Sandy Berger Stuffs His Pants

[NaplesX]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3602929
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html
http://cnn.law.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Federal+probe+targets+Clinton%27s+national+securi ty+adviser+-+Jul+20%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=11058358&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FLAW%2F07%2F2 0%2Fberger.probe%2Findex.html&partnerID=2013
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=134-07202004
http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/07200002aaa00bce.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News

Busted!

[BRussell]

Maybe he was just trying to impress Jamie Gorelick.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe he was just trying to impress Jamie Gorelick. "Are those Top Secret Documents in your pocket or are you happy to see me, Mr. Berger?"

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3602929
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html
http://cnn.law.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Federal+probe+targets+Clinton%27s+national+securi ty+adviser+-+Jul+20%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=11058358&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FLAW%2F07%2F2 0%2Fberger.probe%2Findex.html&partnerID=2013
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=134-07202004
http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/07200002aaa00bce.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News

Busted! Berger blew it . . . . was he trying to hide something or is he a slob?

WHat were the documents anyway?

[Northgate]

That's it folks. We found a guilty Democrat. Bush and Co. get a free ride now (not that they already weren't).

The Republican controlled government will waste no time throwing the book at this guy while their guys continue to get off scott free. The news media will be relentless on this guy. Why? First, it's all Clinton's fault. Second, Berger's a democrat and we all know how easy the SCLM is on Republicans.

Plame? Nothing. 9/11 report? Nothing. 16 little SOTU words? Nothing. Cheney's connection to Halliburton? Nothing. Ken Lay? Nothing. The unread daily briefing? Nothing.

But, hey forget all that. Sandy Berger took off with some "copies" of documents. Start your engines and saturate the news channels! Because nothing's more satisfying than hanging a prominent Democrat. Yay!

So there you go. We found a prominent Democrat to blow the whistle on and in the meantime Bush and Cheney can continue their constant distortions and innuendo all the while convincing American's that voting for John Kerry is actually terrorist appeasement.

What a great country.

[midwinter]

But law enforcement sources told CNN that some of the papers he is said to have taken from the National Archives were stuffed into his socks as well as other parts of his clothing.

1) Naplesx: Good thread title. Good sources. Well done! I'm all for this one sticking around!

2) This is simply too stupid a thing to believe. I mean, seriously. How the hell stupid did Berger have to be to do this?

Even Josh Marshall, while rightly noting that the timing of this leak is awfully curious, is saing "Sandy! You got some 'splainin' to do!"

[midwinter]

Originally posted by pfflam
Berger blew it . . . . was he trying to hide something or is he a slob?

WHat were the documents anyway?

Action memos relating to foiled terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. Wasn't there something about a plan to blow up the Golden Gate bridge?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Northgate
That's it folks. We found a guilty Democrat. Bush and Co. get a free ride now (not that they already weren't).

The Republican controlled government will waste no time throwing the book at this guy while their guys continue to get off scott free. The news media will be relentless on this guy. Why? First, it's all Clinton's fault. Second, Berger's a democrat and we all know how easy the SCLM is on Republicans.

Plame? Nothing. 9/11 report? Nothing. 16 little SOTU words? Nothing. Cheney's connection to Halliburton? Nothing. Ken Lay? Nothing. The unread daily briefing? Nothing.

But, hey forget all that. Sandy Berger took off with some "copies" of documents. Start your engines and saturate the news channels! Because nothing's more satisfying than hanging a prominent Democrat. Yay!

So there you go. We found a prominent Democrat to blow the whistle on and in the meantime Bush and Cheney can continue their constant distortions and innuendo all the while convincing American's that voting for John Kerry is actually terrorist appeasement.

What a great country. You may have a point, but what did he expect when he did it.

There were original documents and the marking documents that refered to them missing. Something that Berger would know about. Why would he take and destroy original documents? Answer that question.

[BRussell]

Were they originals? I've heard varying accounts of whether they were originals or copies. But yeah, this was either really stupid or he was actually trying to cover something up. If he really was trying to steal something to cover something up, he should be nailed to the wall. I guess he won't be getting that position in the Kerry administration that he was hoping for.

[ShawnJ]

Seems he messed up for sure-- but I too echo Josh Marhsall's comments about the timing. :err:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Seems he messed up for sure-- but I too echo Josh Marhsall's comments about the timing. :err: Isn't it always a question of timing - on both sides?

I would question what was so damning on those documents over the timing, myself.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Isn't it always a question of timing - on both sides?

I would question what was so damning on those documents over the timing, myself.

Well, as Marshall points out, those are two separate issues: 1) What the hell was he doing/thinking/trying to hide and 2) This six-month old investigation getting leaked at the same time as the 9/11 commission's findings.

[Northgate]

An addendum to my earlier rant:

Yes, Berger is a big fat idiot for doing something like this. Unlike my conservative brothers on this board I will admit that this was stupid, a huge mistake and he should be punished for it.

But I have to agree with Josh Marshall here...the timing is suspicious. The media's big pounce on this story is equally suspicious. It's a SCANDAL when a Democrat does it.

Watch this cost John Kerry the election. Even though he had nothing to do with it. Why? The media will blow this completely out of proportion and it will suck all the oxygen out of the debate.

It's all Clinton's fault = Clinton was a democrat = Democrats are untrustworthy = Bush referendum.

[faust9]

I'll add my voice to the chorus of folks who see the leak timing as a bit suspicious; however, I believe the 9/11 commission report will overshadow the Berger-Gate incident (Copyright 2004).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Northgate
An addendum to my earlier rant:

Yes, Berger is a big fat idiot for doing something like this. Unlike my conservative brothers on this board I will admit that this was stupid, a huge mistake and he should be punished for it.

Conservative brothers... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

That must be under the one drop conservative law...:rolleyes:

Nick

[ShawnJ]

Originally posted by trumptman
Conservative brothers... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Nick

His claim does have some truthfulness at least. Our current President isn't known to admit anything he's done wrong (even when directly asked as an open question, like during the big press conference a few months ago). And you can see here that the left-leaning members of this board all roundly criticized Berger-- practically indicting him. Contrast that to other known instances where something was wrong or totally off the mark: like the failure to find WMD in Iraq, the infamous 16 words in the SOTU, and most aptly for you: the outing of a CIA agent for partisan political gain. That last example constitutes a clear violation of federal law. IIRC, you argued strongly against any wrongdoing from anyone. Northgate wasn't talking about conservatives in general, but merely observing the behavior of conservatives on this board. When you look at past threads, I think he has a great point.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by Northgate
That's it folks. We found a guilty Democrat. Bush and Co. get a free ride now (not that they already weren't).

