Posted on 07/21/2004 6:09:46 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
In Washington this morning, government officials are trying to piece together the facts of the Sandy Berger case in an attempt to understand what the former Clinton administration national-security adviser was trying to accomplish when he allegedly took highly classified documents from the National Archives.
Berger, who yesterday quit his position as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign, was appointed by former President Clinton to vet Clinton-administration documents before those documents were turned over to the September 11 investigating commission. Berger claims that as he went through a large number of documents last fall, he inadvertently put a few in his briefcase and took them home. "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 September 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said in a written statement. "When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."
But it appears that some of the evidence in the case casts doubt on Berger's explanation. First, Berger has reportedly conceded that he knowingly hid his handwritten notes in his jacket and pants in order to sneak them out of the Archives. Any notes made from classified material have to be cleared before they can be removed from the Archives — a common method of safeguarding classified information — and Berger's admission that he hid the notes in his clothing is a clear sign of intent to conceal his actions.
Second, although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days. There have been no reports that he took any other documents, which suggests that his choice of papers was quite specific, and not the result of simple carelessness.
Third, it appears that Berger's "inadvertent" actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department. (There was no surveillance camera in the room in which Berger worked with the documents, meaning there is no videotape record of the incidents.)
The documents Berger took — each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages — were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.
It is not clear why Berger would focus solely on the millennium-plot report. But it is clear that the report has been the object of intense discussions during the September 11 investigation.
The report was the result of a review done by Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, of efforts by the Clinton administration to stop terrorist plots at the turn of the year 2000. At several points in the September 11 commission hearings, Democrats pointed to the millennium case as an example of how a proper counterterrorism program should be run. But sources say the report suggests just the opposite. Clarke apparently concluded that the millennium plot was foiled by luck — a border agent in Washington State who happened to notice a nervous, sweating man who turned out to have explosives in his car — and not by the Clinton administration's savvy anti-terrorism work. The report also contains a number of recommendations to lessen the nation's vulnerability to terrorism, but few were actually implemented.
The after-action review became the topic of public discussion in April when Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned it in his public testimony before the September 11 commission. "This millennium after-action review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 and cites luck as playing a major role," Ashcroft testified. "It is clear from the review that actions taken in the millennium period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government."
In May, a government official told National Review Online that the report contains a "scathing indictment of the last administration's actions." The source said the report portrayed the Clinton administration's actions as "exactly how things shouldn't be run." In addition, Clarke was highly critical of the handling of the millennium plot in his book, Against All Enemies.
It is not clear how many copies of the report exist. Nor is it clear why Berger was so focused on the document. If he simply wanted a copy, it seems that taking just one would have been sufficient. But it also seems that Berger should have known that he could not round up all the known copies of the document, since there were apparently other copies in other secure places. Whatever the case, the report was ultimately given to the September 11 Commission.
Your analysis seems to be the best explanation that I've seen - especially regarding any hand written pieces in the original file.
Good post, thanks.
The question of whether Berger took home original documents (indicating he was seeking to purge the record) or copies (indicating he was merely careless and/or sneaky with homework) has become muddled. As a matter of fact, it's muddled in a way that makes Berger look especially shady. According to John Solomon's original AP story, Berger attorney Lanny Breuer, "said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals." Translated from the indirect dialect, that means Berger did take home originals, and may or may not have done so innocently.
The tale of the other documents is also interesting: Somebody familiar with classification protocols can make the decision about whether a former national security advisor (presumably a person with a very high security clearance) should have to shoplift his own notes on national security. House rules or no, it's another indignity for a man who couldn't even do wrong right.
Did he admit hiding them in his clothes? I've been out of pocket and didn't read that.
BINGO! I think you're exactly right. And, if we find out that the missing documents are one or more of these iterations, THAT will be the reason Berger took them.
I had read this yesterday in a different article (obviously) but couldn't find it again. Making note for future reference.
If each copy of the millenium report was fifteen to twenty pages, it is immpossible for a page or two to "inadvertantly" get mixed in with notes. He zeroed in on this document, went back again and zeroed in, it is a large document. He had criminal intent. He is also stupid. But I wondered why the staff of the archives set up a sting and then told justice. Seems like justice should have been told immediately. And it also makes me wonder, how many other people went in and took Documents. I also read that Bruce Lindsay was in charge of picking the docs to give to the commission,,did anyone else hear that?
