that person is lying," he said. "And if that person has the guts, let's see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks."
Berger stepped down from his advisory role in the Kerry campaign in response to the allegations. 9/11 commission spokesman Al Felzenberg stated that the commissioners have no reason to believe that the findings would change the outcome of the report and that they believe they "had access to all materials needed to do [their] report".
Democrats are questioning the timing of the announcement; they are claiming political motivations behind the announcement considering the fact that the investigation has been underway since October.
CNN Article
New York Times Article
Fox News Article
Questions:
1.) Do you think that Mr. Berger intentionally removed the documents from the Archives? If so, why?
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
1.) Do you think that Mr. Berger intentionally removed the documents from the Archives? If so, why? ]
Of course it was intentional--there's no other way to explain it. Especially coming from someone who used to be out National Security Advisor! Now the why, that's more interesting. He had to know it was illegal, and that he would likely be caught. So what was there that was that important to take? For whom?
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
Don't know, don't care. I'm much more interested in whether taking the documents was politically motivated, and, if so, for who. There was a very, very simple way to avoid having the announcement of the investigation--Don't Take The Documents. There should be a strong investigation into this, and not for political purposes (at least not as it related to Berger's guilt or innocence). We need to find out what was taken, what is missing, what was on the missing documents, and what the real motivation for taking them was. The politics will sort itself out once those issues are resolved. It may be something fairly innocent (taking the notes home to study before his interview with the 9-11 commission), but then again it may be something sinister (taking the documents because of what was on them, and not wanting that to get into the commission's report). I'll reserve judgement on that until we know more about what was taken, and why.
Of course it was intentional--there's no other way to explain it. Especially coming from someone who used to be out National Security Advisor! Now the why, that's more interesting. He had to know it was illegal, and that he would likely be caught. So what was there that was that important to take? For whom?
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
Don't know, don't care. I'm much more interested in whether taking the documents was politically motivated, and, if so, for who. There was a very, very simple way to avoid having the announcement of the investigation--Don't Take The Documents. There should be a strong investigation into this, and not for political purposes (at least not as it related to Berger's guilt or innocence). We need to find out what was taken, what is missing, what was on the missing documents, and what the real motivation for taking them was. The politics will sort itself out once those issues are resolved. It may be something fairly innocent (taking the notes home to study before his interview with the 9-11 commission), but then again it may be something sinister (taking the documents because of what was on them, and not wanting that to get into the commission's report). I'll reserve judgement on that until we know more about what was taken, and why.
1.) Do you think that Mr. Berger intentionally removed the documents from the Archives? If so, why?
Of course it was intentional. You are not a former national security advisor and just forget that you can't take classified documents or notes taken about classified documents from the national archive.
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
Could be, but you know what? Good. If he had not taken the documents in the first place all of this would all be a moot point wouldn't it. There is no way to really try and turn this on the Republicans. I am with Hobbes in asking what political motivation was behind taking the documents.
Of course it was intentional. You are not a former national security advisor and just forget that you can't take classified documents or notes taken about classified documents from the national archive.
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
Could be, but you know what? Good. If he had not taken the documents in the first place all of this would all be a moot point wouldn't it. There is no way to really try and turn this on the Republicans. I am with Hobbes in asking what political motivation was behind taking the documents.
1.) Do you think that Mr. Berger intentionally removed the documents from the Archives? If so, why?
Yes. A man of his position could never be excused for not knowing what "classified" meant, and he surely knew that he was not allowed to remove them from that building.
Why? As the documents were lost, we will never know. My speculation is that there was something very serious that he did not want to be known about him to the gov't or the people.
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
I doubt it. This is big news. When did this happen? I assume recently? I think that it should have been made public immediately that the gov't found out.
My comments:
"Sources" report .. blah, blah, blah... I don't put any credibility on un-named sources. The Conservatives are saying that he smuggled them out of the building in his underpants and socks. If that is true, then he was up to no good. But why didn't the staff alert security at the time? Hey, somebody's stealing from us, so we might inform somebody tomorrow? That is rumor and shouldn't be discussed here unless it becomes fact.
He admits to removing the documents and he admits to being unable to produce them now. That tells my heart that the man has destroyed some documents that he didn't want others to see. This is not me inadvertantly walking out of the library with a book that I had not checked out. This is a one-time National Security Adviser who has taken and "lost" classified documents from a place from which he "knew" he was not allowed to remove anything. I just can't believe him on this one.
Yes. A man of his position could never be excused for not knowing what "classified" meant, and he surely knew that he was not allowed to remove them from that building.
Why? As the documents were lost, we will never know. My speculation is that there was something very serious that he did not want to be known about him to the gov't or the people.
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
I doubt it. This is big news. When did this happen? I assume recently? I think that it should have been made public immediately that the gov't found out.
My comments:
"Sources" report .. blah, blah, blah... I don't put any credibility on un-named sources. The Conservatives are saying that he smuggled them out of the building in his underpants and socks. If that is true, then he was up to no good. But why didn't the staff alert security at the time? Hey, somebody's stealing from us, so we might inform somebody tomorrow? That is rumor and shouldn't be discussed here unless it becomes fact.