The Republican controlled government will waste no time throwing the book at this guy while their guys continue to get off scott free. The news media will be relentless on this guy. Why? First, it's all Clinton's fault. Second, Berger's a democrat and we all know how easy the SCLM is on Republicans.

Plame? Nothing. 9/11 report? Nothing. 16 little SOTU words? Nothing. Cheney's connection to Halliburton? Nothing. Ken Lay? Nothing. The unread daily briefing? Nothing.

But, hey forget all that. Sandy Berger took off with some "copies" of documents. Start your engines and saturate the news channels! Because nothing's more satisfying than hanging a prominent Democrat. Yay!

So there you go. We found a prominent Democrat to blow the whistle on and in the meantime Bush and Cheney can continue their constant distortions and innuendo all the while convincing American's that voting for John Kerry is actually terrorist appeasement.

What a great country.

Democratic response:

Step 1) Start dropping chaff (blinds the ethics radar) "But what about Bush".

Step 2) Launch decoys: "Look at the timing"

Step 3) Open up with flak: "Bush and Cheny are liars, constant distortion, blah blah".

Step 4) Write a memo to cover your ass: "Of course it might be serious".

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
His claim does have some truthfulness at least. Our current President isn't known to admit anything he's done wrong (even when directly asked as an open question, like during the big press conference a few months ago). And you can see here that the left-leaning members of this board all roundly criticized Berger-- practically indicting him. Contrast that to other known instances where something was wrong or totally off the mark: like the failure to find WMD in Iraq, the infamous 16 words in the SOTU, and most aptly for you: the outing of a CIA agent for partisan political gain. That last example constitutes a clear violation of federal law. IIRC, you argued strongly against any wrongdoing from anyone. Northgate wasn't talking about conservatives in general, but merely observing the behavior of conservatives on this board. When you look at past threads, I think he has a great point. I think you both are wrong.

The usual gaggle of libs won't let it go at just a simple condemnation of behavior - you must condemn everything that was ever done (exaggerating for emphasis). Not only that condemnation seems to have to occur long before the actual facts are presented.

I will give you and example:

The usual suspects called me all kinds of names because I would not condemn the army, the US or the president over the Abu Graib scandal. I repeatedly stated that I would wait until all the facts are in. Although ALL of the facts are not yet in, enough are and I will now side with those that say it was wrong and some changes and charges need to be made. I now agree with their argument but not the pervasive knee jerking and blanket condemnations.

Does anyone else see how that works?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
His claim does have some truthfulness at least. Our current President isn't known to admit anything he's done wrong (even when directly asked as an open question, like during the big press conference a few months ago). And you can see here that the left-leaning members of this board all roundly criticized Berger-- practically indicting him. Contrast that to other known instances where something was wrong or totally off the mark: like the failure to find WMD in Iraq, the infamous 16 words in the SOTU, and most aptly for you: the outing of a CIA agent for partisan political gain. That last example constitutes a clear violation of federal law. IIRC, you argued strongly against any wrongdoing from anyone. Northgate wasn't talking about conservatives in general, but merely observing the behavior of conservatives on this board. When you look at past threads, I think he has a great point.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The point is that he is a "true conservative" who is willing to say Berger is a big, fat idiot. (Secret liberal code for being like Rush Limbaugh.;) ) Well this is what you would expect someone who is conservative to do. So that is nothing big. But he is also willing to criticize, more like relentlessly post several topics a day about, how bad all conservatives are at pretty much everything.

Northgate resembles someone with a conservative viewpoint about as much as I resemble a female stripper. He claims to be a conservative so that he can criticize all he wants and not have his motives called into question. I've never seen him take a single conservative position on ANYTHING he has ever posted. Northgate seems left of even you Shawn, yet calls himself a conservative. He can label himself whatever he likes, but his actions define who he is, and what he believes much better.

North can criticize whoever he wants, but the reality is that he should not expect a pass on his motivations just because he attempts to adopt a label.

BTW, you are obviously a bit behind on some of these matters. Especially with regard to the Plame matter. They have presented and shown the memo where Plame recommended her husband go.

Here it is even from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html) so don't have to kill the messenger so to speak.

So it would appear that the "crime" committed in outing her was as claimed, to call Wilson into question, rather than outing his wife. It would also appear that Wilson has had his credibility shredded on several matters and that the White House was fully justified.

Nick

[ShawnJ]

Originally posted by trumptman
Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The point is that he is a "true conservative" who is willing to say Berger is a big, fat idiot. (Secret liberal code for being like Rush Limbaugh.;) ) Well this is what you would expect someone who is conservative to do. So that is nothing big. But he is also willing to criticize, more like relentlessly post several topics a day about, how bad all conservatives are at pretty much everything.

Northgate resembles someone with a conservative viewpoint about as much as I resemble a female stripper. He claims to be a conservative so that he can criticize all he wants and not have his motives called into question. I've never seen him take a single conservative position on ANYTHING he has ever posted. Northgate seems left of even you Shawn, yet calls himself a conservative. He can label himself whatever he likes, but his actions define who he is, and what he believes much better.

North can criticize whoever he wants, but the reality is that he should not expect a pass on his motivations just because he attempts to adopt a label.
Nick

He was referring to the "conservative" fellow members of humanity, not that he, himself, is conservative.

Originally posted by trumptman

BTW, you are obviously a bit behind on some of these matters. Especially with regard to the Plame matter. They have presented and shown the memo where Plame recommended her husband go.

Here it is even from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html) so don't have to kill the messenger so to speak.

So it would appear that the "crime" committed in outing her was as claimed, to call Wilson into question, rather than outing his wife. It would also appear that Wilson has had his credibility shredded on several matters and that the White House was fully justified.

Nick

That has no legal bearing at all. A federal crime was clearly committed and you refuse to even admit it, nevermind hold anyone responsible for it (or speak out against its unknown perpetrators). Northgate's point is proven.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
He was referring to the "conservative" fellow members of humanity, not that he, himself, is conservative.



