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 ...
Dim Dems can't even come up with a new scheme (snicker).
Hey, when major news breaks on FR, no sleeping is allowed.....remember, b/c of the MSM sluggards, FReepers are reporters to the world.
According to the following, Carlin's letter of resignation was dated December 19, 2003. Berger began visiting the Archives in July 2003 and the staff noticed documents missing in September and set up the sting in October (see my Berger timeline link at post #160).
I can't believe I had missed Carlin's resignation and the dems' intense questioning about it, but thank you so much for bringing that up. Here's the link to the article I just found and the excerpts:
Report on the Hearing on Allen Weinstein's Nomination as Archivist of the United States
Excerpts:
On July 22, 2004, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a confirmation hearing on the pending nomination of historian Allen Weinstein to become Archivist of the United States. Weinstein is the Bush administration's choice to succeed the present archivist, John Carlin.
~snip~
Senator Lieberman asked whether Weinstein had any knowledge of Archivist John Carlin's December 19, 2003 letter indicating his intent to resign. (That letter was produced by the White House as evidence that Carlin had initiated the replacement search process.) Weinstein stated he had no such knowledge and then described the circumstances in which the White House approached him about the position.
Weinstein stated that on September 23, 2003 he was invited to meet with Ms. Dina Powell, Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Personnel about the possibility of a nomination as the next Archivist of the United States. In late November and early December he was then asked to fill out investigative and ethics forms that precede all presidential nominations. Weinstein stated that he was made aware that he would be the White House's nominee "in early January 2004." Under questioning, Weinstein also stated that he had several "generalized" conversations with White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales and several others but that at no time were there any discussions about issues relating to archival records relating to the presidency.
~snip~
Senator Levin then introduced a bombshell document into the hearing record -- a letter from current Archivist Carlin that was prepared in response to a number of questions posed to him by Levin regarding whether he [Carlin] approached the administration, or had the administration initially had approached him about resigning as Archivist. (The National Coalition for History and several of its member organizations have repeatedly called on the committee to get to the bottom of the issue relating to the Carlin controversy.) In Carlin's response (dated July 21-my note: July 21, 2004--) obtained by the history coalition, the Archivist stated: "In answer to the first question, the Administration initially approached me. On Friday, December 5, 2003, the Counsel to the President [Alberto Gonzales] called me and told me the Administration would like to appoint a new Archivist. I asked why and there was no reason given."
Carlin then stated in the letter that he wants to continue as Archivist at least four more months as "there are initiatives I would like to complete before concluding my service as Archivist"...specifically the campaign to raise $22 million to fund the Public Vaults permanent exhibit that will open in November 2004 and since "we are on the verge of awarding a contract for the design of the Electronic Records Archives...I would like to see that budget request through to fruition over the next four months."
Levin and Durbin expressed concern that, contrary to provisions of the Archives independence act, the White House was requesting Carlin's resignation without stating a reason required in the law. Following a cordial but doggedly persistent pursuit of his objective, Levin asked Chairman Collins that the committee send a letter to the White House to explain why Carlin was being asked to resign as these actions endanger "the independence of the Archivist's office." If the committee declined to do so, Levin would do so independently.
~SNIP~
I do indeed think it is extremely likely that the Berger business is at issue here and the tone from Levin is very interesting. Very interesting.
Grrrr .... I keep finding things in my bookmarks regarding the text of the memo .. but I can' seem to find the "actual" memo to see what the date of the memo was
http://www.intelmemo.com/
I can't remember if Hannity released a copied of the memo .. Does anyone remember??
I'm feeling a tad cynical today. Mainly because so much of the record of Ramani's arrest have disappeared.
I've looked at scads of articles about the memo today and none state the actual date the memo was composed. Clearly it could have been reposing in Rockefeller's files since, say, the spring of 2002...(which is the date I'm expecting on it).
Read the complete transcript to Tuesday's show
Updated: 9:25 a.m. ET July 21, 2004
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Tonight‘s top headline, a former Clinton national security adviser under investigation for smuggling highly classified terror documents.
[snip] Sandy Berger went to the National Archives, took highly classified documents and allegedly stuffed them in his trousers and socks. Now he says it‘s all a misunderstanding. But is it just a coincidence that those documents are critical of the Clinton administration‘s handling of terror before 9/11? We have a fierily political debate coming up.
Plus, the chilling story of one couple aboard a Northwest Airlines flight where 14 Middle Eastern men behaved suspiciously, that story is now sparking a national debate. Are our skies safe? We brought you the exclusive story. And tonight, we‘re going to be asking a pilot, a flight attendant and an air marshal what you can do to avoid terror in our skies.
[snip] SCARBOROUGH: Welcome to our show.
You know, a firestorm is erupting around John Kerry‘s former national security adviser. It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
Now, former Clinton National Security Chief Sandy Berger is in hot water tonight after news leaded that the FBI had launched an investigation into top secret documents that Berger smuggled out, classified information from a National Archives room. Berger first visited the National Archives on July 18, 2003, to review secret documents involving the Clinton administration‘s flawed response to terror plots.
Berger returned on September 2 of that same year and then returned to the National Archives on October 2. But on Berger‘s October 2 visit, the Kerry adviser was told that the documents he was requesting were now missing. These were of course the same documents that Berger had seen before, but had improperly removed by stuffing them in his pants, his jackets and his socks, this according to Berger‘s own lawyer and members of the National Archives staff.
Later that month, the FBI launched an investigation into the missing documents and eventually searched Berger‘s own home and the office for missing documents. The documents contained information about the security of America‘s infrastructure, its ports and its airports. And on February 27, Berger, now a John Kerry adviser, briefed the media on Kerry‘s new plans for fighting terror.
And on May 27, 2004, John Kerry launched into an 11-day national security tour focusing on the security of America‘s infrastructure, its ports and, yes, its airports, the very same issues that Berger‘s documents reportedly touched upon.
[snipped to end] Full Transcript
Ping to post #123 re Carlin the Archivist's resignation.
How this escaped me before, I don't know, but check out Levin's angle. I don't see how it couldn't be the Berger business. What else would it be?
Ping to #228
Pinging you to my post #223, too (which includes a link to the Berger timeline earlier on this thread).
I meant #223...
*
NewsMax.com Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2003 4:38 p.m. EST
Dem Intel Committee Memo Reveals Anti-Bush Plot
A memo circulated among Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence shows the committee's minority plotting to use classified information against the White House in next year's presidential campaign.
The document, obtained and disclosed by nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity Tuesday afternoon, suggests that the top priority among senior Democrats entrusted with guarding the nation's security is instead driving the Bush administration from power based on claims it exaggerated intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq.
The memo as reported by Hannity reads as follows:
"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." [End of Memo Excerpt.]
The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.
Thanks to all!
They used to have control of the apparatus to successfully use more smoke and mirrors to keep their lies straight. Now they have to use just verbal distraction and sleight-fo-hand. That gets trickier! lol
Pinz
LOL good one
And that's when the staff noticed documents missing and devised their sting for his next visit.
According to the article at #223, on "September 23, 2003 he (Weinstein) was invited to meet with Ms. Dina Powell, Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Personnel about the possibility of a nomination as the next Archivist of the United States".
Coincidence? I think not.
I SEEM to remember that Hannity had at least the text of the memo up on his site for a while...
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.