He admits to removing the documents and he admits to being unable to produce them now. That tells my heart that the man has destroyed some documents that he didn't want others to see. This is not me inadvertantly walking out of the library with a book that I had not checked out. This is a one-time National Security Adviser who has taken and "lost" classified documents from a place from which he "knew" he was not allowed to remove anything. I just can't believe him on this one.
What a non-story! 
Though to listen to Fox News, you'd think Berger was selling Star Wars technology to North Korea. The guy brought some notes and a few copies of reports home with him while he was working on the 9/11 investigation. Stupid, in the current political climate? Sure. Anything worse? Give me a break.
This all sounds like a lot of theorists looking for a conspiracy - and, my God, are there a lot of theories out there already! Of course the announcement of the investigation is politically motivated - as is all the histrionic posturing by a bunch of drama queens on Capitol Hill: Sandy Berger was working with John Kerry. This story will run and run and run - despite the fact that it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The ramifications? Talk radio will have a field day attempting to somehow smear the Kerry campaign with this and, at worst, Berger will eventually face misdemeanor charges of mishandling governement documents. The 9/11 Commission has already admitted that the "stolen documents" would not affect their findings a whit, so there's no story there (not that one won't be devised).
As this all ties into the that investigation, though, I wonder if anyone will remember that Sen. Orrin Hatch disclosed classified intercepts shortly after the September 11 attack, allegedly confirming bin Laden's involvement - a disclosure described by Donald Rumsfeld as one which "compromises our sources and methods" and "inhibits our ability to find and deal with terrorists who commit this kind of act" - a disclosure which may have lead directly to bin Laden elduing apprehension. Nothing that Berger did comes close to that kind of treason.
And where was everyone then - when there was a real question of national security - crying "A chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee should know what 'classified' means! How could such a man 'forget' that such materials aren't meant to be disclosed! We must ask why he would leak information which could only possibly benefit the enemy!"
Of course, such critics were nowhere to be seen - and no charges were ever brought against a traitor like Hatch, whose Congressional cronies are now apparently all too willing to villify someone who was trying to prevent acts of terror rather than abet them.
Oh, well. It's an election year - and the circus is in town.
Though to listen to Fox News, you'd think Berger was selling Star Wars technology to North Korea. The guy brought some notes and a few copies of reports home with him while he was working on the 9/11 investigation. Stupid, in the current political climate? Sure. Anything worse? Give me a break.This all sounds like a lot of theorists looking for a conspiracy - and, my God, are there a lot of theories out there already! Of course the announcement of the investigation is politically motivated - as is all the histrionic posturing by a bunch of drama queens on Capitol Hill: Sandy Berger was working with John Kerry. This story will run and run and run - despite the fact that it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The ramifications? Talk radio will have a field day attempting to somehow smear the Kerry campaign with this and, at worst, Berger will eventually face misdemeanor charges of mishandling governement documents. The 9/11 Commission has already admitted that the "stolen documents" would not affect their findings a whit, so there's no story there (not that one won't be devised).
As this all ties into the that investigation, though, I wonder if anyone will remember that Sen. Orrin Hatch disclosed classified intercepts shortly after the September 11 attack, allegedly confirming bin Laden's involvement - a disclosure described by Donald Rumsfeld as one which "compromises our sources and methods" and "inhibits our ability to find and deal with terrorists who commit this kind of act" - a disclosure which may have lead directly to bin Laden elduing apprehension. Nothing that Berger did comes close to that kind of treason.
And where was everyone then - when there was a real question of national security - crying "A chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee should know what 'classified' means! How could such a man 'forget' that such materials aren't meant to be disclosed! We must ask why he would leak information which could only possibly benefit the enemy!"
Of course, such critics were nowhere to be seen - and no charges were ever brought against a traitor like Hatch, whose Congressional cronies are now apparently all too willing to villify someone who was trying to prevent acts of terror rather than abet them.
Oh, well. It's an election year - and the circus is in town.
I'd like to add a little bit of real life context to this debate based on my own personal experiences. I don't have any links and I'm sure as hell not going to incriminate myself with my own personal experiences so y'all are going to have to take my word for it. For what that's worth. In defense of Sandy Berger and I've never particularly cared for him, I can understand perfectly what probably happened. I've worked on extremely classified programs where everything you do is considered classified. In those days I could take a call from my wife asking me to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home and I'd make a note of that and it would end up in the "burn box" which is where classified papers go. In that enviornment, literally everything is stamped and marked with some sort of security classification or another. It's the nature of the beast, and it's how things should be quite frankly.
At first, you get paranoid, the security people's fear of God lecture is fresh in your mind and you won't say ANYTHING. I would come home, wife would ask "How was your day?" and I'd say something along the lines of I can't talk about it. I wouldn't want the Soviets to know if I had a good day, a bad day or an average day. I felt like Sgt Schultz in "Hogan's Heroes" saying, "I know nothing!". Pretty silly I know, but that's the way it was.