That has no legal bearing at all. A federal crime was clearly committed and you refuse to even admit it, nevermind hold anyone responsible for it (or speak out against its unknown perpetrators). Northgate's point is proven. You yourself have said the important words - unknown perpetrators - how do you speak out against them. Apparently you condemn the whole administration. Makes sense to someone, I suppose.

[ShawnJ]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You yourself have said the important words - unknown perpetrators - how do you speak out against them. Apparently you condemn the whole administration. Makes sense to someone, I suppose.

Easy.

"Whoever committed this crime deserves punishment according to federal sentencing guidelines."

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Easy.

"Whoever committed this crime deserves punishment according to federal sentencing guidelines." I wouldn't argue with that, anyone else here have a problem with that?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Democratic response:

Step 1) Start dropping chaff (blinds the ethics radar) "But what about Bush".

Step 2) Launch decoys: "Look at the timing"

Step 3) Open up with flak: "Bush and Cheny are liars, constant distortion, blah blah".

Step 4) Write a memo to cover your ass: "Of course it might be serious".


I haven't heard anyone do that.:rolleyes:

He just brought up the point that the conservatives will probably want to use this incident to their advantage ( which you just sort of proved ).

[midwinter]

Originally posted by jimmac
I haven't heard anyone do that.:rolleyes:

He just brought up the point that the conservatives will probably want to use this incident to their advantage ( which you just sort of proved ).

I'm particularly a fan of pointing out that pointing out that something that was used as a distraction is apparently a distraction. From something. Not sure what, since everyone here seems to think Berger is clearly in the wrong.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
He was referring to the "conservative" fellow members of humanity, not that he, himself, is conservative.

That has no legal bearing at all. A federal crime was clearly committed and you refuse to even admit it, nevermind hold anyone responsible for it (or speak out against its unknown perpetrators). Northgate's point is proven.

Try reading the article please.

Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The whole point of the investigation was to prove that the administration intentionally named her and blew her cover. They did this by claiming cronyism and saying that Wilson, was not fit to go, but was recommended by his wife.

Those pushing for the investigation claimed that Wilson had been recommended, and that the charge of cronyism was nothing more than a guise to cover for the fact that they were intentionally naming the wife, blowing her cover, and thus blowing her career.

But the REALITY is that they produced the very memo where Plame recommended her husband.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Also add this...

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

So not only do we have a memo, we have a pattern.

So the point is to be a crime, they had to intentionally know she was an undercover agent. The relationship between Plame and Wilson is clear enough, and she was indeed the person who recommended him. Naming her was simply naming the facts regarding what happened. There was no clear intent to break the law anymore than me saying that your mom made you lunch would be breaking the law.

Nick

[BRussell]

No it doesn't matter if they were saying she recommended him. There's a law against naming her, regardless of the reason. And from what I understand, the CIA itself said she didn't initiate a recommendation of him, but instead they asked her to provide information about him after they decided to ask him to do the job.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
No it doesn't matter if they were saying she recommended him. There's a law against naming her, regardless of the reason. And from what I understand, the CIA itself said she didn't initiate a recommendation of him, but instead they asked her to provide information about him after they decided to ask him to do the job. The law clearly tikes into consideration the intent.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
No it doesn't matter if they were saying she recommended him. There's a law against naming her, regardless of the reason. And from what I understand, the CIA itself said she didn't initiate a recommendation of him, but instead they asked her to provide information about him after they decided to ask him to do the job.

I'll have to disagree with you for now BRussell.

To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

Naming the fact that Plame was Wilson's wife, and the person who recommended him is not the same as intentionally naming her for no other reason than to expose that she was a covert officer.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The law clearly tikes into consideration the intent. You're probably right, but it's still against the law. The sentence might be lighter if the motive was less nefarious. Or it might be "treason in the second degree" rather than "treason in the first degree." But it's still against the law.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
I'll have to disagree with you for now BRussell.



Naming the fact that Plame was Wilson's wife, and the person who recommended him is not the same as intentionally naming her for no other reason than to expose that she was a covert officer.

Nick But clearly it was intentional, regardless of the specific motive for the outing.

Oh, to NaplesX, that reminds me - there's a difference between intent and motive. Intent is required for finding someone guilty, not motive. So I take back my previous post. ;)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
You're probably right, but it's still against the law. The sentence might be lighter if the motive was less nefarious. Or it might be "treason in the second degree" rather than "treason in the first degree." But it's still against the law. Well, my understanding is that in order for it to be a crime, it must be proven that they knew the person was "under cover", and "intent" must be proven that it was for "aid" to the enemy. I think there is another factor that must also be proven. It is one of those things that "it is a crime, if..."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, my understanding is that in order for it to be a crime, it must be proven that they knew the person was "under cover", and "intent" must be proven that it was for "aid" to the enemy. I think there is another factor that must also be proven. It is one of those things that "it is a crime, if..." I'd be interested in seeing the specific law if you know where it is.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
But clearly it was intentional, regardless of the specific motive for the outing.

Oh, to NaplesX, that reminds me - there's a difference between intent and motive. Intent is required for finding someone guilty, not motive. So I take back my previous post. ;) You're right. I think that is the other thing that must also be proven.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be interested in seeing the specific law if you know where it is. I usually bookmark stuff like this but i cannot find it. Damn I will look for a link.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be interested in seeing the specific law if you know where it is. I found it, I bookmarked another article that linked to this:

http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html

I was off but there are some dependancies.

[BRussell]

I just found it myself - here it is in the context of the US Code (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html). Andhere's (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html) what John Dean has to say about it:

The statute also has additional requirements before the leak of the identity of a "covert agent" is deemed criminal. But it appears they are all satisfied here.

First, the leak must be to a person "not authorized to receive classified information." Any journalist - including Novak and Time - plainly fits.

Second, the insider must know that the information being disclosed identifies a "covert agent." In this case, that's obvious, since Novak was told this fact.

Third, the insider must know that the U.S. government is "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." For persons with Top Secret security clearances, that's a no-brainer: They have been briefed, and have signed pledges of secrecy, and it is widely known by senior officials that the CIA goes to great effort to keep the names of its agents secret.

A final requirement relates to the "covert agent" herself. She must either be serving outside the United States, or have served outside the United States in the last five years. It seems very likely that Mrs. Wilson fulfills the latter condition - but the specific facts on this point have not yet been reported.

[ShawnJ]

Now is your chance to help subvert the Northgate Constant, Nick. ;)

[midwinter]

Timing is everything, I suppose. From the WaPo front page a few minutes ago:

http://www.littlemeanfish.com/media/distraction.jpg

Not saying that Berger ought not be taken behind the woodshed or anything, but that now we can stop asking questions about the timing.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I just found it myself - here it is in the context of the US Code (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html). Andhere's (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html) what John Dean has to say about it:

Nice find BRussell!

Now a couple thoughts to ponder. Novak could have been told she was a agency operative without having been told she was covert.

Here is the Novak piece.

Novak (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml)

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Novak, from what I recall, has contended that the administration officials identified that Wilson was recommended by his wife, and simple calls to the CIA led to them identifying his wife, that she works for them, and what she does. By this path, I don't see how a law was broken, but I am willing to listen to what others think on the matter.

Nick

[rok]

i just find it amusing how, every time i hear a politician in front of a microphone castigating berger on this, the phrasing gets more and more leading and laughable. like how this morning someone's using capitol hill podiums to say he "stuffed his trousers." well, whether he did or didn't, those words were chosen to convey all sorts of silly mental images in their wake.

just wait until someone find one of the candidates once said something disparaging towards minority women while drunk 15 years ago at a party. you'll never hear the end of it. and stupid people will eat it up.

[apple_a_day]

Originally posted by rok
i just find it amusing how, every time i hear a politician in front of a microphone castigating berger on this, the phrasing gets more and more leading and laughable. like how this morning someone's using capitol hill podiums to say he "stuffed his trousers." well, whether he did or didn't, those words were chosen to convey all sorts of silly mental images in their wake.

just wait until someone find one of the candidates once said something disparaging towards minority women while drunk 15 years ago at a party. you'll never hear the end of it. and stupid people will eat it up. Honestly, I, and most other conservatives don't care if they were in his sock, pants, shirt, or breifcase, the fact is he broke the law, ht took something that was so highly classified that mere notes about it couldn't leave the room and walzed out of the building with it.

Where in hell was the security, hell, going into or out of a local courthouse in this area, after 9/11/01 requiers all kinds of searches of your person, I would think that the National Archive would check everyone who reads classified documents before leaving.

THere are two looming questions:
Where are the "lost" documents? One doesn't just "loose" a memo like that.
So what was in it that he was hideing?

[faust9]

I find it ironic that NaplesX espouses the "Lets just wait and see" dogma for incidents concerning Bush and his administration of lackies. But here, NaplesX pounced on this story and immediatly assigned a level of guilt. Where's the "Fair and Balanced" approach to this story Naples? Ahhh, it went the way of partisan politics I see.

Anywho, it appears there was no pant or sock stuffing as the initial stories indicated. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/21/berger.probe/index.html

Does it even appear reasonable that someone would stuff documents (which if they are controlled like top secret military documents they need to be signed out) such as these down pants and socks? Not only no but F&*K no. Additionally, I got a giggle from this: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/21/04858.shtml

Too funny. Lawmen saw Berger do it but said or did nothing in response... Riiiight.

While I feel control of Top Secret documentation (or any docs from confidential to top secret) is of paramount importance and lose of control of said docs needs to be addressed. I also feel this fiasco was engineered. If Berger broke the law then he should pay; however, incidents such as this for lesser individuals usually results in loss of clearance and/or loss of job.

You people should be more concerned that Los Alamos lost information concerning nuclear weapons testing(last week it was announced) than this little flap.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
I find it ironic that NaplesX espouses the "Lets just wait and see" dogma for incidents concerning Bush and his administration of lackies. But here, NaplesX pounced on this story and immediatly assigned a level of guilt. Where's the "Fair and Balanced" approach to this story Naples? Ahhh, it went the way of partisan politics I see.

Anywho, it appears there was no pant or sock stuffing as the initial stories indicated. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/21/berger.probe/index.html

Does it even appear reasonable that someone would stuff documents (which if they are controlled like top secret military documents they need to be signed out) such as these down pants and socks? Not only no but F&*K no. Additionally, I got a giggle from this: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/21/04858.shtml

Too funny. Lawmen saw Berger do it but said or did nothing in response... Riiiight.

While I feel control of Top Secret documentation (or any docs from confidential to top secret) is of paramount importance and lose of control of said docs needs to be addressed. I also feel this fiasco was engineered. If Berger broke the law then he should pay; however, incidents such as this for lesser individuals usually results in loss of clearance and/or loss of job.

You people should be more concerned that Los Alamos lost information concerning nuclear weapons testing(last week it was announced) than this little flap. I said he was busted, read it a little slower if you have to.

There are witnesses that say he was hiding documents in his cloths. So I think that you are wrong there, and besides that there is enough info out there right now to say that he is, at least, in trouble. And the investigation has been ongoing for 6 plus months. Come on.

Duh, of course he is going to say he didn't do it!

[faust9]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I said he was busted, read it a little slower if you have to.

There are witnesses that say he was hiding documents in his cloths. So I think that you are wrong there, and besides that there is enough info out there right now to say that he is, at least, in trouble. And the investigation has been ongoing for 6 plus months. Come on.

Duh, of course he is going to say he didn't do it!

Perhaps you should practice what you preach about reading slower...

By a show of hands who here would categorize using the term "Busted" as assigning a level of guilt

http://www.lauralengyel.com/assets/images/show_of_hands.jpg

Naples I shouldn't (and am not going to) have to trudge through countless threads where there was overwhelming evidence against a Bush policy yet you argued restraint and patience while here you immediately jumped on the story. Pictures of Abu Graib---Lets wait and see. Witnesses telling us they saw Berger, yet didn't stop him, stuffing documents which in all likely hood where controlled via signature and a check in/out procedure and you pounce. As a friend of mine used to chime "I'm just say'n..."

Finally, what does the length of investigation have to do with anything other than the fact that the leak coincides with the release of a paper supposedly critical of Bush, and Clinton?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
Perhaps you should practice what you preach about reading slower...

