Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Miss Marple; cyncooper

It would be very interesting to know who let Berger get away with this, and who turned him in. I am not fully familiar with their procedures (having never consulted the National Archives, and certainly never having been allowed anywhere near a Top Secret document!), but I recall from earlier threads that the users were monitored, at least from outside the room, by an archives employee - although I don't know what level. Perhaps a security guard? In any case, archivists always count the pages when documents go out and count them when they come back in, as well as looking through them to make sure that no one has replaced them with blank pages, etc.

It seems unlikely that Berger got the same archives employee on every single visit (although I don't know how many there are or how busy the place is). It is possible that some of them got careless because they had seen him so often (this happened in the case of a researcher who was stealing from the Vatican archives, IIRC), so perhaps they didn't check very closely. Or perhaps they were told not to?

I guess I'm trying to figure out how he thought he was going to pull this off, over such a long period of time and in a place with more than one employee and a set of security systems. I don't think he would have tried it unless he thought he had high level protection, that is, that it had been arranged with someone who had the power to override the rules. That person could only be Carlin.

Personally, I think Carlin's "cooperation" in catching Berger may have been motivated by the threat of jail. The archivist could certainly go away for a long time for arranging the theft of documents, but perhaps he got a deal in exchange for not tipping off Berger.

As for the person behind Berger and Carlin, that could only be Clinton. But I'm not holding my breath on it being pinned on him, because Bush would never do anything that would reveal the level of corruption of the Clinton regime. This is not to protect Clinton, I believe, but because Bush thinks revealing such scandals would undermine the people's faith in the government. My opinion, at least.


340 posted on 01/12/2005 12:10:09 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies ]


To: livius
I agree. President Bush does not want the country to lose faith in its government, and with the way things are right now,charging Clinton would ignite a civil war.

I wouldn't mind seeing him named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" though.

It is possible that Berger was up to all of this stuff to protect someone else, though. I just don't have enough information to know who it would be.

342 posted on 01/12/2005 12:19:17 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies ]

To: livius

Definitely food for thought...


360 posted on 01/12/2005 1:02:34 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies ]

To: livius
...because Bush would never do anything that would reveal the level of corruption of the Clinton regime. This is not to protect Clinton, I believe, but because Bush thinks revealing such scandals would undermine the people's faith in the government. My opinion, at least.

I'm convinced this is the case. The Office of the Presidency was damaged because of x42, and Bush is intent on repairing that damage.

Besides, there's no amount of punishment for clinton that I can think of that would come from the law that would pay him back for his and his cohorts' attacks on this country.

The punishment for x42 is knowing that history will not look kindly upon him. He knows it, and it's eating him up.

367 posted on 01/12/2005 1:21:41 PM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson