Skip to comments.
BERGER TOOK SECRET 9/11 DOCS ON FIVE OCCASIONS
-- Another Illegal Clinton Cover-up!
http://www.iconoclast.ca/NewPage17.asp ^
Posted on 07/20/2004 4:38:14 PM PDT by Apolitical
Kerry campaign adviser Sandy Berger removed secret terrorism documents from a 9/11 Commission reading room on no fewer than five occasions, his lawyer Lanny Breuer admitted......
(Excerpt) Read more at iconoclast.ca ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: berger; clinton; clintoncronies; clintonlegacy; coverup; crimnality; filegate2; kerry; revisionisthistory; sandyberger; trousergate
More proof of the lack of ethics among the criminal Clinton/Kerry gang.
To: Apolitical
I can see making the same mistake five times with women, but with classified documents? I don't think so.
2
posted on
07/20/2004 4:40:54 PM PDT
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: Apolitical
3
posted on
07/20/2004 4:40:57 PM PDT
by
TomServo
("I'm so upset that I'll binge on a Saltine.")
To: Apolitical
Once again... ouch, that's going to leave a mark.
Berger. What the hell were you thinking?
4
posted on
07/20/2004 4:42:25 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Fox News is Fair and Balanced. Move-on.org is Bare and Imbalanced.)
To: Apolitical
I'm glad you reposted this because it gives me the confirmation I was seeking. Sandy "Ham" Burglar took the documents from the Commission Reading Room according to the linked story. That gives us motive. By removing the copies, NO ONE ELSE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THEM. It doesn't matter that there were other copies back in the National Archives. By his own admission, Berger was the one that determined which of the Clinton era docs belonged in the reading room. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that he realized he included some real smoking gun documents and was desperately (L. Ronstadt breaks into song here) trying to purge the reading room of the smoking gun. Consider as well that one of the copies he took was replaced and he then took that one as well. This was no inadvertent action. This was obstruction of justice.
5
posted on
07/20/2004 4:48:23 PM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" HRC 6/28/2004)
To: Apolitical
Oh now don't get excited. I'm sure it was inadvertent - 5 FREAKIN' TIMES!
To: Apolitical
Inadvertently once, shame on you. Inadvertently twice - toss him in jail and throw away the key.
7
posted on
07/20/2004 5:45:39 PM PDT
by
DManA
To: Pukin Dog
I can see making the same mistake five times with women, but with classified documents? I don't think so.
Why was this guy allowied in there the first time? He's been out of the position for 4 years. Something fishy here.
8
posted on
07/20/2004 6:11:10 PM PDT
by
conshack
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson