If Sandy had taken my suggestion to wear cowboy boots like this, he could have smuggled out TWICE as many documents!"
Posted on 07/20/2004 12:03:14 PM PDT by epluribus_2
snip
In a statement issued late Monday, Berger said the removal of those papers was unintentional. 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.
That allegation drew sharp responses from two of Berger's associates. President Clinton's former spokesman, Joe Lockhart, said Berger "categorically denies that he ever took documents and stuffed them in his socks.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Exactly. And, aren't there cameras in such a sensitve area?
Hey, I'm not making excuses for him, I pointing out how he's trying to weasel out of the accusation.
Wow. I feel for you guys. FR is buzzing like I have never seen on a lazy summer day. Too many burglar threads.
The VOLUME of FR traffic tells me this story has legs....
It doesn't matter if he stuffed 'em up his CLYMER, it's forbidden. Call him BOHICA Burger today.
It's quite simple really. He stuffed the documents into one sock. At no point were documents in his socks.
If Sandy had taken my suggestion to wear cowboy boots like this, he could have smuggled out TWICE as many documents!"
"This is all about sex. Everybody does it ... Nothing to see ... Let's move on."
Are you suggesting that Berger stuffed his pants with his socks?
Following these Berger threads, I get the impression that CNN floated the "socks" story well ahead of Fox, then squashed it after Fox and Rush picked it up.
Your theory makes sense: notice that Lanny Davis' comments focus entirely on denying that Berger stuffed docs in his socks, not on taking the documents themselves.
Since where Bergler stuffed them is now a point of deniability for the Dems, I'll bet the Feds do have a tape.
CNN's John King, Kelli Arena, Bob Franken and Pam Benson contributed to this report.
CNN's got four reporters working on the Berger spin. They're in full panic mode.
rofl
All they need do is sign a statement indicating they didn't intentionally take anything.
However, the document doesn't ask them whether they accidentally took anything.
Easy. Just look for the phrase "categorically denies" and look for what isn't being denied, which is usually a lot.
In this case the analysis was unusually easy, because the press reports were unusually clear. Documents are big things that would not fit inside socks.
But it is also illegal to carry out notes, even those you write yourself while in the building. I suspect the notes prohibition gets violated pretty often. I used to watch the Rockford Files, and Rockford was always slipping away with illicit notes.
There is really a Catch 22 embedden in all this. If any part of this was accidental, it says that a man clinton trusted with national security is a total incompetent boob, and now Kerry is getting advice from him.
From the Fox article:
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
From CNN:
President Clinton's former spokesman, Joe Lockhart, said Berger "categorically denies that he ever took documents and stuffed them in his socks.
So, he only put his handwritten notes in his socks, not the official documents, those went "inadvetently" into the jacket, briefcase pants.
There's nothing here sheeple, move on...
Exactly! You have to parse this with a de-Clintonizer.
Are you carrying documents for Sandy Berger or are you just glad to see me?
There is a guy on 970 WFLA playing off your pic right now!
His name is Todd Schnitt. Go to this link and listen live.
http://www.970wfla.com/
In other words, he never should have been caught.
ROTFLMAO!
"Very interesting. One FReeper suggests that the leak was by Berger himself - notice that his lawyer was talking with the first reporter of the story.
Theory - the 9/11 commission report was going to comment on Berger. That would have created a firestorm that would detract from the presumably anti-Bush aspects of the report. So Berger came out first, his story will die out under the attention of the other matters in the report."
Hmmm, I'm trying to extrapolate from the premise of this scenario--if that happened, did Gorelick tip Berger?
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.