Posted on 07/23/2004 9:37:06 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
Has there been an word on whether or not a Grand Jury has been put together is investigate Sandy yet?
Finally, an answer to my question about that call to Lindsey. Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
Of course, NY Times. It's the "Republicans" who pulled the putting documents in his clothes idea completely out of thin air. No, it is sources familiar with the case, no partisan foes stating such, you clymers.
As to If you believe the Slimes, there's no video of Sandy Burgling the lost documents.
Reliable reporting from the start stated there were no cameras and no video and I've counseled freepers to put that in the "what is known" column unless and until different facts come to light, and that looks to be the case. Take heart from the detailed accounts from eyewitnesses and enough evidence that Berger was forced to admit what he has.
He's already admitted it.
"Knowingly" on some, "inadvertantly" on the docs that would carry the most serious charges for removing.
Quick timeline:
September visit to archives, employees notice missing docs. Call Bruce Lindsey after because he is the liaison to the archives for the Clinton administration. They inform him docs need to be returned. (the Berger camp, interestingly, denies this September alert).
October Berger returns for more "research", and that's when the employees pull the sting, having marked docs and watched him closely--able to describe the stuffing of papers in his clothes (I am so aggravated, though not surprised, at the Times saying it's "Republicans" accusing him of the clothes stuffing).
This time the employees call him directly and he calls them later to tell them he "found" them. The employees go to his house directly the next morning to retrieve.
Berger then immediately hires Lanny Breuer, then "finds" 40-50 pages of notes he took and removed from the archives since July. The employees had no knowlege of these notes until this confession---beware, this is the hook the Berger camp hangs their "It's a year old case" talking point on.
January, the FBI is brought in and Joe Lockhart hired as Berger spokesman, though mercifully we've seen precious little of him and I hope it stays that way. I'm sure he's doing plenty of behind the scenes spin devising along with his real boss(es), Clinton(s).
Why would we never know? This is the subject of ongoing investigations, and will be subject to a House hearing on the matter. I would imagine he will reveal what he stole, and why, and for whom? And it will be interesting to see if there's any collusion from members of the 9/11 committee. Were they the ones who gave Sammy B his clearance, which ought to have long expired, otherwise? Were the guards ordered away, or were they really just stupid? How many were there? If the library staff suspected theft, why wasn't Sammy B arrested as soon as he returned the next time? Why even mark docs or rig anything? Why wasn't he simply arrested? There's a lot of questions, here.
It doesn't really matter why he did it--only that he did do it. We can't get into the trap of speculating about motives. It is illegal no matter what. Speculation just makes this look partisan.
Really? I didn't listen to Rush except sporadically last week, but I actually have a bro-in-law who is a Kucinch supporter. LOL
I wonder what Rush meant if he said it to Kucinich supporters...Hmmmmmm
It was probably authorized actually by the Bush administration.
Back in about February Bruce Lindsey raised a hue and cry about the Bush administration withholding Clinton era documents from the 9/11 commission that they needed to see.
The media dutifully picked up the tone and implication that the Bush people were hiding Clinton's anti-terrorism docs under a bushel. Of course, it turned out the Bush administration had already sent over everything---but I think there might have been less than a dozen docs the commission found when they *re-sent* the 10,000 pages Lindsey accused them of withholding.
At the time we were scratching our heads over why he was playing this game, except to just stir the waters. Now it appears definitely connected to this Berger investigation somehow.
So, to review: Actual authorization was granted to the Clinton group from the Bush administraion because the 9/11 commission needed the info and someone had to go through the stuff and Clinton then assigned Berger.
See angkor's post #55 for an explanation of some of the clearance issues.
What a concept! Maybe we'll close the borders after 9/11...
Actually, going by angkor's post #55, it looks as if Clinton actually would have had authority to give that authorization, probably saying that he was sending Berger to help him research his testimony for the 9/11 commission or some such thing.
However, I'm puzzled by the timing of this - thank you for your carefully worked out time frame above, btw - because I don't know when he would have started preparing for the commission. Would he have started as early as September, when the first docs disappeared?
Recall that in the reporting, Archives staff said Bergler returned documents that they didn't know he had taken.
So it very possible that he took other documents that they didn't know he had taken, and never returned them.
My point is that one can't prove a negative, e.g.:
Archives: "Mr. Berger, where are those other documents that we don't know whether or not you took."
Bergler: "Which documents?"
Archives: "We don't know."
Bergler: "Oh, those. I didn't remove those documents."
I bet IF he lives he'll turn State's Evidence.
It's a big if...
SIGH. I am forever hopeful and yet disappointed in my government. All this time and ONLY NOW does the National Archives think it is a good idea to install cameras?! When did common sense become so uncommon?
What are you talking about, he's already admitted it.
April 2, 2004
excerpts:
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said that some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were “duplicative or unrelated,” while others were withheld because they were “highly sensitive” and the information contained in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways.
“We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job,” McClellan said.
The commission and the White House were reacting on Thursday to public complaints from former aides to Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of White House files it was ready to offer the commission had been withheld from the panel by the Bush administration.
The former aides said the files, which are now in the custody of the National Archives, contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration’s efforts against al-Qaida.
~snip~
The general counsel of Clinton’s presidential foundation, Bruce Lindsey, who was Clinton’s deputy White House counsel and one of his closest advisers, 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.
He said he first complained to the commission in February about the situation after learning from the archives that the Bush administration had withheld so many documents.
~snip~
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.