Was it a *camera* phone that could have been illegally photgraphing our top secret documents?
6 Full Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Posted on 07/21/2004 7:59:22 PM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Archives Employees Suspicious of Berger... devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully... employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files after Berger viewed them, WASH POST set to report, say sources... Developing...
Thanks for the ping!
Was it a *camera* phone that could have been illegally photgraphing our top secret documents?
6 Full Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Do you happen to know the exact date Clinton testified before the 911 commission?
Yeah, the SCIF is designed to prevent electronic signals from equipment from leaking out, so it woldn't allow cellphone operation.
That's one heck of a find!
I-P...............back at 'The Los Clintonos Labs'......
Calling 'Rick Ames'.......
/sarcasm
My camera phone stores pictures even when there is no cell signal.
What about Berger's?!
6 Full Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
excerpt:
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.)
~snip~
Of course ALL freepers, not just "most" on these Berger threads, wished there was video. If it turns out reliable reporters (plural) have been fed a line to keep Berger and company off balance, I'll be first to lead the parade with cheers. But it seems fruitless to count on video being produced that several (the above is but one sample) reporters have specifically tracked down that Berger was not taped.
The call to Bruce Lindsey was not because other law enforcement was on the case at that point.
Berger was there working for Clinton (I forgot to ping the person who thought not, but he was). After the archives employees discovered docs missing the first time, they called Clinton's archives liaisson to report it and inform him the docs needed to be returned.
The liaisson's name? Bruce Lindsey (with all the implications that follow of who then was informed and so on, but that's why they called him, not a sting at that point--after).
See my post #389 on why the staff called Lindsey.
Does anyone know...what is the best theory about WHY he did this? What was he trying to hide...Who was he trying to protect.
There must have been something extremely incriminating to him or someone he was protecting, in those documents.
Could be. That was my first thought. But where I see an issue is that the employees knowingly breached protocol in allowing "private" phone calls from the secure area with the documents. Was it because of Bergler's (former) stature? Perhaps. Still, I understood them to take their jobs seriously. Time will tell....
I have never used the NA, and have absolutely no security clearance, so I couldn't say what their procedure is. Several other posters have said there is video surveillance, and that users are even warned about this.
Regardless, I don't think it will be produced, because as somebody else pointed out, any videos made in that confidential setting would also be confidential. I suppose if this thing actually goes to trial at some point, the videos (if any) could be produced, but I doubt that we'll either see them or know about them until then.
He was trying to protect Clinton, himself and the precious legacy, obviously.
Clinton sent him to "review and select" (ahem) what documents the 9/11 commission "needed" to see.
Oh, I agree, I was just addressing why they first called Lindsey and that's why. The other is separate.
I think it's very interesting indeed that they set up this little sting---and I do not think it is completely out of the realm of possibility other authorities were notified to aid in the set up, though the FBI didn't come on the scene until January.
There are a lot of questions but I am glad these eye witnesses evidently saw a LOT.
If these documents are numbered, as stated, all they have to do is look them up on the microfilm.
I know what other posters have said. I would love for it to be true.
On the other hand, reporters (my link goes to Byron York who is very reliable) are looking into the Berger matter in particular and all have been informed there was no camera.
Now, while I concede there may be obfuscation, I detect no parsing going on, plus there seems to be no reticence in allowing the eye witness accounts to be reported, so I'm mystified why they'd keep a tape secret while making no secret of witnesses and the details they have to share. I therefore will assume there is no video or camera shots and will be very pleasantly surprised if that turns out to be wrong.
Re#395 Understood. And agreed. There will be indictments. I can't wait...
I never read anything that said they were all numbered. I thought the articles said that once the employees became suspicious of Bergler, they devised a coding system to catch him stealing the documents?
Richard Clarke WROTE the damn memo....hope he remembers what he wrote!!!
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.