Posted on 07/30/2004 11:10:27 AM PDT by kattracks
A senior spokeswoman for the National Archives denied a report Friday morning that Archives officials have cleared former Kerry-Edwards campaign adviser Sandy Berger on charges that he withheld documents from the 9/11 Commission."In spite of what the Wall Street Journal said, the National Archives really isn't commenting on this case because it's under investigation," Susan Cooper, chief spokeswoman for the Archives, told NewsMax.com. The Journal reported in Friday editions:
"Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Advisor Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. ... The conclusion by Archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission."
The Journal report was picked up by ABC Radio network news, which further misreported the story by saying that the Justice Department had cleared Sandy Berger of all charges.
But Ms. Cooper disputed the claim that she or any other Archives official had said any such thing.
"We really have had nothing to say and will continue to have nothing to say about the particulars of the [Berger] case," Cooper told NewsMax. "I gather that there's somebody else in the food chain that has been talking about the case but it's not at the Archives."
In keeping with her no-comment policy, the Archives chief spokeswoman declined to confirm an earlier Washington Post report that Berger had destroyed four of the six copies of the Millennium Plot After Action Review stored in Archives files.
Cooper also declined to say whether draft copies of the document with original notes in the margins were among the papers Berger's lawyer Lanny Breuer said his client had "discarded."
This Berger story MUST be kept alive.........
I am not wondering if any classified documents were or were not shared with the 911 commission, I am wondering how many classified documents have been taken out, copied, and sold and/or otherwise disseminated God knows where.
these docs are classified for a reason aren't they?
Goebbels/Clintonesque tactics by the Dems.
They're hoping that misreporting will kill this radioactive story.
^
Department of Justice attorney Robert Comey (the same one that got Martha Stewart) is heading this investigation into Berger's actions.
What documents could Kerry "withhhold."
"Withhold?"
Odd word spun by his lawyer. Maybe the meaning is not items from the Archives, but items Berger had always retained, with the notes of Middle East meetings found in Berger's safe.
I don't think it's up to the Archives to clear Sandy Berger of anything.
Darn! I duplicated the scoop.
The timing of this story is suspect. (some demo later today)
(must be the vast, right wing conspiracy at work in the minds of leftists again)
Obfuscation, false leaks, media misdirection. There's no way Bill Clinton is involved in this.
if I take a classified document, xerox it and sell the copy but return the origional, have I committed a crime?
my point is that we don't know what hamburger did with the documents. he could very well have copied ans sold them to all sorts of folks all over the globe.
the documents were locked in the archive so this would not happen.
someone steals my car, robs a bank, then returns the car - does that mere fact hat my car got returned to me negate the fact that it was stolen and used in a crime? returning the car doesn't make things right.
...and little controversies such as this (cleared - not cleared) help to do so...:-)
"What documents could Kerry "withhhold." "
I meant Berger, of course. :)
Odd word spun by his lawyer. Maybe the meaning is not items from the Archives, but items Berger had always retained, with the notes of Middle East meetings found in Berger's safe.
The reporting at the end of last week suggested that Berger had removed original draft copies circulated to different individuals with unique handwritten comments on them. If that were the case, the 911 commission would never have seen them, as they were removed and presumably destroyed prior to the point in time that the documents were sent to the commission.
Today, however, there are press reports that the Archives in fact did not have the originals, but photocopies, which is what Berger took. The originals were at the Clinton Presidential Library, which apparently forwarded to the Archives additional copies of the same documents. What we don't know is if the second set of copies received by the Archives are identical to the ones Berger removed.
We may never know.
1. Berger may have thought he was taking the "originals" and did not know they were "copied."
2. Whatever his spinners say, everyone of any political stripe with any shred of common sense knows that sticking documents in one's pants is not a "mistake." That the Dem party leaders tried to spin for him rather than dump him like a ton of bricks is amazing.
The source of what Indepententmind just said below. I would like to know if this is proper precedure for secret documents?:
The problem for Berger is that the originals are also in the material waiting for the construction of the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock. That project is being managed by the National Archives. When officials of the National Archives saw Berger stuffing documents in his pants, they checked to see what was missing. They called Little Rock and got the memos replaced, only this time they had invisible markings. Berger apparently returned and saw those same documents, so he took them again
National Archive Called Clinton Library
The article in WSJ read like a press release from Berger's lawyer. It didn't really state that Berger was cleared of the theft. It stated that Berger was cleared of withholding material from 9/11 commission, and stated that he is still under investigation for removing the documents from the archives. It's curious that the article claimed to be quoting the archives spokeswoman who is now denying the claim.
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.