Byron York also reports, no cameras in the room. It's not the same article I read yesterday, but it looks like the reporting was solid: No tape.
bookmark
Not if the memos were of different revisions.
Exactly! It's not clear that other copies of every draft are available. Also, it's not even clear how many actually unique revisions of the documents existed. Someone might have changed content within the document but not changed the cover pages or date so as to conceal the fact that changes had been made. Presumably neither the archivists or anyone else had done a line-by-line comparison of each draft, but Berger made have ascertained via multiple visits to the archives and he may have known which copies were where. He had time to look around and confer with associates about who had which versions. So he may have gone back to the archives to get specific documents after ascertaining which specific documents were still around.
Political pressure might have been brought to bear to expunge sensitive information from earlier drafts. Berger would know that, and he would also know that he could get in a lot of trouble for stealing the documents from the archives. But he did it anyway. Berger was caught with a smoking gun.
I also read that he put some documents in a leather briefcase besides hiding some in his clothing. He calls this being sloppy! I call it treason.
Slick made a CYA statement today on Fox saying that on the way over - he was laughing about this. He said that anyone who knows Berger and has been to his office always finds him under his papers.
Slick's statement says a lot about the kind of person he picked for a national security position. One thing for sure is that the Slick crowd can be counted on to do whatever it takes to decieve and connive to keep from going to prison.
Berger was caught stuffing "hand written notes" into his pants/socks/jacket.
What is not made clear is if these were his own notes or was he stealing the comment notes made by others that were attached to the documents during their circulation.
He also stole entire documents, maybe because they had been commented in the body of the work instead of by attachment.
This makes sense to me, he appears to have been sanitizing the report by stripping out anything derogotary to the clinton regime.
Come now! As a former-Marine you must surely know that the government is the last to implement any new technology. Seriously, cameras in a secure-reading room might be used to resolve what is actually on the page being read. Bad idea. Gotta have that compartmentalized security, ya know.
What I'd like to know is why Sandy Berger was permitted to take a briefcase into the Reading Room. I've done contracting work at the US Mint and I can tell you THAT is absolutely not allowed (plus you get a 'wand-job' on the way out).
Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 PanelThe general counsel of Mr. Clinton's presidential foundation, Bruce Lindsey, who was his deputy White House counsel, said in an interview that he was concerned that the Bush administration had applied a "very legalistic approach to the documents" and might have blocked the release of material that would be valuable to the commission.
Mr. Lindsey said he first complained to the commission in February after learning from the archives that the Bush administration had withheld so many documents.
"I voiced a concern that the commission was making a judgment on an incomplete record," he said. "I want to know why there is a 75 percent difference between what we were ready to produce and what was being produced to the commission."
I want to know:
1) Why they contacted Lindsey and
2) Why they allowed him to leave with the documents.
The hand written notes were the dodge, if he got caught well they were just my notes. Figuring the people wouldn't have even noticed the extra papers stuffed in the briefcase. Second, why is he even allowed to bring an attache case into a secure room like that. Makes no sense, no notes allowed, can't take anything out, etc. Another case of two sets of rules
1) Why they contacted Lindsey and
2) Why they allowed him (Berger) to leave with the documents.
Good questions. Professional courtesy? The documents went missing in October (2003) but the FBI wasn't involved until January? Perhaps the Archivists were giving Berger a chance to 'come clean', and when he wasn't forthcoming they decided to contact the FBI and wash their hands of it. Perhaps someone on the 9/11 Commission requested one of the documents in question....and low & behold the Archivists couldn't produce it. Busted!
It IS interesting that Mr. Bruce Lindsay knows A LOT MORE about the specifics than the investigators at this point, since he was involved before they were and may have been directing this whole Op on Clinton's behalf.
We'll know soon enough...
Finally someone gets it! ... the 'why' would Berger steal so many 'copies' of the same memo. There must have been some very damning mrginal notes on those copies that circulated among the criminal clintoons.
Here comes the cover-up...DON'T THEY EVER LEARN.
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.