Also the conspiracy theorists are out in full force on this one. It seems that when Bill Clinton testified before the 9/11 Commission, he wasn't alone as it was originally reported. David Kendall, his presidential attorney, was also with him and now some are saying that Sandy Berger was also there. So the question is: was Berger procuring those documents before that testimony? I heard a couple of folks on the radio today who are looking into it.
Me? I don't have a clue. Just waiting and watching to see where this goes like everybody else.
I didn't see your thread before I started this one BBB. But you will see that I've only posted AP reports who so far as not been accused by A2K members of being biased toward the right.
Foxfyre wrote:Me? I don't have a clue.
Quite an accurate self-assessment, I might add.
Brand X wrote:Hey, Sandy, is that a document in your pants or are you glad to see me???
What an idiot, what was he doing?
Why take documents and keep them, not destroy them?
WTF?
Actually, he took notes--which is not illegal--there's no way he'd get out the door with the documents. Trouble is, he's not allowed to take the notes with him when he leaves--and i'm bettin' he thought he'd not get caught.
Setanta wrote:Brand X wrote:Hey, Sandy, is that a document in your pants or are you glad to see me???
What an idiot, what was he doing?
Why take documents and keep them, not destroy them?
WTF?
Actually, he took notes--which is not illegal--there's no way he'd get out the door with the documents. Trouble is, he's not allowed to take the notes with him when he leaves--and i'm bettin' he thought he'd not get caught.
Notes = documents = notes? I dunno.
Excerpt
Quote:A government source told CNN that some of the documents at issue were classified as "code word" materials -- the highest level of security, making them more closely held than nuclear secrets. Archives officials have also told investigators that one document is still missing -- an analysis of the effectiveness of counterterrorism efforts against threats tied to the turn of the Millennium.
Source
I believe ya, Boss . . . i was going on the report i had heard on the NPR news . . .
If we were completely honest that if this was a republican related story, we democrats would be all over it discussing all kinds of reasons and theories of what could be behind it all. It is fishy and it does make you wonder why they felt that they had to hide and destroy something. These excues of of it being accident sounds as believable as the excuses of Bush's records being accidently destroyed. I am beginning to think everybody is crooked on both sides.
Nevertheless, I am still voting for someone other than Bush and it just happens to be Kerry and Edwards.
Beginning ? ! ? ! ?
I take it as axiomatic.
Plot thickens. not hardly except that this is yet another desperate attempt to deflet attnetion away from the most inept administration in our history.
Harper wrote:Plot thickens. not hardly except that this is yet another desperate attempt to deflet attnetion away from the most inept administration in our history.
harper, where in the world do you come up with this drivel? substanciate, please.
Even the righties are speaking about the timine of this "leak"
However I find it ironic that an administration who "accidently" lost military records that would prove Bush isn't a deserter would DARE talk about anyone else doing it.
Could this administration be anymore evil, appalling and hypocritical? they will USE anything and anyone in order to avoid having to actually run on their record.
What Berger did was stupid, however NO charges have been brought up. There's NO proof that he covered anything up and there's been NO proof of criminal acts.
BTW- Anyone else find it odd that people would just sit around and watch him stuff classified documents into his socks and NOT STOP HIM? Talk about a lapse in security! Isn't it their job to secure those documents? So why are they still working there?
Actually taking notes from classified documents is just as illegal as taking the documents.
Foxfyre wrote:Actually taking notes from classified documents is just as illegal as taking the documents.
Well if that were the case wouldn't there be charges? Again if it was illegal wouldn't that make the employees who stood by as guilty? They should be charged as well for abedding in a crime.
I don't know. As I understand it the investigation is still in progress. I actually like Sandy Berger and hope there are some extenuating circumstances here that the media is missing. (It sure wouldn't be the first time.) It doesn't look good though.
Are you in a hurry for the charges? There is an investigation in progress. The results of that investigation will decide if charges are brought up against Berger.
As it stands now, the prosecuters have already turned down numerous "deal" offers from Bergers attorneys.
link
Foxfyre wrote:I don't know. As I understand it the investigation is still in progress. I actually like Sandy Berger and hope there are some extenuating circumstances here that the media is missing. (It sure wouldn't be the first time.) It doesn't look good though.
So 8 months of investigation and nothing yet to show he committed a crime means it doesn't look good?
I'm purely speculating here, but I think Sandy Berger is so well liked and non offensive, nobody wanted to push this. Whomever broke the story, however, has sort of forced their hand. And, if the missing documents, are critical to the 9/11 Commission report or to President Clinton's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, it needed to be said before the report was out.
Foxfyre wrote:I'm purely speculating here, but I think Sandy Berger is so well liked and non offensive, nobody wanted to push this. Whomever broke the story, however, has sort of forced their hand. And, if the missing documents, are critical to the 9/11 Commission report or to President Clinton's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, it needed to be said before the report was out.
You keep avoiding my questions.
WHY AREN'T THE EMPLOYEES BEING FIRED? WHY DIDN'T THEY STOP HIM?
Of course it had to be said EXACTLY 2 days before the report was out not 8 MONTHS AGO WHEN THE ACTUALLY BEGAN INVESTIGATING.