By a show of hands who here would categorize using the term "Busted" as assigning a level of guilt

http://www.lauralengyel.com/assets/images/show_of_hands.jpg

Naples I shouldn't (and am not going to) have to trudge through countless threads where there was overwhelming evidence against a Bush policy yet you argued restraint and patience while here you immediately jumped on the story. Pictures of Abu Graib---Lets wait and see. Witnesses telling us they saw Berger, yet didn't stop him, stuffing documents which in all likely hood where controlled via signature and a check in/out procedure and you pounce. As a friend of mine used to chime "I'm just say'n..."

Finally, what does the length of investigation have to do with anything other than the fact that the leak coincides with the release of a paper supposedly critical of Bush, and Clinton? No offense, but you are just being a baby.

When a bank robber is caught running to mexico, he is "busted". When a baseball star is caught with steroids in his blood after his piss test, he is "busted". When a politician is found to have had a mistress, he is "busted". And conversely when a public servant is found to have "accidentally" stuffed top secret documents in his BVD's and then taken them off site, MULTIPLE TIMES. I would say he is "busted". Wouldn't you?

Guilt will have to be proven in a court, either way.

EDIT: Oh yeah, there are still documents missing.

[dmz]

I dunno about you guys, but whenever I enter and leave a Secure Information Area, where I'm required to leave all recordin(ed/ing) material before entering and leaving---I always have trouble keeping that Top Secret stuff from following me home.


It's crazy, one minute your reading intel under heavy guard, the next I'm at home hunched over the shredder.


Oh Well.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
You people should be more concerned that Los Alamos lost information concerning nuclear weapons testing(last week it was announced) than this little flap. That might want to start looking in Berger's briefs. :lol:

Just a thought.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by dmz
I dunno about you guys, but whenever I enter and leave a Secure Information Area, where I'm required to leave all recordin(ed/ing) material before entering and leaving---I always have trouble keeping that Top Secret stuff from following me home.


It's crazy, one minute your reading intel under heavy guard, the next I'm at home hunched over the shredder.


Oh Well. yeah I know.

Don't you hate that when you go to the bathroom, a file folder falls out on the floor, every time.

It least you don't have to worry about TP.

It is amazing how hard it is to keep those papers out of your socks and underwear.

[giant]

Originally posted by faust9
Too funny. Lawmen saw Berger do it but said or did nothing in response... Riiiight.
Very good point, and that's the first thing that came to mind. Any sort of rare or sensitive documents are tightly controlled, and the whole point of having the collection staffed is for security and preservation of the documents. As such, the story makes no sense and is likely just a political smear.

All in all, there's obviously a few key things we don't know about it and that's why the story seems so odd.

Personally, I'd be curious to know the details of the control system in place for secret or classified documents. The other question I have is whether any of these documents were one of a kind or if they were just copies as is widely reported. It would be impossible to make a case that he was trying to hide anything if these were just copies or if, like I assume is the case with the review of millenium counter-terrorism procedures, the Archives isn't the only place that has it.

[giant]

Here's (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/20/wbr.01.html) what Berger's lawyer has to say about it:
BLITZER: Brian Todd, thanks very much for that report. Samuel Berger is represented by another White House veteran. Lanny Breuer was a special counsel to President Clinton in the White House, a one- time federal prosecutor. He is now a prominent defense attorney specializing in white-collar cases. Lanny Breuer joining us now live.

Lanny, thanks very much for joining us. This goes back to the fall when these allegations were made, right?

LANNY BREUER, BERGER'S ATTORNEY: That's exactly right, Wolf. This matter is now over a year old. Sandy Berger reviewed documents in the Archives in July and September and October of 2003. And from October 2003, the first time that Sandy was notified that this one document was missing, we've been 100 percent open, returned the two documents that were in Sandy's possession immediately and have tried to have a very open and informed discussion with the Department of Justice.

BLITZER: But Sandy Berger knew the rules when he went there. He's not just anyone. He's not an academic. He's a former national security adviser. A, he knew you don't take documents out of the National Archives, and, B, he knew if you took notes you have to get clearance to get permission to remove those notes from those rooms.

BREUER: Well, see -- let's first talk, Wolf, about the notes. The notes have just never been an issue in this case. The Department of Justice has told me those notes have not been an issue in this case. He took notes and the reason he took notes was Sandy had read and reviewed thousands upon thousands of documents. I'm not sure there's another American of Sandy's stature who spent more time selflessly reviewing documents so that he could answer all of the questions of the 9/11 commission.

BLITZER: Let's talk about those notes for a second. Did he take notes -- did he take those notes from the room without authorization?

BREUER: He took notes and he did take them out. It's a violation of the Archives procedure. He took those notes. From the very beginning, he openly took the notes. He was allowed to take notes. And then he took the notes with him. He put them in his coat pocket and in his pants pocket...

BLITZER: He knew this was not authorized.

BREUER: Well, he knew it was a violation of Archives procedure. It's not against the law. No one has suggested to him it's against the law. The Department of Justice has not been concerned with it. And indeed, Wolf, in October, when the Archives contacted him, Sandy Berger returned those notes even though he wasn't asked for those notes.

BLITZER: I know Sandy Berger. You know Sandy Berger. Why would he violate Archives procedure?

BREUER: Because there's something more important than Archives procedure and that's the hard work of the 9/11 commission. Sandy Berger knew that he was going to be asked questions about what happened in the early '90s and mid '90s and that the 9/11 commission and the families of those victims had a right to know what happened.

BLITZER: Why didn't he ask for authorization, for permission? They would have given him permission to take that out of there.

BREUER: Wolf, we've admitted and Sandy has acknowledged from the beginning it was a mistake of judgment. There is no surprise here. We've acknowledged that mistake in judgment in October. And everyone... BLITZER: Did he panic? Is that it?

BREUER: It wasn't panic at all. It wasn't considered to him that big a deal to take the notes. Clearly, the Department of Justice, in every discussion they've had with me, have made it clear that that was not a focus of this matter.

And you know why he did it? So that he could fully answer the questions of the commission and better students of foreign policy than me have uniformly said that Berger's answers were thoughtful and complete and very much (UNINTELLIGIBLE) this hard work and it was those notes that helped him do it.

BLITZER: All right. The notes are one thing. Much more serious is the classified document. This is a highly sensitive document. I don't know what -- if it's code word or top secret or a compartmental, secure -- whatever the classification is, he knew he should not take that document out of that room.

BREUER: Well, let's talk about that document. That's a document that Dick Clarke authored because Sandy Berger asked him to do it.

