Classified documents in his pants

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, July 20, 2004 | House Editorial

[JohnHuang2]

Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the subject of a criminal investigation for illicitly removing highly classified documents about the 1999 millennium bombing plot and handwritten notes he took from a secure reading room at the National Archives. Some of the classified documents taken by Mr. Berger are still missing. Mr. Berger (who resigned yesterday as a foreign-policy adviser to presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry) was in the Archives last summer and fall preparing, at Mr. Clinton's request, the previous administration's response to questions from the commission investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks. Mr. Berger and his attorney told The Associated Press that he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made by sticking them in his jacket and pants.The FBI searched Mr. Berger's home and office after Archives employees claimed to have seen him place documents in his clothing while he was reading classified Clinton administration papers. Some of the documents were later found to be missing.

[firewalk]

.

[blanknoone]

With classified documents, they are either there or not.

No, not really, especially with something (a draft) like this. Here is the way it would work.

The author (Clarke) would write his rough draft, then there would be copies made, probably something like 10. Each copy would be labeled (for instance Copy 2 of 10) then each copy would have a routing memo attached and circulated around for comments from all relevant people. People would mark up the draft with their comments (Crossing stuff out, adding comments in the margins, possibly attaching a page with additional comments, changing emphasis whatever). Eventually all of the copies and the comments would make it back to who ever was going to finalize it, most likely the original author. They would incorporate or ignore the comments.

The point of this is that each of the copies is different...it has different people's comments on it. So while a copy or two might be still be in existance, all of the copies would have different comments by different people. I think it likely that those comments are the evidence that Burglar was trying to destroy.

I don't know who said what, but someone said something in their comments that would be damning with the hindsight of 9/11. It could very easily be Clinton himself, or Burglar or someone else senior making a comment about minimizing the threat of terrorism or arguing that we don't need to do anything about the Islamic terrorism threat. Or even more likely, that the political cost of taking appropriate security measures was not worth it.

After all, this was an after action report after they did nothing, and nothing happened and a little basic law enforcement caught the bad guy. Clarke's original purpose in writing the report was to agitate for more focus on counter terrorism...and it didn't happen. Someone said something in their comments that made it not happen. And that someone had to be high up.

[doug from upland]

I've already done 3 songs about this:

IF I FELL

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE RAIN

IN MY ROOM

[Valentine_W]

Read your post, thanks for the response. You have many good points, but the question that I have is that this investigation has been underway for approximately one year. Shouldn't they have been able to verify this information by now? It just seems like a bluff to me--either investigators want this information leaked out to get Berger to "find" those drafts and return them (if they assume he has ill-motive) or Archives personnel do not want to admit that they dropped the ball and not only let classified documents walk out the door, but classified documents without duplicate copies. Something just does not seem right with this aspect of the story, especially a year after those documents disappeared.

[Valentine_W]

"The point of this is that each of the copies is different...it has different people's comments on it. So while a copy or two might be still be in existance, all of the copies would have different comments by different people. I think it likely that those comments are the evidence that Burglar was trying to destroy."

But this point of your post is still a very good point.

[thackney]

Cohen, Clinton & Albright: "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil"

Berger: "You guys are going to give me a heart attack joking around like that."

[Aliska]

and to suggest this was sloppy....it was criminal....

And they threw the book at Martha Stewart for far less. But they will handle these high-ranking politicos with kid gloves. I think he will manage to talk his way out of it and it will blow over.

Maybe they so routinely did this sort of thing in the Clinton administration that it was par for the course. Rules are only for eeeeeeevil Republicans and fall guys/gals.

[Valentine_W]

"It seems pretty clear he didn't want something in an early draft to go to the committee."

Yes, I caught that right away in the reporting too. I hear that Clinton is laughing this incident off, but the Republicans simply cannot drop the ball on this one. Something is very wrong with this picture and Berger is trying to hide whatever was in those drafts from the 9/11 committee.

[blanknoone]

I think if they can figure our who leaked it, they could better determine why they leaked it, and why now. We don't know that they haven't verified a lot of this...it wasn't a formal release by the investigators. They may know a lot of the answers that we don't.

I think one of the big issues is not that Berger likely destroyed incriminating evidence, but that personnel at the National Archive allowed him to. One of the most troubling aspects is that when documents were discovered missing, the first call wasn't to superiors at the Archives. It wasn't to security. It wasn't to the FBI. The first call went to Clinton's lawyer...that is the move of a political operative, not a civil servant. That makes it an inside job.

It seems this investigation was reasonably widely known. After all, a warrant was issued for his house. That is the sort of thing that flies around Washington. The real surprise is that it was secret for so long. That said, I think the Republicans were more than willing to do the right thing and leave it confidential. After all...it would become a public matter in due course.

This would have been much more damaging to the Dems later in the election cycle, especially since the crook was still Kerry's security advisor. My take is that this a pre-emptive leak by the dems. Better to leak it now when the story could be changed to the timing of the leak rather than having a grand jury indictment of a top Kerry advisor in the heat of the election campaign. Politically, the Rs would rather keep their powder dry, and the D's would want this out now.

[Valentine_W]

"I think one of the big issues is not that Berger likely destroyed incriminating evidence, but that personnel at the National Archive allowed him to. One of the most troubling aspects is that when documents were discovered missing, the first call wasn't to superiors at the Archives. It wasn't to security. It wasn't to the FBI. The first call went to Clinton's lawyer...that is the move of a political operative, not a civil servant. That makes it an inside job."

I think that is a strong possibility. When I went to the Archives, the rules were that you couldn't take purses, briefcases, etc. into the research rooms. An exception must was made for Berger.

[OldEagle]

I am a self-confessed weird person, but has anyone considered the possibility that was substituting documents that were more favorable to Hillary???

[Elsie]

I am impressed!!!

[Samwise]

a little song
a little dance
a little document down your pants

[doug from upland]

Funny you should mention that. I included it in a song this morning --- CLICK.