Sandy Berger "TROUSER-GATE" links:

1 posted on 08/10/2005 12:13:13 AM PDT by Lancey Howard

Any help that freepers can provide in adding to and updating this thread will be most appreciated. I will do my best to add new links as they arise.

Thanks.

2 posted on 08/10/2005 12:15:03 AM PDT by Lancey Howard

To: Lancey Howard

GREAT compilation!! Thanks for staying on top of this travesty and CRIME! I'll sure keep my eyes peeled.

3 posted on 08/10/2005 12:20:15 AM PDT by STARWISE (CURB POLLUTION; SAVE ENERGY: Show a lie-detection meter for every Democrat interview.)

To: STARWISE; backhoe

Thanks.

backhoe usually does these things but I figured he deserves a break. He has done a great job with Gorelick-gate.

(( ping )) backhoe

4 posted on 08/10/2005 12:24:35 AM PDT by Lancey Howard

To: Lancey Howard

Here you go:

Yes, Down My Pants. Oh, Like You Haven't? The Sordid Sandburglar Story
various FR links | 07-20-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175187/posts

5 posted on 08/10/2005 12:27:03 AM PDT by backhoe (-30-)

To: Lancey Howard

Gorelick-gate is most likely involved in the Berger Capers. Got a title for ya: Alamo-Girl's "book" about Clinton's Follies was the Downside Legacy. Berger's could be "Down-the-Pants Legacy!!" LOL.

6 posted on 08/10/2005 12:28:01 AM PDT by STARWISE (CURB POLLUTION; SAVE ENERGY: Show a lie-detection meter for every Democrat interview.)

7 posted on 08/10/2005 12:28:25 AM PDT by Lancey Howard

To: Lancey Howard

One thing that a lot of the links miss is that Berger could have been trying to figure out a way to sneak documents *into* our classified archives.

The big clue is the timing. July of 2003, when Berger got caught, was when Novak had just written his article mentioning that Joe Wilson's CIA wife had sent him to Niger (when Wilson was lying about it being VP Cheney who sent him). Days later David Corn wrote his article naming Valerie Plame as Wilson's wife.

Within 4 days Berger was caught messing with classified docs...

...Just as French Intel was getting caught trying to slip forged Niger documents into U.S. intel hands.

5 will get you 10 that all of the above are tied together. Wilson and Berger were both on Senator Kerry's failed Presidential Campaign team at the time, too.

That's a lot of "coincidences."

So keep in mind that Berger *could* have been attempting to sneak the French forged Niger documents into our classfied archives, among other possibilities.

That he stole and destroyed some classified docs may just be a cover story for public consumption.

8 posted on 08/10/2005 12:36:12 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

9 posted on 08/10/2005 12:37:59 AM PDT by nopardons

To: Lancey Howard; backhoe

Great minds ... lol.

Why Isn't Sandy Berger Going to Jail?

By Tom Fitton Aug 7, 2005

Two men walk into the National Archives. [No, this is not a joke.] One steals letters dating back to the Civil War and then sells them on Ebay. The other steals classified documents related to terrorism and then destroys them in order to deceive investigators. Which man receives the stiffer penalty?

The answer may surprise you.

Howard Harner, of Staunton, Virginia, pled guilty on May 27 to pilfering documents from the National Archives — approximately 100 letters from Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other historical figures. He then sold the letters, stolen over a six-year period, through Ebay and various auctions for a nifty profit. Harner, who promised to help investigators track down the letters, will spend the next two years in prison for this crime in addition to paying a $10,000 fine.

“This sentence sends a very clear signal that theft of cultural property?will not be tolerated,” said U.S. Archivist Allen Weinsten, after the sentence was announced. Fair enough.

Former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger pled guilty on April 1 to smuggling five classified documents, including a highly secret memorandum, out of the National Archives related to the Clinton administration’s response to terrorism. Berger, who was preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission at the time, later destroyed the documents, shredding them with scissors at his office, and lied to investigators.

While Berger will not be sentenced until July 8, government prosecutors have requested no jail time — just a $10,000 fine and the temporary removal of his security clearance.

So, setting the record straight, federal prosecutors threw the book at a man for stealing and selling 150 year-old letters, and then let another off the hook for stealing and shredding top-secret government documents.

Does any of this make sense to you? Government prosecutors treat politicians and public officials with kid gloves while they sock it to the average citizen.