Then you move to the stage where the paranoia is gone and you get used to handling highly classified documents all the time. Everything you see is highly classified and it can jade you over time and pretty soon, you are so used to seeing and handling documents that are stamped all over that you forget they are classified. The security stamps become like a letterhead you're so used to seeing them. Hopefully by that time you have developed a habit of treating them properly, but sometimes people forget. I think that's what happened with Sandy Berger. He's not a spy or a criminal. I don't think he was a particularly good Security Advisor, but he's not a bad guy either.
AS far as to whether this is politically motivated or not, I honestly don't know. I hope not.
At first, you get paranoid, the security people's fear of God lecture is fresh in your mind and you won't say ANYTHING. I would come home, wife would ask "How was your day?" and I'd say something along the lines of I can't talk about it. I wouldn't want the Soviets to know if I had a good day, a bad day or an average day. I felt like Sgt Schultz in "Hogan's Heroes" saying, "I know nothing!". Pretty silly I know, but that's the way it was.
Then you move to the stage where the paranoia is gone and you get used to handling highly classified documents all the time. Everything you see is highly classified and it can jade you over time and pretty soon, you are so used to seeing and handling documents that are stamped all over that you forget they are classified. The security stamps become like a letterhead you're so used to seeing them. Hopefully by that time you have developed a habit of treating them properly, but sometimes people forget. I think that's what happened with Sandy Berger. He's not a spy or a criminal. I don't think he was a particularly good Security Advisor, but he's not a bad guy either.
AS far as to whether this is politically motivated or not, I honestly don't know. I hope not.
I seen this on NBC evening news as thats all I watch for tv news. The story I got was that he removed the documents in his clothing and removed multiple copies of things as well. The staff at the National Archives became suspecious and proceeded to mark the documents so they could determine if some were comming up missing as they suspected. He ended up removing documents all three days he was there and even took, among other things, several copies of the same report that he had ordered to be prepared while he was with Clinton.
This was all last fall and seems pretty clear to me he was attempting to hide things from the 911 investigation. An attempt to influence histories judment on himself and Clinton with regards to there neglegence in the war on terrorism.
The poor guy messed up in two ways. First, he should have had them re-appear mysterously on a table in the Lincoln bedroom of the white house a year or more after they were first requested. This seemed to work well for the Clintons, too bad for him Clinton was allready out of office. Second, he should have only attempted this while Clinton was in office so Clinton could have pardoned him on the way out of town like he did for CIA Director John Deutch.
As far as polotics go, who knows. Perhaps. If so it wasn't exactly a big strategy type thing. They could have waited till the race heats up more and perhaps done more damage. I think the politics of why it was done in the first place is a way larger issue. After all, it's not like anyone fired Tomahawk cruise missle to take attention away from an impeechment proceeding or anything.
This was all last fall and seems pretty clear to me he was attempting to hide things from the 911 investigation. An attempt to influence histories judment on himself and Clinton with regards to there neglegence in the war on terrorism.
The poor guy messed up in two ways. First, he should have had them re-appear mysterously on a table in the Lincoln bedroom of the white house a year or more after they were first requested. This seemed to work well for the Clintons, too bad for him Clinton was allready out of office. Second, he should have only attempted this while Clinton was in office so Clinton could have pardoned him on the way out of town like he did for CIA Director John Deutch.
As far as polotics go, who knows. Perhaps. If so it wasn't exactly a big strategy type thing. They could have waited till the race heats up more and perhaps done more damage. I think the politics of why it was done in the first place is a way larger issue. After all, it's not like anyone fired Tomahawk cruise missle to take attention away from an impeechment proceeding or anything.
I would agree with both what Wertz and Aquilla have said since from what I have heard from the news is all but one document was returned and the one that was not returned was "an analysis of the effectiveness of counterterrorism efforts against threats tied to the turn of the Millennium." quote from Lanny Breuer. And yes I believe this is politically motivated since this was being investigated since back in October 2003 and now all of a sudden it just gets leaked out, for what reasons you can just come up with many theories.
Here is some information from Lanny Breuer on Lou Dobbs last nite. Lanny is Berger's attorney.
Lanny Breuer speaking about his Sandy Berger
To respond to gibu as I was about to add my reply you have some of your facts wrong. The information I am about to post is directly from NBC website.
Clinton aide investigated for taking classified memos
As quoted by Berger the things the archive employees saw him put in his pockets were his notes he made from the documents. Not one place in the NBC report did they say he removed documents all three days he was there. As well as looking at over 10,000 documents over a three day period is a lot of documents to look over. I am not saying he was not clumsy for removing some documents by accident after all what his previous job used to be, but some of the ridiculous stories like him stuffing documents in his socks and such are just to unbelieveable. As well as all the documents except for the after action report have been returned. The after action report was just summing up how things went good and bad after the millinnium threat so there is nothing nafarious about him trying to hide something or not.
Here is some information from Lanny Breuer on Lou Dobbs last nite. Lanny is Berger's attorney.