BLITZER: Dick Clarke was the White House counterterrorism czar, if you will.

BREUER: Exactly. And at the time of the millennium in 2000, if you remember, there were lots of threats about terrorism. And the White House and the United States addressed those concerns. And most people look at the time of January 1, 2000 as a time that we can be proud of. We thwarted terrorist cells. Berger was the national security adviser and he was very proud of what they did. But he didn't just rest on his laurels. He said to Clarke, "I want you to take a hard look. Tell us what we did right and tell us what we didn't do right." And to Clarke's credit, he did it. To Berger's credit he asked him to do it.

Now with respect to what this document is about, it is widely known. Its existence is widely known. It's written about in books and in magazines.

BLITZER: So why did he have to take it out of that room?

BREUER: That he did it inadvertently.

BLITZER: What is inadvertently?

BREUER: Let me tell you what happened.

BLITZER: Sandy Berger doesn't do things inadvertently.

BREUER: Well, wait a minute. Sandy Berger had been reviewing thousands and thousands of pages of classified documents. He did it so that he could give informed answers to the 9/11 commission. And so the very documents that have formed the basis of their report could be produced. He did that by himself because no one else could do it or would do it. So he has a table. He's working openly. There are Archives people there and there are thousands of documents. And in the course of his review it was clear to everyone he had a leather portfolio. He brought it in openly. The Archives people knew it. And anyone who has works with Sandy knows he always has that leather portfolio and there were lots of business papers that have nothing at all to do with this commission.

And perhaps, Wolf, there was too much informality by Sandy and maybe too much informality by the Archives people. But at some point when he leaves, the memorandum got caught with his business papers and he walked out. It was inadvertent. He admitted the mistake...

BLITZER: Was that document -- that sensitive classified document was in his little briefcase?

BREUER: It wasn't a briefcase. It was a leather portfolio. And to highlight it, all of the documents that he was reviewing on those three days were highly classified. This was a longer document. He had put it aside to look at it more. But it's unfair to suggest that that document was more classified or sensitive than all of the other things he saw.

BLITZER: You know that eyewitnesses, staffers at the National Archives say they saw him stuffing documents in his jacket, in his pants. And one even said he saw Sandy Berger put something in his socks.

BREUER: And you know that's categorically false and ridiculous. Wolf, I have now represented Sandy in this matter since October. Since that time I've tried to have responsible discussions with the government. And I said I didn't want it to be vetted in the press, I didn't want this to be political.

We wanted to treat this as a serious matter. Not once in all the time I've represented Sandy has that allegation been made. But suddenly today or yesterday right at the eve of the 9/11 commission report suddenly these ridiculous allegations are being made. It's false and it didn't happen.

BLITZER: Where is -- where does the criminal probe right now stand? You've been informed that your client, Samuel Berger, is under criminal investigation.

BREUER: I've been told since October that he was no more than a subject of this investigation. I was told to draw absolutely no negative inferences whatsoever from the fact that this investigation had been going on. I've been told by the Department of Justice that they couldn't be more pleased with the manner in which Sandy Berger and I have been handling this and have been cooperative. And I've been told that the Department of Justice had wanted to get this resolved.

The only thing that I had asked was that this not become a partisan affair and that people who didn't understand the facts would start making assertions. And, Wolf, that's exactly what happened this week when someone in the administration, some law enforcement person decided it was time to leak the document and treat this investigation not seriously.

BLITZER: But you understand why people are skeptical of this story given the fact that this document that's missing was very critical presumably of the Clinton administration. It's a very sensitive document and that people saw him doing suspicious things in there.

BREUER: I think people should ask Dick Clarke what he thinks about the document. That's a document that Sandy Berger is proud of. First of all it's been widely discussed. Second of all, much of that document talks about all of the successes. And I think people who know Sandy Berger know it speaks volumes that Berger would ask to have this kind of a document written.

BLITZER: How is it possible that this document so sensitive, which he took home, took to his office at his home, presumably, disappeared?

BREUER: Well, what happened here was that he took the copies that got somehow entangled with his other documents. He didn't realize it. And if you've covered the White House and I know you have, Wolf, you know there are a couple of things about Sandy. He's a workaholic. He's a great patriot. He's selfless but he's not the most organized people.

He was reviewing by himself thousands of documents at the request of the government. He was doing it alone. It was hard work. And at some point in the course of the days, that document got enmeshed. Those documents got enmeshed. All of the documents Sandy Berger looked at were secure, were code word. The notion that this is the only one is ridiculous. It was not more sensitive than the other documents and he had been reviewing documents for three days for many hours.

BLITZER: The suspicion is and it's simply a suspicion that he deliberately threw away that document or shredded it or destroyed it because he feared if it was in his possession he would be in violation of some sort of law.

BREUER: Wolf, I think the only people who are making that allegation are people who today are going on TV and on radio and are trying to spin this in a political firestorm. Not once has the Department of Justice made that allegation. It is categorically false. Anyone who knows Sandy, who knows every ounce of Sandy Berger is that of a great patriot and it's sad that today people are making these kinds of assertions.

The minute he was told that that document was missing -- and that was in October, wolf, it wasn't before -- he immediately searches his home. He searches his office. He finds the two documents. He contacts the Archives. He returns those two documents. He returns the notes that the government didn't even ask him about. We do a search and find no more. And three months later when the FBI decides to get involved they do find nothing more.

BLITZER: The case is still open, right?

BREUER: We understand it's open. It was in status quo. We had every reason to believe it was going to get resolved in a very favorable way until yesterday it was leaked to the press.

BLITZER: What is Sandy Berger's relationship with the John Kerry campaign right now?

BREUER: My understanding is that as of now he has given up his role as an informal adviser on foreign policy. He's done that because he believes that the work of the 9/11 commission is too important to allow this matter to be in any way a distraction either to the 9/11 commission or to the Kerry campaign.

BLITZER: We just got a statement from John Kerry. Let me read it to our viewers. "Sandy Berger is my friend and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction. I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to the campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly."

Any idea when this is going to be resolved?

BREUER: You know, I've been hoping that this was going to get resolved for a long time and had reason to believe it. I had asked the Department of Justice that we deal with this in a professional manner. And my only hope was that this manner not be leaked at some time such as right before the 9/11 report.