In the case of the disgraced Berger, Judicial Watch recently filed a formal bar complaint with the office of Bar Counsel for the District of Columbia. [The Bar Counsel responded to Judicial Watch, indicating that our request is under consideration.] According to the Rules for Professional Conduct for attorneys in Washington, D.C., Berger is not allowed to

[1] “Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer;

[2] Engage in conduct involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and

[3] Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.”

By his own admission, Berger is guilty of all three violations. He admitted to stealing five classified security documents from the National Archives that concerned the Clinton administration’s mishandling of the investigation of the “Millennium 2000” terror plot. He admitted to shredding three of the five documents with scissors late one evening at the office of his consulting firm. He admitted that he lied to investigators by telling them initially that he merely removed the documents “by accident” and that it was an “honest mistake.”

Perhaps most importantly, Berger apparently attempted to alter the historical record of his and the Clinton administration’s actions related to terrorism. By eliminating the evidence, Berger quite possibly intended to deceive the 9/11 Commission.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Chasson, commenting on the Harner case, noted the negative impact that Harner’s crime would have on the relationship between the National Archives and researchers. “There’s a trust that’s been broken,” she said, justifying the two-year sentence.

Berger, like many Clinton officials before him, violated the public trust. He also likely placed the American people at greater risk by attempting to compromise an investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Berger’s crime, therefore, goes well beyond the realm of National Archive research policy and cultural property and impacts something far more serious — national security.

Berger deserves to go to jail. He deserves to have his security clearance revoked forever. He deserves a stiffer fine. Without a doubt, he should be disbarred.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, Inc.

The National Ledger is rebuilding its archives. This commentary originally ran on June 30, 2005.

===================================================

July 8 is not in synch with the date of this. See statement above.

10 posted on 08/10/2005 12:41:13 AM PDT by STARWISE (CURB POLLUTION; SAVE ENERGY: Show a lie-detection meter for every Democrat interview.)

To: kristinn; Doctor Raoul

11 posted on 08/10/2005 12:58:56 AM PDT by staytrue

I wonder if Bruce Lindsey was ever deposed or called to testify?

12 posted on 08/10/2005 1:06:35 AM PDT by Lancey Howard

Your theory is sound.
We may never know all the mischief that Berger was up to.

13 posted on 08/10/2005 1:08:37 AM PDT by Lancey Howard

Sandy Berger, yes. Felony and treason come to mind every time. Good post.

14 posted on 08/10/2005 1:18:26 AM PDT by Spitzensparkin1 (UN:global-socialists against freedom in action. No taxation without representation! No UN in our US.)

To: Lancey Howard

15 posted on 08/10/2005 2:58:30 AM PDT by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)

To: Lancey Howard

I had a hugh list of Sandy Berger links, but I left them in my other pants.

Useless joking on my part aside, great compilation. He may never get the justice he deserves, but that doesn't mean it will be forgotten.

16 posted on 08/10/2005 3:00:46 AM PDT by kenth

To paraphrase: All animals are equal; but some animals are more equal than others.

Sandy Berger even gets his clearance back ... as Bubba got his law license back ...

Awfully hard to police ourselves with so many counter examples.

So it goes ...

17 posted on 08/10/2005 4:27:30 AM PDT by jamaksin

To: Lancey Howard

Don't know if you have this one, but I thought you would be interested.

Able Danger, the 9/11 Commission & the Strange (But Now Explainable) Actions of Sandy Berger

By Sean Osborne, Senior Analyst & Military Affairs Expert

& Douglas J. Hagmann,Director

10 August 2005: Hey America… do you remember the strange actions of President Clinton’s national security adviser Sandy Berger during the 9/11 Commission investigation when he removed highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to that independent commission? Did you ever wonder what Berger was attempting to hide and even more importantly, why? Did you also wonder why, even though he committed a felony, he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist while various political and intelligence officials played down his actions, wanting them to disappear as quickly as possible? It appears that we just might have discovered the answers to these and other troubling questions: Able Danger.

Able Danger is the code name of a secret team of U.S. Army military intelligence operatives created in 1999 under a directive signed by General Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about al Qaeda networks around the world. In mid-2000, the Able Danger team discovered the existence of the key 9/11 terror cell of Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hamzi inside the U.S. and recommended to their military superiors that the FBI be called in to “take out that cell,” according to Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania House member and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. That information was presented in the summer of 2000 in the form of a chart complete with photographs of the terrorists to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. Our intelligence was dead-on accurate, but was not acted upon a full year before the 9/11 attacks.

In fact, Representative Weldon said Able Danger members had recommended that the information they uncovered be shared with the FBI, but the idea was rejected and they “were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn’t exist.”

