Posted on 01/11/2005 11:41:41 PM PST by kattracks
Former Clinton White House Mr. Fix-It Bruce Lindsey emerged tight-lipped yesterday after testifying before a federal grand jury probing whether top-secret documents were illegally removed from the National Archives.The grand jury probe, reported exclusively in The Post Tuesday, is digging into why another former Bill Clinton aide, Sandy Berger, sneaked the national security documents out of the Archives — possibly in his socks.
Lindsey denied any inside knowledge about Berger's sticky fingers.
"All I know is what he [Berger] said. He made a public statement," said Lindsey, Clinton's deputy White House counsel, after testifying under oath yesterday.
Berger admits walking off with 40 to 50 top-secret documents from the archives, but claims it was an "honest mistake" while vetting documents for the 9/11 commission.
Berger has admitted destroying some documents — he says by mistake.
Lindsey declined comment on what he told the grand jury, but denied reports that he met with Berger in New York for crisis control as the scandal erupted last summer.
[snip]
Among the documents Berger lifted were multiple drafts of a report assessing the 2000 millennium threat that is said to conclude that only luck prevented a terrorist attack then.
That conflicts with Berger's sworn testimony to the commission — he claimed "we thwarted" millennium attacks by being vigilant, not lucky.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Was it that the president wanted Cheney there, negotiated with the 9/11 Commission and ultimately he agreed to meet with them alone?
I remember they made fun of him wanting Cheney by his side.
And we all noted it was under-reported that Clinton had two aides by his side.
I always thought Berglar mad the call to Lindsey as an "Let me talk to my lawyer!" call. May be wrong, but that's usually the first thing a crook says when he's caught red handed.
Why would the Archive people deny it if there was in fact surveillance video to buttress their story? There are probably cameras on the entrance/exit doors and the like, but there was a special room set up for those there to review documents for their 9/11 Commission testimony and all other reporting says the employees did observe Berger taking documents, but Byron York nailed down there (sadly!) was no camera in that special room.
excerpt:
Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department. (There was no surveillance camera in the room in which Berger worked with the documents, meaning there is no videotape record of the incidents.)
~snip~
There is no reason for the Archives to hide the existance of tapes as they are not withholding eyewitness testimony and set up the sting in the first place. I think in this case we must ascribe the Agape report to minor error, with York digging a little deeper to nail it down.
Methinks the feds may be a little more series than earlier thought and assumed here on FR. Here's hoping it doesn't take three years as is most often the case....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C102206%2C00.html
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
WASHINGTON — Fox News has obtained a document believed to have been written by the Democratic staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee (search) that outlines a strategy for exposing what it calls "the administration's dubious motives" in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.
The memo, provided late Tuesday by a source on the Committee and reported by Fox News' Sean Hannity, discusses the timing of a possible investigation into pre-war Iraq (search) intelligence in such a way that it could bring maximum embarrassment to President Bush in his re-election campaign.
Among other things, the memo recommends that Democrats "prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the [Senate] majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time — but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year."
The last paragraph of the memo reads, "Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq."
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (search), R-Kan., appeared clearly shocked by the memo, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller (search), D-W. Va., ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, acknowledged was written in draft form and not meant for distribution.
Here is the full text of the memo from the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.
For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.
The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.
In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.
The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.
The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives.
The high profile testimony didn't happen until last spring, but they were an entity at that point.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission)
excerpt:
created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002
And to go back to my previous point, that August 2001 PDB was leaked and the "Bush Knew" headline appeared in May 2002. Around the time the idea of this commission was starting to be bandied about and the dems were crying "cover-up" because the Bush administration didn't sign onto the idea immediately.
His new name is SANDY BURGLAR...no longer berger...we've changed it...I might add fits him well. ;o)
Ah!! Thanks for the info and the link!!
Sad but true bump.
A little error-prone, I guess. How stupid does he think his fellow-citizens are? Or is that the very best story he can come up with?
He was there as member of the previous administration, in preparation for appearing before the 9/11 Commission.
* bookmarking this post
Pingin' ya!
I must pause to weep as I recall the recent campaign and the treachery approved and applauded by the MSM that came too close to winning. Most Americans had no idea.
If you find something I'd appreciate a ping. Thanks!
Call Lindsey to get the stuff back before anyone else knew. Not Berger because they thought he was a flake?
Historian Allen Weinstein sailed through a July 22 hearing in the Senate on his controversial nomination to be the ninth Archivist of the United States. However, signaling a potential political battle over what was designed to be a nonpolitical position, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) revealed that a recent exchange of letters suggests that John Carlin's announced resignation was not voluntary. In a July 22 letter to Levin, Carlin explained that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales requested his resignation. When Carlin asked why he was being asked to resign, "no reason was given" by Gonzales. According to law, the archivist can resign or be removed by the president. If the archivist is removed, however, the president must inform Congress of the reasons for removal. In sharing his exchange with Carlin, Levin suggested that the Bush administration, in asking for Carlin's resignation, was seeking to skirt its legal responsibility to inform Congress of the reasons for Carlin's removal. He asked the Governmental Affairs Committee to request that Bush explain his reasons for Carlin's removal.
Meanwhile, Carlin remains in his current position and has asked to stay at least four more months to oversee certain initiatives. Critics of the Weinstein appointment have suggested that Carlin was removed in an effort to keep sensitive presidential documents from becoming public. Weinstein, however, rejected the assertion. Still, when challenged at the hearings, he hedged. He told the committee that, as a private citizen, he had concerns about Bush's executive order because it tilted the balance in favor of "greater confidentiality and less public disclosure." As archivist, however, he testified that he would feel compelled to defend it against lawsuits seeking to overturn it.
I wonder what "initiatives" those were?
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.