Posted on 07/21/2004 8:44:10 PM PDT by kristinn
snip
One former government official who reviewed the documents said they were marked "code-word secret" because they contained intercepts from the National Security Agency about possible terrorist threats in Jordan.
Another source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said National Archives staff watched Berger through a glass door as he appeared to put pieces of paper in his jacket pocket.
snip
Last fall, Berger reviewed thousands of Clinton administration documents at the National Archives that were being sought by the Sept. 11 panel. Two law enforcement sources said archives officials had suspected Berger removed documents during an early visit, and made sure they secretly coded and copied records for the next time he came.
snip
Berger had previously aroused suspicions, one source said, because several reports he had looked at were missing. The staff called Bruce Lindsey, former deputy counsel to President Bill Clinton who was a Clinton liaison to the archives, to offer a chance to clear up the issue and retrieve the records, the source said. Lindsey could not be reached for comment.
The source said the records Berger returned through Lindsey were not the same records the staff had suspected were missing, which suggested that more records were missing than the staff had realized. "That's when they started coding the documents," the source said.
When Berger returned for his next visit, the staff watched him as he appeared to put papers in his pocket, the source said. An archives spokeswoman declined to comment.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
FYI.
If I'm understanding correctly, this means that it may never be completely known what he removed on the first visit(s) before the staff became suspicious. As you say, holy...
Yes..but that begs the question. Did the Archive give him access to the originals, without having made copies? Is it possible that he took out documents which will never be able to be replaced?
It's pretty clear from this story that Berger had his hands on the original versions of various interim drafts of the Clarke memo, and the interim drafts may have contained some damaging points that were 'deleted' from the offical report.
I'll say exactly what I said on the Drudge thread:
We here at FR knew most, if not all, of this by early Tuesday morning.
That too.
From the Sun story:
"Accounts differed on how many documents were missing. One source said five or six early versions of the Clarke critique - ranging from 20 to 30 pages each - were missing.
Berger had previously aroused suspicions, one source said, because several reports he had looked at were missing. The staff called Bruce Lindsey, former deputy counsel to President Bill Clinton who was a Clinton liaison to the archives, to offer a chance to clear up the issue and retrieve the records, the source said. Lindsey could not be reached for comment.
The source said the records Berger returned through Lindsey were not the same records the staff had suspected were missing, which suggested that more records were missing than the staff had realized. "That's when they started coding the documents," the source said.
When Berger returned for his next visit, the staff watched him as he appeared to put papers in his pocket, the source said. An archives spokeswoman declined to comment."
True, but I want to give The Sun their props.
He got caught, returned documents they didn't know he had taken, and then he took some more. Did I read that right? Is he really that stupid?
The 9-11 Commission saw every document they asked for."
Now, how did they know what to ask for?
And let's not forget something else: Ashcroft could NOT have been clearer that Janet Reno did NOT show him the 2000 Millennium after-report.
This is why the "honest mistake" excuse Berger offered isn't being taken seriously--except by David Gergen.
Oh, I am right with you on that one; my post didn't come out like I meant it. I was not trashing The Sun; the Washington Post blew this one big time.
I also like his Tuesday night statement that he's cooperated with the investigation "fully and completely"--except for the missing documents he stole.
Over here!
Memo to kattracks, the night shift might want to check The Baltimore Sun for articles like this while the story unfolds.
Why in the world was the Commission asking this now private citizen to get them records from the National Archives. Surely they could request them from the Archives directly if they knew enough to specifically ask for those documents.
bump
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.