Yep. These folks were a barrel of laughs.
Posted on 04/02/2005 6:17:05 AM PST by conservativecorner
Me, too. If that isn't cruel and unusual punishment, I don't know what is.
That is glaringly obvious. There is nothing to be gained by merely destroying a couple surplus copies while originals remain safely under lock and key. He must have THOUGHT he had all copies...and the originals.
The nameless "authorities" alluded to in these stories however, always assert that he DIDN'T succeed in destroying any originals, only copies. But since this whole case screams "POLITICAL FIX" from the get-go, I would not rely on any such glib assurances...since the perfidity is being covered up, and the administration has "moved on"...admission of destruction of the originals and all copies would blow their ability to "manage" this story. It would get way more "legs."
You couldn't be more wrong about that.
Sorry you took it personally, but it's hard to find a thread on FR these days that doesn't contain some comment blaming Bush for doing/not doing just about everything.
He ain't perfect, but he's still a damn sight better than the alternative.
Don't count on it. I bet he's advising Hillary by 2007 (or sooner) and getting paid for it.
Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, tried to be reassuring:
Berger only had copies of documents; all of the originals remain in the government's possession, Hillman said.
The AP describes the Berger incident as "bizarre," and, to an ordinary reader, it must seem bizarre indeed. Why would anyone steal and destroy "three copies of the same document," and then lie about it?
The answer, obviously, is that all of the "copies" were different, in that they contained different handwritten notes by various Clinton administration officials, apparently including Berger. This Washington Post story is slightly more informative: Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.
Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.
So Berger removed five copies of the Clarke report, carefully destroyed three of them "late one evening," and returned the other two to the Archives. Obviously he reviewed the notes on the five documents and destroyed the three that contained information damaging to the reputation of the Clinton administration. I do not find reassuring the Post's suggestion that these were "copies only" and that it "remains unclear whether Berger knew that." Obviously all five copies of the Clarke report were "copies." But they contained unique notes, and Berger certainly thought that they were the only "copies" of those notes in existence, or it would make no sense to destroy them. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he was wrong.
FYI
Yep. These folks were a barrel of laughs.
Sharp objects smuggled through National Archives' security ping thanks, Dave.
Ane the reason they're making a plea deal with him is...?
Please note::"Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance"....this clown and his attorney obviously have the next Democratic presidential administration in mind...if he plays his cards right, and Ms. Hillary manges to do so as well, he intends to serve her administration as much by invitation as by threat of full cooperation with the judge. This is as convoluted, Clintonian and treasonous as can expected from these inepts.
"WASHINGTON - Democrats assailed Republicans who suggested Wednesday that former White House national security adviser Sandy Berger sought to hide embarrassing materials when he removed classified documents related to the investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
``snip``
“The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security,” the Kerry campaign said in a political memo distributed by email."
The rest of the tripe is here.
Digger48 I agree with you. I voted for the man.
Sorry for lowering my response the way I did.
But I have to think, that as the nations number one in charge of law enforcement, that our good man GW had to personally sign off on the Berger plea bargain.
And I strongly disagree with what I perceive to be a very light punishment.
I am not nearly as concerned about the Patriot Act under GW's command as I am about it once he is not longer the buffer between ethical behavior and abuse of the law.
I imagine Elian is in stitches! The most corrupt Presidency in History!
Pray for W and Pope John Paul
Amen..and Sandy Burglar is spoiled goods as far as ever being able to do this kind of pillaging of the archives again..The uproar over his getting another security clearance would be HUGE.
One good thing about FR..we don't forget and we can always pull something out of the archives/internet to slap the dems with..
I figured he was at the very least, informed on the highlights of the negotiations for the deal.
I guess this whole incident is just so bizaare, there just HAS to be an underlying explanation somewhere, for this leniency.
I'm just not ready to make the jump that some nefarious deal was cut in the Oval Office.
Anyway, Bush has his hands too full trying to rip those Social Security checks out of the arthritis-ridden grip of little old ladies to be concerned with things like Berger, right?< FRiendly sarcastic elbow nudge>
Bzzzt! Wrong answer! The Republicans were simply repeating info that was being leaked by non-Republican sources. Anyone who followed the eight years of the Clinton Administration would recognize the tactics used- leak false-but-sensational information ahead of the news actually being released, essentially to cause people to think, "Well, that wasn't so bad", which of course forces people to take their eye off the ball of the wrong doing committed. SOP for the Clinton Gang.
The thing that Berger was after was clearly the handwritten notes and not the documents themselves. He would certainly know if he had a copy or the real thing vis a vis ballpoint pen or even pencil notations on a document. The fact that the "original" of the unannotated document is in safe hands is meaningless. The "original" is probably a Word file stored on disk at this point. The annotations are the thing and they were probably destroyed. That is the path the MSM doesn't want to go down.
Bloggers. Where are you now that we need you?
What a surprise coming from the CLINTON admin.
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.