Lanny Breuer speaking about his Sandy Berger
QUOTE
"I dealt with this issue in October 2003 fully and completely," Berger added. "Everything that I have done all along in this process has been for the purpose of aiding and supporting the work of the 9/11 commission. And any suggestion to the contrary is simply, absolutely wrong."
snipet
Berger has admitted that during visits to the Archives last year to review materials for the 9/11 commission, he "inadvertently" removed some documents, which Breuer said were mixed in with other personal papers and accidentally put in his leather portfolio.
Breuer said Berger returned the materials last October after being contacted by Archives officials and has been cooperating since then with the Justice Department's investigation into the incident.
A government source told CNN that some of the documents at issue were classified as "code word" materials -- the highest level of security, making them more closely held than nuclear secrets. Archives officials have also told investigators that one document is still missing -- an analysis of the effectiveness of counterterrorism efforts against threats tied to the turn of the Millennium.
Breuer conceded Berger took away handwritten notes he made about other documents from the Archives, knowing that policy required that those notes had to first be reviewed.
"He knew [removing the notes] was a violation of Archives' procedure. It is not against the law. No one has suggested to him that it was against the law. The Department of Justice has not been concerned with it," Breuer told CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports."
snipet
Berger has admitted that during visits to the Archives last year to review materials for the 9/11 commission, he "inadvertently" removed some documents, which Breuer said were mixed in with other personal papers and accidentally put in his leather portfolio.
Breuer said Berger returned the materials last October after being contacted by Archives officials and has been cooperating since then with the Justice Department's investigation into the incident.
A government source told CNN that some of the documents at issue were classified as "code word" materials -- the highest level of security, making them more closely held than nuclear secrets. Archives officials have also told investigators that one document is still missing -- an analysis of the effectiveness of counterterrorism efforts against threats tied to the turn of the Millennium.
Breuer conceded Berger took away handwritten notes he made about other documents from the Archives, knowing that policy required that those notes had to first be reviewed.
"He knew [removing the notes] was a violation of Archives' procedure. It is not against the law. No one has suggested to him that it was against the law. The Department of Justice has not been concerned with it," Breuer told CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports."
To respond to gibu as I was about to add my reply you have some of your facts wrong. The information I am about to post is directly from NBC website.
Clinton aide investigated for taking classified memos
QUOTE
However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said.
snipet
Berger and Breuer said Monday night that Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and that he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
“I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced,” Berger said in a statement.
snipet
When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room but could not find two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report.
“In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives,” Berger said.
“When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded,” he said.
Breuer said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals.
snipet
Berger and Breuer said Monday night that Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and that he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
“I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced,” Berger said in a statement.
snipet
When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room but could not find two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report.
“In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives,” Berger said.
“When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded,” he said.
Breuer said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals.
As quoted by Berger the things the archive employees saw him put in his pockets were his notes he made from the documents. Not one place in the NBC report did they say he removed documents all three days he was there. As well as looking at over 10,000 documents over a three day period is a lot of documents to look over. I am not saying he was not clumsy for removing some documents by accident after all what his previous job used to be, but some of the ridiculous stories like him stuffing documents in his socks and such are just to unbelieveable. As well as all the documents except for the after action report have been returned. The after action report was just summing up how things went good and bad after the millinnium threat so there is nothing nafarious about him trying to hide something or not.
1.) Do you think that Mr. Berger intentionally removed the documents from the Archives? If so, why?
Yes. The former NSA stuffed documents into his SOCKS. He has admitted to knowingly commiting a felony. What could he possibly be doing that for if not to steal them for some reason. To cover-up something in the documents is the only logical conclusion.
original story - fox news
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
Maybe, maybe not. I am still open to hearing that this is an innocent situation, whoops I left some notes in my briefcase, but the Clinton spin machine is kicking into high gear, leading me to believe that this is true and probably worse than we know.
Yes. The former NSA stuffed documents into his SOCKS. He has admitted to knowingly commiting a felony. What could he possibly be doing that for if not to steal them for some reason. To cover-up something in the documents is the only logical conclusion.
original story - fox news
QUOTE
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
Maybe, maybe not. I am still open to hearing that this is an innocent situation, whoops I left some notes in my briefcase, but the Clinton spin machine is kicking into high gear, leading me to believe that this is true and probably worse than we know.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 21 2004, 08:49 AM)
Yes. The former NSA stuffed documents into his SOCKS. He has admitted to knowingly commiting a felony. What could he possibly be doing that for if not to steal them for some reason. To cover-up something in the documents is the only logical conclusion.
original story - fox news
original story - fox news
QUOTE
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
That sock accusation is exactly why I think 1) Berger didn't intentionally remove documents, and 2) the announcement is politically motivated. Stuffing them in his jacket just can't fan fires as well as socks. From CNN:
QUOTE
Breuer strongly denied information from law enforcement sources that an Archives staffer told investigators Berger also placed something in his socks.
