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 ...
I don't need to read beyond this.
That's as far as I got too.
Nothing about the fact that he was using the documents as underwear?
"President Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. Berger, inadvertently (?) removed classified national security documents from the National Archives"
How do you "inadvertently" shove classified documents in your coat, your socks and your crotch (underwear)?
The NY Times writers are looneytoons.
Blessings, Bobo
BERGER'S CRIME IS PROOF THAT WILLIE KNEW ABOUT AND COULD HAVE STOPPED 9-!! AND THAT THE COMMISSION REPORT IS A FAKE!!!
Rush said that this article appeared in the print version on page 19!
-"President Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. Berger, inadvertently removed classified national security documents from the National Archives..."
In his sock. No spin here.
(1) I thought I read somewhere that there were at least 5 instances where Berger pilphered documents. Is that true? If so, how can Berger claim this was unintentional?
(2) Do copies of the documents still exist? If so, when so we get to read them?
(Actually, I guess there's more than 2 questions there...)
What? You don't inadvertenly stuff papers in your socks and pants. Weirdo.(New DNC talking points)
Let's see if it gets above the fold in tomorrow's print edition.
Then I'll believe that the NYT is serious.
Rush is correct. On Fox and Friends this morning they showed the NY Times paper and were looking thru it to find where the article was located and it was a tiny little article on page 19.
He obviously knew he had the documents before the Archives informed him that they were missing. Why didn't he return them the moment he supposedly found out that he had "accidentally" taken them? Why wait?
(1) I thought I read somewhere that there were at least 5 instances where Berger pilphered documents. Is that true? If so, how can Berger claim this was unintentional?
Yes it is true. Berger is a liar, he will say anything.
(2) Do copies of the documents still exist? If so, when so we get to read them?
Ummmmmmmm.....I think that I read that some of the documents were "marked". Methinks that they still exist. Berger should be in prison as we speak.
Blessings, Bobo
Lies, lies, and more lies. Inadvertent, sloppy. Uh, I don't think so. Rush said Berglar's counterpart in the Bush admin. is Condi Rice. National Security Advisor. They don't act 'sloppily', they don't do things 'inadvertently'. No judge in his right mind would believe it. If Condi been caught doing what Berglar did, she'd already be in an orange jumpsuit in the cell next to Martha Stewart.
Let's see. They only talk to Berger's lawyers, make handy use of the word 'inadvertently,' and make it sound like no big deal, as he was simply 'reacquainting' himself with the documents. Well gee, NYT...why bother going after the guy at all?
Imagine that! The NYT taking Sammy at his word without question!
Watch for the CYA to get even more hysterical as, one by one, their media allies desert them rather than take any more hits to their already seriously-wounded credibility.
If this isn't the beginning of the end of the Clinton Era, I think it is at least the end of the era in which this gang was taken seriously.
Anybody know where the scoop on the documents being smuggled out in his underwear and socks came from? How could this be known? I would think only Sandy Berger himself would know how he got them out.
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.