Posted on 07/20/2004 11:06:11 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
WASHINGTON, July 20 — President Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. Berger, inadvertently removed classified national security documents from the National Archives while vetting them in preparation for testimony before the Sept. 11 commission, his lawyers said Monday night. The revelation caused political fallout whose importance was not clear today.
Mr. Berger removed at least two slightly different versions of a memo critiquing how the government handled national intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebration in December 1999, as well as personal notes he had taken on classified documents, according to one of Mr. Berger's lawyers, Lanny Breuer.
"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 9/11 Commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Mr. Berger said in a statement Monday night. "I also took my notes on the documents reviewed. When I was informed by the Archives there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had, except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded."
Mr. Berger said he "deeply regret [sic] the sloppiness involved" and that he did not intend to keep any document from the commission. The investigation and Mr. Berger's statement were first reported by The Associated Press. All of the documents and notes were returned by Mr. Berger to the archives in early October, within a week of his learning they were missing, his lawyers said.
"I think it's clear from his actions that he absolutely no intention to hide anything," Mr. Breuer said on Monday night.
Nevertheless, Mr. Berger's actions could have ripple effects. For one thing, he has been an adviser to Senator John Kerry, President's Bush's presumptive Democrat opponent. Then, too, the disclosure that the documents were mishandled comes just before the Sept. 11 commission is to release its long-awaited report. A spokesman for the commission, Al Felzenberg, told The Associated Press today that Mr. Berger's actions would have no effect on the work of the panel, which Mr. Felzenberg said had had access to all the materials it needed.
--snip--
Mr. Berger is the subject of a criminal investigation, not the target of one. The distinction is crucial. A subject is a person whose activities are of interest to investigators; a target is a person who might be charged with actual wrongdoing.
Mr. Berger's lawyer, Mr. Breuer, sought on Monday night to retrace the events.
In June 2003, Mr. Berger was asked by a representative of the Clinton administration to examine the documents at the Archives to confirm that none of the material was privileged, Mr. Breuer said.
Mr. Berger's security clearance and his familiarity with the material made him the logical choice to review the documents, his lawyers said. Still, his lawyers said, Mr. Berger saw only copies. "Nothing he saw was an original," Mr. Breuer said.
For Mr. Berger, the review meant an opportunity to reacquaint himself with a document that he had asked Richard C, Clarke, then the counterterrorism chief, to prepare shortly after intelligence officials uncovered and prevented Al Qaeda terror plots to be unleashed during the January 2000 celebrations.
While reviewing one copy of the document in September and another in October, Mr. Berger noticed a slight difference and examined the two more closely, his lawyers said. Then, they said, he inadvertently packed them away and brought them home. It is possible that Mr. Berger repeated the mistake with more versions of the document.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If you have sourcing on the underwear component of the story, I (and others, probably) would appreciate a link. I've seen the socks reference, but in his freakin' drawers? Gotta have that link.
He was apparently caught on video tape.
What a dork: In charge of National Security for Clinton, and unable to live up to Pink Panther's standards of operational security.
Well see if the NY Times covers the Bergler underwear story as much as the covered the Abu Garbage underwear story.
You really wanna see this guy with bulging underwear? ;-)
It's WATERGATE! What did CLINTON know, when did he know it, and how much of it got shredded/lost? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is too serious to brush off. I don't think the dems can spin this one.
I'd be laughing like a loon at Mr. Paper Pants!
Halliburton and John Ashcroft made him do it.
If he stuffed the documents down the back of his drawers they might also have some..errr - shall we say DNA evidence.. :)
That was a very tiny article based only on the AP report that came out last night. This article is updated and much more extensive, and includes some original reporting, plus obnoxious quotes from David Gergen, Joe Lieberman, and Trent Lott. Not to mention the editorial comments in the very first paragraph!
I do think it is significant that at least the NYT realized this story was too important just to throw out an AP report on page 17. But it remains to be seen whether it will get coverage tomorrow in the print edition. The way Drudge is going crazy over it today, they will probably have to cover it for at least one more day.
Same here. Inadvertent my backside.
It's hardly the end of the Clinton era - just a continuation of the ongoing saga. The left never admits they're wrong so how can they learn from their mistakes? Don't look for any changes any time soon from the media or the Democrats.
Oh, okay then! :-)
I'll bring the popcorn! ;-)
Thanks for the clarification
We shall await, with bated breath, until tomorrow's edition of the NYT to see where it shows up!
Has it been confirmed that he actually hid documents in his pants and socks?
Remember how someone 'leaked' that Clinton blew a gasket in his video testimony, then it turned out to be a ruse? I could see the Dems throwing out a silly embellishment to this story, then when it turns out to be false using that to ridicule the whole incident as 'lies, right-wing distortions, GOP propaganda', etc. They and their media tools seem to have a knack for fixating on any uncrossed t or undotted i and using that to bury and discredit real stories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.