Could Fox possibly get more creative than that? Yeah, it makes perfect sense that Breuer would incriminate his own client and the archive staffer would not demand the notes stay with him or her after watching Berger commit a blatant breach of protocol. This hyperbole is on par with the Clintons busting a cap in every backwater Arkansan that rubbed them the wrong way.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 21 2004, 07:49 AM)
1.) Do you think that Mr. Berger intentionally removed the documents from the Archives? If so, why?
Yes. The former NSA stuffed documents into his SOCKS. He has admitted to knowingly commiting a felony. What could he possibly be doing that for if not to steal them for some reason. To cover-up something in the documents is the only logical conclusion.
original story - fox news
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
Maybe, maybe not. I am still open to hearing that this is an innocent situation, whoops I left some notes in my briefcase, but the Clinton spin machine is kicking into high gear, leading me to believe that this is true and probably worse than we know.
Yes. The former NSA stuffed documents into his SOCKS. He has admitted to knowingly commiting a felony. What could he possibly be doing that for if not to steal them for some reason. To cover-up something in the documents is the only logical conclusion.
original story - fox news
QUOTE
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
Maybe, maybe not. I am still open to hearing that this is an innocent situation, whoops I left some notes in my briefcase, but the Clinton spin machine is kicking into high gear, leading me to believe that this is true and probably worse than we know.
Question carlitoswhey why would the staffer not stop him when they saw him putting the documents in his socks since they were right there watching him do it.
Also as I previously posted his own private notes not being inspected are not a crime but are just against the Archival protocol.
QUOTE(Cadman @ Jul 21 2004, 08:30 AM)
Question carlitoswhey why would the staffer not stop him when they saw him putting the documents in his socks since they were right there watching him do it. Also as I previously posted his own private notes not being inspected are not a crime but are just against the Archival protocol.
Also as I previously posted his own private notes not being inspected are not a crime but are just against the Archival protocol.Fair enough, and as I said I'm skeptical too. As far as this not being a crime, it's not just his notes, but multiple drafts of at least one classified document, allegedly concerning port security, authored by Richard Clarke. As FOX is apparently divisive, here is the article from the New York Times:
QUOTE
Clinton Aide Took Classified Material
By MARK GLASSMAN
Published: July 20, 2004
WASHINGTON, July 19
Mr. Berger removed at least two versions of a memorandum assessing how the government handled intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebrations in 1999, his lawyer, Lanny A. Breuer, said. He also removed notes he took about classified documents, the lawyer said.
By MARK GLASSMAN
Published: July 20, 2004
WASHINGTON, July 19
Mr. Berger removed at least two versions of a memorandum assessing how the government handled intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebrations in 1999, his lawyer, Lanny A. Breuer, said. He also removed notes he took about classified documents, the lawyer said.
or the AP:
QUOTE
AP: Clinton Adviser Probed in Terror Memos
3 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
By JOHN SOLOMON
WASHINGTON - President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after admitting he removed highly classified terrorism documents from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned.
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.
3 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
By JOHN SOLOMON
WASHINGTON - President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after admitting he removed highly classified terrorism documents from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned.
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.
Nothing about the SOCKS in these items, carlito? 
And I've already seen several stories in the evolution of the "multiple drafts" spin: there were two drafts - no, there were three drafts! - they were numbered! - they were numbered to catch Berger! - he was trying to cover-up for Clinton - no, he was trying to discredit Bush - no, he's engaged in espionage for Kerry! - but he lost them! - no, he shredded them! - NO, he sold them to the Commies!!
I think I'll wait until the dust settles a bit, more actual information is leaked, and someone apart from Tom DeLay is setting the sound bites.
I'd have to agree with Aquilla here. I handle dozens of documents daily which are marked "Confidential: Trade Secrets" and just about every e-mail which passes through my mailbox includes "This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law" as part of the signature. We have security training courses about locking one's computer every time one steps outside one's cubicle - and exhaustive instructions on what should be shredded when.
All of this becomes so much background noise. Do people remove documents from the office which should technically stay on premises? Hell, yeah. Do people breach our corporate security codes? Hourly. Is there a chance that any of this behavior is going to compromise the company or its business? Remote.
Obviously everyone knows when they are handling highly sensitive material as opposed to e-mail about lunch. Classified information remains classified, sensitive material does not fall into the hands of competitors through negligence, the wheels of industry keep turning.
Granted, federal employees should be extremely cautious when handling materials which relate to national security and I'm sure that they are - including Sandy Berger. But I expect that the sort of thing which happened to him in relation to the current world-class news item is an average, ordinary, commonplace, routine everyday occurence.
Then again, the Weekly World News has just reported that Bat Boy and P'lod the alien stuffed top secret Post-It notes down Berger's jockeys at the wedding of Saddam and Osama, so I guess he should be clapped in irons at once - and shipped to Atlantis. Watch this space for more breaking "news" on this "national crisis".
And I've already seen several stories in the evolution of the "multiple drafts" spin: there were two drafts - no, there were three drafts! - they were numbered! - they were numbered to catch Berger! - he was trying to cover-up for Clinton - no, he was trying to discredit Bush - no, he's engaged in espionage for Kerry! - but he lost them! - no, he shredded them! - NO, he sold them to the Commies!!I think I'll wait until the dust settles a bit, more actual information is leaked, and someone apart from Tom DeLay is setting the sound bites.
