Another sad page from the Clinton archives is opened: Re: Sandy Berger.

Berger is back. He's advising Hillary Clinton. There's no question he's a Clinton loyalist. But, he might have helped them more, had he not destroyed records. Now, the door is open that that kind of behavior is acceptable. And that's a concern for us who are worried that Bush will convince the Clintons to keep some of his records from us.



Politics
He’s back: Sandy Berger now advising Hillary Clinton

Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post.

On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.

Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.

“Berger panicked because he realized he was caught,” said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. “Berger lied.”


http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html

that he removed COPIES of documents. No original documents were removed or destroyed.

And since the author of this piece is a known right-wing hitman, I'd like to know exactly what role Berger is playing. Is he a paid advisor? Or did Clinton have a conversation with him, and therefore he's now an "advisor"?

That was made-up crap from Rush. Does anyone really believe that National Archives employees would stand around watching someone stuff documents in their clothes and say nothing? He put the copies in his portfolio.

Frankly, if that writer is making all this up AND quoting as well, he should be facing libel charges.

I remember at the time that the first mention of pants and socks was from Rush. Media Matters may have something on it. Or you might be able to find the statement of guilt Berger made to the court detailing what he had done.

the article. You have my blessing if you would like to contact the moderators to remove this thread.

Because, it brings into question this tidbit of information. He did not just remove copies, according to the article. He also had access to originals that didn't have copies, so the real damage may never be known:

"Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an “honest mistake” by “inadvertently” taking the documents, which he blamed on his own “sloppiness.” Bill Clinton vouched for the explanation for Berger, who served as his national security adviser.

"Berger later conceded: “I was giving a benign explanation for what was not benign.”

"The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.”"

Just because they were copies makes him less culpable somehow? If they had been originals or had been say a * advisor doing the same thing, would we be so nonchalant about an attempt to hide history?

original documents were.

"But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.”

Is the House Government Reform Committee lying?

it's pure supposition. They say he COULD have removed originals.

But he was never charged with such a thing, no evidence has ever been presented for such a thing, and yes, I believe the Republican chairman of the committee, Tom Davis of Virginia, would lie. this whole issue came to light shortly before the 2004 election, and Berger was an advisor to John Kerry.

what was taken truthfully. I don't think we'll ever know what Berger was up to.

After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.<21> His and the FBI's opinion of the case initially led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations.<22><23>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_mishandling_classified_terror_documents

regarding that copies vs original discrepancy.:

Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an “honest mistake” by “inadvertently” taking the documents, which he blamed on his own “sloppiness.” Bill Clinton vouched for the explanation for Berger, who served as his national security adviser.

Berger later conceded: “I was giving a benign explanation for what was not benign.”

The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.”

:spank:

:)

"""""""""""OBAMA'S"""""""""""""""""

;-)

from a garbage dump and trying to polish it up. Shame.

very easy to win a libel lawsuit. There is no opinion in the article. It's written as fact. Quotes and all.

I'm no lawyer, but, someone should bring this to Berger's attention.

These are what I believe to be facts...

1) Sandy Berger took COPIES of classified documents but not the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

2) That IS and SHOULD be a crime.

3) He can not "alter history" as was suggested, becase he did not have the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

4) Berger is a long time friend of the Clintons.

5) He offers advive but has no official role in the campaign...

When I start mouthing off on a topic I like to have all my ducks or facts in a row...

Are my facts correct?

But this article has gone further.

(1) Describing how he stuffed it in his socks or pants, stashing the documents in a safe place on premise to later come back and retrieve them.

(2) How he later made the statement that he was making a benign statment to something that was not benign, which to me sounds like an admission that he lied.

(3) And finally, that they claim he had access to original documents, in which there were no copies, and it could never really be known what else he took. If he destroyed the originals, nobody could possibly know. Apparently, they weren't inventoried.

A clever hit piece, if indeed, it's a hit piece. I would probably question that final paragraph (#3) about him potentially destroying originals. It's a lot of conjecture, even though Sandy Berger's shady behavior makes the statement plausible.

After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.<21> His and the FBI's opinion of the case initially led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations.<22><23>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_...

He left himself vulnerable to attack, for nothing.

But he didn't take or destoy the originals...

What he did sounds like a misdeameanor to me which was how it was treated...

He also has no official role in the campaign... It's guilt by association...

Now, Hillman may be correct. But he didn't address earlier quotes from folks that handed out the documents saying they weren't catalogued and they started handing out numbered copies of documents only after they noticed a discrepancy of some sort--and they couldn't state that he had taken anything until they instituted that policy, only to find out that it was clear he was then taking things. This part of the story is problematic: Something triggered a change in policy, and one has to believe that the change in policy was a trigger for a change in Berger's actions.

One way of reconciling one discrepancy is that the originals were copies. Or the copies were originals. Whichever.

For some of the uncatalogued original materials were allegedly copies from a meeting. Combined with a policy of not preserving redundant copies, *and* knowing that the originals for the documents were also on disk, this allows (entails?) the inference that the copies bore unique markings--I know that I've been in meetings where I have a draft copy to look at, but at the end of the meeting they're all collected. It makes Berger's apparently goofy removal of multiple copies of a single copy quite sane: He knew there were multiple copies so he was removing multiple copies, assuming they were unique copies (so to speak). But it also means that Hillman's copies could be true (under one interpretation) and quite false (under another): If you are interested in what's printed, Hillman's likely correct; if you're interested in hand-written comments, Hillman's quote may be irrelevant.

Beyond that, it's hard to say much without defending a side and a fellow partisan more than wondering about what actually happened.

Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go. We're referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003.

On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn't register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation.

The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an "urban myth," prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was "so inaccurate as to be laughable." In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

"Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them," Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, "there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn't have notes." Mr. Berger's sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice's sentencing memo will lay out the facts and "make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it." Meanwhile, conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534

And it's just examiner.com, so who gives a shit?