Despite the findings of Able Danger, absolutely no action was pursued to take out the cell during the weeks leading up to the 2000 presidential election, said Weldon. The reason? Mohammed Atta possessed a “green card” at the time. Under the rules of the Clinton Justice Department, lawyers working for Special Operations decided that anyone holding a green card had to be granted essentially the same legal protections as any U.S. citizen. They did not want to recommend that the FBI go after someone holding a green card, Weldon told his House colleagues on June 27, 2005 during a speech, known as a “special order,” which he delivered on the House floor. Defense Department lawyers were also said to be reluctant to suggest a bold action by FBI agents after the bureau’s disastrous 1993 strike against the Branch Davidian religious cult in Waco, Texas.

Read Curt Weldon’s June 27, 2005 Testimony
This week, Representative Weldon and a former defense intelligence official said they had spoken with three Able Danger team members, all still working in the government, including two in the military, and that they were consistent in asserting that Mohammed Atta's affiliation with a Qaeda terrorism cell in the United States was known within the Defense Department by mid-2000 but was not acted upon. Further and after the fact, the 9-11 Commission was reportedly never told about Able Danger or its findings.

Enter Sandy Berger – During the 9/11 Commission

While the investigation by the 9/11 Commission was in progress, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who served as Clinton's national security adviser for all of President's Clinton’s second term, was caught removing documents from the national Archives – the very same documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. Berger ultimately admitted to intentionally taking and destroying various classified documents relating to terrorism collected under the Clinton administration. Berger and his lawyer said on July 19, 2004 that he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also “inadvertently” took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. Those documents reportedly included an assessment of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports, something very relevant to Able Danger’s findings and key to the 9/11 attacks. What Sandy Berger did was a felony, yet was allowed a generous plea agreement of a fine and a three-year suspension of his security clearance.

Under the prism of Able Danger, we are now able to make sense out of the previously curious actions of Sandy Berger.

Able Danger & the Saga of the 9/11 Commission; Warren Commission Redux

According to Weldon, staff members of the 9/11 Commission were briefed on the findings of the Able Danger intelligence unit within the Special Operations Command and about the specific recommendation to break up the Mohammed Atta cell, yet those members reportedly decided not to brief the commission’s members on those matters. Why not?

Clearer now is the conflict of interest of having Jamie Gorelick, the Assistant Attorney General under Bill Clinton serving on the 9/11 Commission. Ms. Gorelick worked directly for Janet Reno and was directly involved in matters that were under review by the 9/11 Commission.

Remember the reason the findings of Able Danger were not acted upon? In his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft stated the following:

"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required," he said. "The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail."
Continuing his testimony, Ashcroft stated:

"Somebody built this wall.” Ashcroft added: "The basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum entitled 'Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission."
Ashcroft was referring to Jamie Gorelick, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration as well as general counsel at the Department of Defense. Both jobs put her at the very center of the former administration's anti-terrorism efforts. Consequently, her actions, as well as those of her superiors, were the subject of review by the very commission on which she is a member. Most assuredly, that is a huge conflict of interest. In her position at the Justice Department, Gorelick wrote a memo that provides a picture of the role she played setting policy for intelligence gathering and sharing during the Clinton Administration. The memo stemmed from the Justice Department's prosecution of the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

Gorelick wrote in 1995:

“During the course of those investigations, significant counterintelligence information has been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in this country and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups." We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
And therein is the framework for the legal conundrum faced by Able Danger, and why Atta and his minions were free to hijack 4 airliners on 9/11.

18 posted on 08/10/2005 4:45:34 AM PDT by conservativecorner (It's a cult of death and submission to fanatics Larry!!)

To: Lancey Howard

No link, alas, but Sandy was on C-Span last week as the president of some new D.C. think tank. (The sign was on the wall behind him as he was interviewed. Surely C-Span has a note on this somewhere.) This way he can write off his lifestyle as business expense and pay himself a big, fat salary. Why isn't he in jail?????

19 posted on 08/10/2005 4:50:34 AM PDT by hershey

To: Lancey Howard

Roger L. Simon:

"Able Danger"...
...is the name of a classified military intelligence unit that allegedly identified Mohammed Atta and three of his fellow conspirators over a year before 9/ll but were unable to get their information to the FBI. From the AP:

[Representative Curt] Weldon said that in September 2000 Able Danger recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI ``so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists.'' However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

Well, I'm sure the ACLU will be pleased, but most of us will have more ambivalent reactions. The New York Times' version is here.

20 posted on 08/10/2005 4:54:11 AM PDT by conservativecorner (It's a cult of death and submission to fanatics Larry!!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794