I'd have to agree with Aquilla here. I handle dozens of documents daily which are marked "Confidential: Trade Secrets" and just about every e-mail which passes through my mailbox includes "This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law" as part of the signature. We have security training courses about locking one's computer every time one steps outside one's cubicle - and exhaustive instructions on what should be shredded when.
All of this becomes so much background noise. Do people remove documents from the office which should technically stay on premises? Hell, yeah. Do people breach our corporate security codes? Hourly. Is there a chance that any of this behavior is going to compromise the company or its business? Remote.
Obviously everyone knows when they are handling highly sensitive material as opposed to e-mail about lunch. Classified information remains classified, sensitive material does not fall into the hands of competitors through negligence, the wheels of industry keep turning.
Granted, federal employees should be extremely cautious when handling materials which relate to national security and I'm sure that they are - including Sandy Berger. But I expect that the sort of thing which happened to him in relation to the current world-class news item is an average, ordinary, commonplace, routine everyday occurence.
Then again, the Weekly World News has just reported that Bat Boy and P'lod the alien stuffed top secret Post-It notes down Berger's jockeys at the wedding of Saddam and Osama, so I guess he should be clapped in irons at once - and shipped to Atlantis. Watch this space for more breaking "news" on this "national crisis".
I tend to agree with most posts here regarding this topic. If he took only some copies, notes, or whatever, maybe no big deal. But after 6 months of investigation, why leak this now? This, on the surface, appears more nefarious and consistent with BushCo Nation Builders and Associates.
But...
If it's "really no big deal", "splitting hairs", yadda yadda yadda, why was a search warrant executed at Bergers house? He stated that they've never even talked to him, but if they searched his house looking for these documents, that appears to be either a lie or deflecting the charges. If this is only a technicality, why not be upfront about it?
I'm beginning to think there's more to this and will withhold judgement until more meaningful facts come out because it appears both sides are spinning this. Again, if he really did nothing wrong, why not explain it as some posters here have easily done?
I'm sorry, but you don't get search warrants to search people's houses for technical infractions.
But...
If it's "really no big deal", "splitting hairs", yadda yadda yadda, why was a search warrant executed at Bergers house? He stated that they've never even talked to him, but if they searched his house looking for these documents, that appears to be either a lie or deflecting the charges. If this is only a technicality, why not be upfront about it?
I'm beginning to think there's more to this and will withhold judgement until more meaningful facts come out because it appears both sides are spinning this. Again, if he really did nothing wrong, why not explain it as some posters here have easily done?
I'm sorry, but you don't get search warrants to search people's houses for technical infractions.
1) Intentional? As the first lady has no doubt said many times. "Something queer is going on here."
He certainly didn't remove them so that no one else would see them. Unlike the president's military service records, everything that was allegedly removed is still available in the archives.
I don't think he did it to feed information to the Kerry campaign. Despite the classified status of the documents, there doesn't seem to be any information in them (certainly nothing that Kerry is currently/recently spouting) that Madeliene Albright didn't say on McNeil/Lerher 3 years ago.
Very queer, indeed.
2) Politically motivated? Biiiiiiiiiiig time.
The investigation has been going on for months, and yet only a few days before the 9/11 report is released, the republican leadership of congress dives into the well head first to leak, exaggerate and outright lie about an ongoing investigation. I wonder: If it was so bad what he did, why did the republicans find it necessary to exaggerate and lie?
Make no mistake, he's guilty of something. But it's not Iran/Contra, it's not the yellow-cake lie, and it's not the exposure of an intelligence operative's identity to exact political revenge.
The 9/11 report cannot help the Bush re-election campaign, no matter what it says. It may have no effect or a negative effect, but nothing it says will have a positive effect. For republicans, distracting any attention from the report is a no-brainer.
He certainly didn't remove them so that no one else would see them. Unlike the president's military service records, everything that was allegedly removed is still available in the archives.
I don't think he did it to feed information to the Kerry campaign. Despite the classified status of the documents, there doesn't seem to be any information in them (certainly nothing that Kerry is currently/recently spouting) that Madeliene Albright didn't say on McNeil/Lerher 3 years ago.
Very queer, indeed.
2) Politically motivated? Biiiiiiiiiiig time.
The investigation has been going on for months, and yet only a few days before the 9/11 report is released, the republican leadership of congress dives into the well head first to leak, exaggerate and outright lie about an ongoing investigation. I wonder: If it was so bad what he did, why did the republicans find it necessary to exaggerate and lie?
Make no mistake, he's guilty of something. But it's not Iran/Contra, it's not the yellow-cake lie, and it's not the exposure of an intelligence operative's identity to exact political revenge.
The 9/11 report cannot help the Bush re-election campaign, no matter what it says. It may have no effect or a negative effect, but nothing it says will have a positive effect. For republicans, distracting any attention from the report is a no-brainer.
Maybe I am dumb or whatever,but I didn't even know this happened until a couple days ago. And this act of taking documents happened approximately 6 months ago.
