Clinton Aide Berger Is Subject of Criminal Probe [Another Clinton Cover Up?]

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | July 20, 2004 | CARLA ANNE ROBBINS

[Brilliant]

WASHINGTON -- President Clinton's national security adviser is the subject of a criminal investigation after he removed from a secure reading room at the National Archives classified documents related to the 9/11 investigation, federal officials said. A lawyer for Samuel Berger said last night that on two occasions, while reviewing hundreds of documents in preparation for the 9/11 Commission's investigation, his client inadvertently removed several copies of an after-action report assessing the effectiveness of the Clinton administration's counterterrorism efforts during the run up to the 2000 millennium celebrations. Lanny Breuer, Mr. Berger's lawyer, also said that Mr. Berger had intentionally removed handwritten notes that he had taken during three separate visits to the Archives last fall to review classified documents. Mr. Breuer said removing those notes was a violation of National Archives policy, and that Mr. Berger regretted the action. "He knew it was a technical violation, and he admits that it was an error in judgment." In a statement last night Mr. Berger said, "I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but 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." A Justice Department official last night said that the after-action report was highly critical of the millennium efforts and said that luck played a major role in preventing several terrorism attacks in the U.S. in 1999, including the arrest of would-be bomber Ahmed Ressam as he tried to enter the U.S. from Canada. That report went on to say there were glaring weaknesses in the efforts, and the actions taken shouldn't be used as an operating model for the government, the official said......"

[Brilliant]

His claim of inadvertance is too far-fetched to be taken seriously. He did it on purpose. And why WOULD he do it on purpose? The obvious answer is that he was trying to cover up facts that were embarrassing to himself and to Clinton. I would not be surprised if there were a whole lot more documents he lifted, and perhaps we should also see if he planted documents. These Clinton revisionists will stop at nothing.

[Diogenesis]

Sandy Burglar: "Sorry, Brilliant. Not just embarrasing.
I inadvertantly stole and unintentionally destroyed the documents pertaining to US security
for a very important reason: To protect the myself, the Clintons and our "Mistress of Cover-Up" Gorelick.
Which documents to steal, you ask? Documents showing incremental changes in the "facts" as they were changed over time.
Why steal them, you ask? Well, because I could.
I finally got my own copy of Gorelick's book "Destruction of Evidence"."

[uncbob]

Soon to be covered extensively by Brokaw Rather and Jennings

I ain't holdin my breath

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Will we never be rid of these vermin?

[cripplecreek]

"Soon to be covered extensively by Brokaw Rather and Jennings"


Yeah, I see Joe Wilson was on CNN again this morning explaining that he didn't lie.

[Tom Bombadil]

his client inadvertently removed

And inadvertently placed them in his pocket. And inadvertently found them in said pocket when he got home.

Bill Clinton inadvertently got a BJ.

What a joke these people are.

[gunnygail]

Bill Clinton inadvertently got a BJ...

He claims it was not his fault. He was walking, tripped, and his crank went into Monica's gaping maw.

[rhombus]

This is the first article I have seen where he put documents in his "pants pocket". Initial articles just said pants. We should be careful not to overplay our hand here... it is being stated that he stuffed documents down his pants. Of course this is no way lets this guy off the hook but we will be accused of smear and distortion if we don't get our facts straight. Taking documents is guilty enough and if Berger is so stupid and so guilty as to rely on a "sloppiness" argument the reasoning naturally follows that such sloppiness is indicative of the Clinton administration's approach to terrorists which contributed to 9/11.

[TexasNative2000]

"He knew it was a technical violation, and he admits that it was an error in judgment."

In other words, he knowingly perpetrated a felony.

[RedEyeJack]

Can you imagine the orgasms the press would be having if Condi Rice was caught red-handed doing something like this?

[Just mythoughts]

Could it be that Richard Clarke needed these documents to fill in the blanks in that book he was writing during this time frame?

WHO leaked this story?

[forktail]

Good Lord can you imagine the Frothing and Gnashing of teeth this would create if Condi Rice did this... OMFG.

[muawiyah]

If we're going to do this right we will have to caption the pictures correctly:

 

Would You Buy A Used
Car From This Man?

[gunnygail]

Hanoi John admits to killing a wounded VC who was NOT resisting anymore and that falls under misconduct in combat as well as murder under the UCMJ. In addition, he violated the Geneva Convention concerning the Law of Land Warfare. Of course, being a rich Brahmin from Boston, he is exmept from such pesky laws.

[muawiyah]

Like stuffing papers down Sandy Berger's pants?

Heaven forfend! Condi would never do that.....

[Snowy]

bump

[MiddleVillager]

Maybe Hillary's DNA are on the files, and Bergermeister was only trying to help!

[Brilliant]

Indeed... Unfortunately, the auto-excerpter did its job and omitted the paragraphs, though got the story itself in its entirety.

[TBall]

"Can you imagine the orgasms the press would be having if Condi Rice was caught red-handed doing something like this?" The media outrage would be enormous. It would dwarf the prison abuse scandal if that is even possible.