Wolf, time and again I was assured by the prosecutors that something like that would not happen. And then what happened yesterday? After handling this matter since October, a matter that's almost a year old, Sandy Berger first went to the Archives over a year ago. Suddenly someone decided it was in their political interest to leak this.

BLITZER: But just to be precise when he took that classified document out of the room he knew he was doing wrong?

BREUER: No. He removed that classified document inadvertently. He did not know he was removing the millennium action...

BLITZER: It was just stuck in some other documents?

BREUER: It was just stuck in. We've always said that he took the notes and he took those notes on purpose and he knew he had them but he did not take that memo. He had the portfolio. The Archives people knew it. They were with him. And it was an innocent mistake that had happened.

In fact, the Archives people were there. And people today who are suggesting differently are suggesting it in the public for the first time and certainly have been told things that I have never once been told by the Department of Justice.

BLITZER: Lanny Breuer is representing Samuel Berger. Thanks for joining us.

BREUER: Wolf, it's always a pleasure. Thank you.
So far, we have one expanation that doesn't make any sense, stuffing documents into socks, and one that does make sense, inadvertent mistake.

[midwinter]

For some reason, I just don't think this Berger story is going to have the kind of traction the admin hoped....

From the NY Times at 11:07 MT:

http://homepage.mac.com/scottrogers_/distraction2.jpg

I love the last story. The GOP playbook at the moment seems to consist of two things: 1) Kerry is French and Edwards is a blood sucking lawyer and 2) Blame Clinton.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Conservative brothers... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

That must be under the one drop conservative law...:rolleyes:

Nick

MODS! MODS! Trumptman's being mean to me. MODS! You better send him an email asking him to play nice or else.

MODS?

Anybody there?

:lol:

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The point is that he is a "true conservative" who is willing to say Berger is a big, fat idiot. (Secret liberal code for being like Rush Limbaugh.;) ) Well this is what you would expect someone who is conservative to do. So that is nothing big. But he is also willing to criticize, more like relentlessly post several topics a day about, how bad all conservatives are at pretty much everything.

Northgate resembles someone with a conservative viewpoint about as much as I resemble a female stripper. He claims to be a conservative so that he can criticize all he wants and not have his motives called into question. I've never seen him take a single conservative position on ANYTHING he has ever posted. Northgate seems left of even you Shawn, yet calls himself a conservative. He can label himself whatever he likes, but his actions define who he is, and what he believes much better.

North can criticize whoever he wants, but the reality is that he should not expect a pass on his motivations just because he attempts to adopt a label.

BTW, you are obviously a bit behind on some of these matters. Especially with regard to the Plame matter. They have presented and shown the memo where Plame recommended her husband go.

Here it is even from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html) so don't have to kill the messenger so to speak.

So it would appear that the "crime" committed in outing her was as claimed, to call Wilson into question, rather than outing his wife. It would also appear that Wilson has had his credibility shredded on several matters and that the White House was fully justified.

Nick

Of course what I meant by "brothers" was those folks I like to argue with on these boards. Some of these folks are my "liberal" brothers. The other folks are my "conservative" brothers.

But, hey, continue with rant!

:lol:

[rageous]

Originally posted by giant
So far, we have one expanation that doesn't make any sense, stuffing documents into socks, and one that does make sense, inadvertent mistake.

No, we have two explanations that make no sense.

The stuffing into the pants and socks seems to be a ridiculous exaggeration. Coupled with the timing of the release of information regarding this investigation, eyebrows should be raised a bit.

Additionally, it seems equally odd someone would a) accidently remove these documents and b) accidently destroy said documents which were undoubtedly marked to signify their status as secret or classified.

Who in their right mind looks at classified documents and says to themselves "this doesn't look familiar..." then simply shreds them?

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
Additionally, it seems equally odd someone would a) accidently remove these documents and b) accidently destroy said documents which were undoubtedly marked to signify their status as secret or classified.
As someone whose career is in libraries and previously worked with restricted materials, it doesn't seem that odd to me. I have no idea what really happened there, but the explanation by Berger's lawyer is not off the wall like the story being repeated that he was stuffing classified documents in his socks.

But, like I said:
there's obviously a few key things we don't know about it and that's why the story seems so odd.

Personally, I'd be curious to know the details of the control system in place for secret or classified documents. The other question I have is whether any of these documents were one of a kind or if they were just copies as is widely reported. It would be impossible to make a case that he was trying to hide anything if these were just copies or if, like I assume is the case with the review of millenium counter-terrorism procedures, the Archives isn't the only place that has it.

People aren't machines and they make mistakes. I'd love to know what his motive would be if this was intentional. Berger didn't get to where he is by being totally insane, so the motive would have to be rational.

[edit: I see that it's being widely reported that the documents were indeed just copies]

[pfflam]

Originally posted by rageous
No, we have two explanations that make no sense.

The stuffing into the pants and socks seems to be a ridiculous exaggeration. Coupled with the timing of the release of information regarding this investigation, eyebrows should be raised a bit.

Additionally, it seems equally odd someone would a) accidently remove these documents and b) accidently destroy said documents which were undoubtedly marked to signify their status as secret or classified.

Who in their right mind looks at classified documents and says to themselves "this doesn't look familiar..." then simply shreds them? I'll admit that I am not following this story too closely . . . did he actually destroy the documents?

and . . . would somebody answer this if they can? were they copies of documents or originals?

and
What the hell was on the documents that could in any way be incriminating?

One thing I will say, with all the ease of scepticism and argument here, to have to watch FOX news while working out, and to see the SHAMELESS way that they directly relate this to Kerry is sickening i find it incredible that they can be so obviouse and yet still be so popular . . . they literally are saying that Kerry was the final recipient of these documents . . and directly implying that he ordered this to go down!!!
How can they get away with the constant Bias?!?!?!?

Luckily they are getting sued by several organizations with regard to the inaccuracy of their "fair and Balanced" moniker.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
I'll admit that I am not following this story too closely . . . did he actually destroy the documents?

and . . . would somebody answer this if they can? were they copies of documents or originals?

and
What the hell was on the documents that could in any way be incriminating?