Why wait until now to make it news. Wait a minute this is election year! Do you think that may have something to do with it?
Why didn't they just wait until after the election as in the case with the 9/11 commission determining whether the Bush adminstration exaggerated the intelligence info on Iraq.
Oh well. This is probably more important. I should be disciplined for doubting this adminstrations actions.
Why wait until now to make it news. Wait a minute this is election year! Do you think that may have something to do with it?
Why didn't they just wait until after the election as in the case with the 9/11 commission determining whether the Bush adminstration exaggerated the intelligence info on Iraq.
Oh well. This is probably more important. I should be disciplined for doubting this adminstrations actions.
1.) Do you think that Mr. Berger intentionally removed the documents from the Archives? If so, why?
It seems a little too unusual to me that, as others have said, the Archives staffer who saw him place something in his socks didn't stop him and demand to see what it was. I would realize that he was looking at highly confidential and wonder why he was putting a papery object into his sock. But that staffer didn't; that staffer hasn't come forth, either. It really makes me begin to doubt the credibility of that report.
Furthermore, when you have thousands of documents set aside I can see it being quite easy to inadvertently slip some into the papers you take home with you. If Mr. Berger actually wanted to hinder the 9/11 Commission, he could have bothered to take all the drafts of the document and not return them. But he only took copies and he returned all but a few-- and the originals could still be pulled. The 9/11 Commission still had access to all the relevant documents-- including all versions of the after-action memo.
While Mr. Berger should have cleared the notes he was aware of through an archivist, to claim that he intentionally removed the documents to hide something from the 9/11 Commission is ridiculous: why, if he was trying to hide something did he overlook the other versions and copies of the memo. And why did he bother to return them?
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
The announcement was made two days before the final report of the 9/11 Commission is to be released; Mr. Berger gave testimony before that commission. The investigation has been in the works for nine months now. Hmm... Seems a little suspect to me. Perhaps the leaker was trying to impeach the credibility of the testimony Mr. Berger gave, or of the report of the commission. Who knows? There was some motivation behind this rather timely release, and I'm not sure that it was national security.
Edited for clarity.
It seems a little too unusual to me that, as others have said, the Archives staffer who saw him place something in his socks didn't stop him and demand to see what it was. I would realize that he was looking at highly confidential and wonder why he was putting a papery object into his sock. But that staffer didn't; that staffer hasn't come forth, either. It really makes me begin to doubt the credibility of that report.
Furthermore, when you have thousands of documents set aside I can see it being quite easy to inadvertently slip some into the papers you take home with you. If Mr. Berger actually wanted to hinder the 9/11 Commission, he could have bothered to take all the drafts of the document and not return them. But he only took copies and he returned all but a few-- and the originals could still be pulled. The 9/11 Commission still had access to all the relevant documents-- including all versions of the after-action memo.
While Mr. Berger should have cleared the notes he was aware of through an archivist, to claim that he intentionally removed the documents to hide something from the 9/11 Commission is ridiculous: why, if he was trying to hide something did he overlook the other versions and copies of the memo. And why did he bother to return them?
2.) Was the announcement of the investigation politically motivated?
The announcement was made two days before the final report of the 9/11 Commission is to be released; Mr. Berger gave testimony before that commission. The investigation has been in the works for nine months now. Hmm... Seems a little suspect to me. Perhaps the leaker was trying to impeach the credibility of the testimony Mr. Berger gave, or of the report of the commission. Who knows? There was some motivation behind this rather timely release, and I'm not sure that it was national security.
Edited for clarity.
Several points I would like to make here, to perhaps summarize the other points.
First--as to whether or not the taking of the documents was intentional. I can certainly see where you do become jaded to the procedures. Therefore, I am open to this as a possibility. However, this seems to be something that happened with multiple copies, on multiple days, and certain documents still seem to be missing. Therefore, it requires a bigger leap of faith to discount intent. However, I do also wonder where were the people who should have been overseeing this? Obviously, if that happened under security watch, then clearly there was either direliction of duty or conspiracy involved. Also, why the need to take multiple copies of classified documents? The Xerox machine at the office was permanently broken? Too lazy to make your own copies? I don't want to fan the rampant conspiracy theory flames at this point, but I can see where there is ample grounds for starting the rumour mills.
Second--is this story currently being overblown? Certainly--heck, which political story (or any other story, for that matter) isn't these days. Talk shows don't make their living with 'wait and see' attitudes. Unfortunately, with this as with so many other stories, wait and see is usually the proper course. It's just not as much fun
Third--is the timing political. My default answer, in an election year especially, would have to be surely it was. However, I have not yet heard who it was that released it--which would seem to be a key factor in determining the motivation. Uh-oh, I think we're back to wait and see....
I think there is another aspect which is being neglected in the discussion, related to the timing. Was Kerry aware of the investigation? If not--why not? It would seem an advisor would want to make his client aware of any situation that might so negatively affect his campaign. On the other hand, perhaps Berger really did feel it was just a minor incident which wasn't necessary to pass along. In this case, might it not have been the Berger or Kerry group, having found out that the story was being broken, that released the info to the press to control events? Again, I think it key to find out where the release occurred before pointing any fingers.