One thing I will say, with all the ease of scepticism and argument here, to have to watch FOX news while working out, and to see the SHAMELESS way that they directly relate this to Kerry is sickening i find it incredible that they can be so obviouse and yet still be so popular . . . they literally are saying that Kerry was the final recipient of these documents . . and directly implying that he ordered this to go down!!!
How can they get away with the constant Bias?!?!?!?

Luckily they are getting sued by several organizations with regard to the inaccuracy of their "fair and Balanced" moniker. I have been watching this story on FOX from the beginning, and they have never stated what you assert in your last post. How can YOU say blatant falsehoods.

If memory serves, they were asking what could the reasons be for such a screw-up. The speculated on reasons, and they asked weather or not Kerry could have been involved. All reasonable questions. However, I do not remember them ever stating these things as fact.

You're not serious are you?

[Randycat99]

Yes, I agree that I have not heard FNC say things of this nature (unless it has all been today). What I have heard is that the timing of the event would be such that the Kerry campaign would not have anything to gain from the incident.

[Northgate]

THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW....Tom Davis is the Republican chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. Among other things, this means he's the point man for congressional investigations of governmental misdeeds.

Here is Tom Davis on his plans to open an investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, which was first exposed by David Corn on July 16, 2003:

July 17, 2003: Nothing.

October 3, 2003: "I know [John] Ashcroft very well, and I'm sure he'll go by the book." Um, OK. Nonetheless, he also said he was "gearing up" to lead an investigation of the matter. "It's our obligation to do so. This is something we can't tolerate."

January 23, 2004: "If they don't find it, we will. It will be looked at and second-guessed. It's a troubling and serious violation." But we'll still wait on gearing up that investigation.

July 21, 2004: Still gearing up. No investigation yet.

Two days ago, on July 19, 2004, AP reported that former NSA Sandy Berger had removed some classified documents from the National Archives and is the subject of an active FBI investigation. How does Davis feel about this?

July 21, 2004: Congress has "a constitutional responsibility to find out what happened and why. At best, we're looking at tremendously irresponsible handling of highly classified information." An investigation is underway.

Hey! Tom Davis can move mighty quickly when he puts his mind to it! I wonder what the difference between these two cases is?

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who has been equally sanguine about the FBI's ability to investigate the Plame case, is also deeply concerned (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003183).

From the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004350.php)

[Northgate]

What he (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003189) says:

The one thing I'm certain about in this Berger matter is that I really wish the folks investigating his case were investigating the Plame case because if that investigation leaked as much as this one does my life over the last year would have been quite a bit easier.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3602929
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html
http://cnn.law.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Federal+probe+targets+Clinton%27s+national+securi ty+adviser+-+Jul+20%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=11058358&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FLAW%2F07%2F2 0%2Fberger.probe%2Findex.html&partnerID=2013
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=134-07202004
http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/07200002aaa00bce.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News

Busted!

Cleared of all wrongdoing (http://www.kyw1060.com/news_story_detail.cfm?newsitemid=39459)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by midwinter
Cleared of all wrongdoing (http://www.kyw1060.com/news_story_detail.cfm?newsitemid=39459) Hmm, that's an odd headline. I'd like to see the WSJ article, but did the Justice Department really come out and say they aren't going to prosecute him? If so, that's big news, but this little article doesn't quite say that. It says they had access to all the documents. But we've known that from the beginning, because that's what the 9/11 commission has always said. But it's still illegal to remove copies of documents, from what I understand.

In any case, I'm guessing the "cleared of all wrongdoing" was an incorrect statement.

[pfflam]

Just to follow up on Berger being 'Cleared of All Wrongdoing' and the Right leaning media's take on it:

Sandy Berger cleared. But shhh! It's a media secret

How quickly the press forgets. Just two weeks ago the cable news channels were flooded with anxious chatter over news that President Clinton's national security advisor Sandy Berger was under investigation for improperly removing classified terrorism documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives during preparations for this year's Sept. 11 commission hearings. The Beltway's biggest mini-scandal of the season, the episode was fanned by partisan Republican charges, launched by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, that Berger may have been trying to hide embarrassing information from the 9/11 commission. At the time, Democrats noted news of the investigation, which had begun nine months earlier, was leaked to the press just two days before the release of the 9/11 commission, which was expected to be critical of the Bush administration's handling of some anti-terrorism and intelligence measures.

Last Friday the Wall Street Journal uncovered some actual news and shot down a key flank of the Republican talking points on the Berger controversy. The paper reported that National Archive officials looking into the Berger affair had determined "no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks." The Journal report continued, "Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. 'We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw,' and 'nothing was missing,' he said."

The Department of Justice is still investigating the fact that Berger breached policy by removing copies of a classified "after-action report" that he had ordered to study the Clinton administration's handling of terrorist threats at the time of the millennium. Berger, who admitted the removal and returned some copies after being contacted by government officials, has said it was unintentional.

But if you think the press rushed in to follow-up the Journal's report about Berger being cleared by the 9/11 commission, guess again; the press' subsequent silence has been deafening. "Ever since they invented ink and paper, charges have got more space than the truth," says Joe Lockhart, the former Clinton press secretary who has been acting as Berger's spokesman. "Am I disappointed more people haven't picked this up? Yes. Am I surprised? Absolutely not." Not one major newspaper, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, or Washington Post, has reported on the Journal's 9/11 commission findings. And in the four days since the Journal report, CNN has aired just 6 very brief mentions of the development. None of CNN's reports lasted more than 60 seconds, and none involved CNN interviewing experts to get their take on the news. Stitched together the six mentions totaled maybe four minutes of TV time. Compare that to two weeks ago when the Berger story was first leaked and CNN aired more than 40 in-depth segments, covering hours and hours of airtime.

Then again, CNN's six mentions is five more than the NBC/MSNBC/CNBC news team has managed to date. That, compared to the 22 Berger segments it ran. Fox News has not reported the Journal's finding, despite the fact it ran more than a dozen Berger stories/segments two weeks ago.


From HERE (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html)

[Northgate]

God I wish there truly were a liberal media. My side of the political divide could really use a little objectivity, a little fairness, and equal vetting on both sides right about now.

Hey, did any one know Tom DeLay is in a world of hurt? No? Neither does anybody else.

Hey, did you know Sandy Berger made copies of documents and "allegedly" stuffed them in his pants? A big yes? So does anyone know he was cleared of any wrong doing? Chirp chirp.

Yup. That's my SCLM hard at work.