First--as to whether or not the taking of the documents was intentional. I can certainly see where you do become jaded to the procedures. Therefore, I am open to this as a possibility. However, this seems to be something that happened with multiple copies, on multiple days, and certain documents still seem to be missing. Therefore, it requires a bigger leap of faith to discount intent. However, I do also wonder where were the people who should have been overseeing this? Obviously, if that happened under security watch, then clearly there was either direliction of duty or conspiracy involved. Also, why the need to take multiple copies of classified documents? The Xerox machine at the office was permanently broken? Too lazy to make your own copies? I don't want to fan the rampant conspiracy theory flames at this point, but I can see where there is ample grounds for starting the rumour mills.
Second--is this story currently being overblown? Certainly--heck, which political story (or any other story, for that matter) isn't these days. Talk shows don't make their living with 'wait and see' attitudes. Unfortunately, with this as with so many other stories, wait and see is usually the proper course. It's just not as much fun
Third--is the timing political. My default answer, in an election year especially, would have to be surely it was. However, I have not yet heard who it was that released it--which would seem to be a key factor in determining the motivation. Uh-oh, I think we're back to wait and see....
I think there is another aspect which is being neglected in the discussion, related to the timing. Was Kerry aware of the investigation? If not--why not? It would seem an advisor would want to make his client aware of any situation that might so negatively affect his campaign. On the other hand, perhaps Berger really did feel it was just a minor incident which wasn't necessary to pass along. In this case, might it not have been the Berger or Kerry group, having found out that the story was being broken, that released the info to the press to control events? Again, I think it key to find out where the release occurred before pointing any fingers.
I think the removal of these documents was pretty clearly intentional. Now, whether or not the motivation was nefarious, we can't tell. When multiple copies of the same (or similar) documents disappear over a period of multiple days, it isn't a mistake. We don't know what the motive is, however.
Is the release of this politically motivated? It's hard to say without knowing where the story came from. Did an investigative reporter unearth it? This is certainly a possibility. Did Ashcroft leak it to Fox News? No evidence of it, but it's a possibility. Without knowing how the story came out, it is impossible to make a determination.
There is certainly something here, whether it be simply indiscretion (the most likely possibility) or an attempt to erase something from the "record". Remember, Watergate started as a simple break in and exploded while Clinton's FBI "File Gate" never got beyond the "there's something suspicious going on here" phase.
It is simply too early to tell.
Is the release of this politically motivated? It's hard to say without knowing where the story came from. Did an investigative reporter unearth it? This is certainly a possibility. Did Ashcroft leak it to Fox News? No evidence of it, but it's a possibility. Without knowing how the story came out, it is impossible to make a determination.
There is certainly something here, whether it be simply indiscretion (the most likely possibility) or an attempt to erase something from the "record". Remember, Watergate started as a simple break in and exploded while Clinton's FBI "File Gate" never got beyond the "there's something suspicious going on here" phase.
It is simply too early to tell.
I think John Kerry released word of Berger's crime to avoid having it coming out at a more damaging time. And all the attempts to divert attention away from the crime and onto the question of who released the story is just more of the same old tired Democrat "vast right wing conspiracy" smokescreen. Democrats respond to being caught breaking the law as they do everything else- with hysterics, conspiracy theories, and anything but relevant, real facts.
Example: Bill Clinton was accused of rape, sexual harrassment (numerous times), and by credible witnesses. He not only commited perjury to get out of it, but also retaliated against Jennifer Flowers (at least) by having her audited in the middle of the investigation by the IRS. All this, and he got away with it by demonizing his accusers as if they were on some witch hunt instead of just doing their jobs.
Example: Bill Clinton was accused of rape, sexual harrassment (numerous times), and by credible witnesses. He not only commited perjury to get out of it, but also retaliated against Jennifer Flowers (at least) by having her audited in the middle of the investigation by the IRS. All this, and he got away with it by demonizing his accusers as if they were on some witch hunt instead of just doing their jobs.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 21 2004, 03:13 AM)
What a non-story! Though to listen to Fox News, you'd think Berger was selling Star Wars technology to North Korea.
This all sounds like a lot of theorists looking for a conspiracy - and, my God, are there a lot of theories out there already!
Oh, well. It's an election year - and the circus is in town.
Though to listen to Fox News, you'd think Berger was selling Star Wars technology to North Korea.This all sounds like a lot of theorists looking for a conspiracy - and, my God, are there a lot of theories out there already!
Oh, well. It's an election year - and the circus is in town.
Sandy Berger Has Been Cleared of All Wrongdoing
Oh, well. I guess the story served its purpose.
And to add to Wertz's post none of the tv media that I have seen has even stated that he has been cleared now, because as Wertz puts it served its purpose. Now is not so interesting since they don't have him stuffing his socks or pants with documents, it does not make good headlines of him being cleared. But it was great for the media to jump on ship before the facts where all out.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.