Clinton Aide Took Classified Material for 9/11 report prep

Heh.

Cynicism is one thing; that's excusable. Willful naivete is another. Novak didn't know she was a spy? Oh, please...

It really don't matter the reasons that some republicans' might be estatic over this story or even the timing of it being so close to the report of the 9/11 commission. The fact is that it smells like berger was getting something that would make clinton look bad that had something to do with the terror situation and his excuses sound just that, excuses.

Our side just look like the republican's who keep on making excuses for Bush if we keep defending something like this that is so important.

What exactly is so important about it?

Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the 9/11 commission, said the panel has "copies of everything (Berger) saw. We have access to every one of these documents that we have been reading about that have been allegedly taken. We have had access to everything. In no way was our report compromised."

It's a tempest in a teapot meant to deflect attention from the kitchen burning up.

Source



The devil is always in the details and details never support the Republicans claims

If it was not important, why take it?

I agree that the story will be taken advantaged of by the media who (despite claims to the opposite) are conservative biased and by all those forever talking heads of the republican party on tv to deflect attention away from that criminal bush.

(I know that paragraph is not provable, nevertheless it is my opinion)

In the end, it don't matter anyway, clinton is not running for office.

The store down the road from me has well over a dozen issues of Playboy on display. It's still against the law to steal one. Just as it is against the law to take classified documents from the national archive. It doesn't matter that there are other copies or not. Copies of classifeid documents remain classified. Suppose he also took copies of the national defense policy regarding airspace around Washington D.C. If those documents fell into the wrong hands, lives could be in danger.

BBB
I posted the following comment to another site discussing this topic:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29258&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I'm reposting the link to the thread I posted containing the story from four different news sources to show how lies and distortions get started. They are repeated and then picked up by lazy journalists and continue to spread faulty information until the public believes the lies and distortions.

If you don't believe me, then review the comments made by posters to this thread. The same thing is happening here as happens with the Media. That's why the public gets so much bad information and why people with an agenda can manipulate public thought to their advantage.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29313&highlight=

BBB

It was widely known that Plame worked for the CIA. Lots of people do. Most of them aren't spies.

Novak said he thought she was working as aprofessional with emphasis on WMDs, and that he did not know she was under cover.

Wilson said Plame told him of her job after their first kiss. If she was so under cover, she certainly wasn't too worried about others knowing what she did and where she worked.

Several news agencies are reporting Berger's admission that he stuffed some classified documents in his pants.

Clinton's involvement, though it may be indirect, is that the papers were from his National Security evaluations of his response to the Cole bombing and Bin Laden, focusing on his actions (or INactions) re airport and seaport security... And they were taken before the Commission could see them--and they are forever 'lost', so no one can know what was in them.

Ah, Clinton laughed about it, after all that's how his pet came to be named Socks.

Well, it all started when Sandy Berger was at a National Security meeting with the president, and Bill noticed that Sandy was stuffing various papers down into his socks. With a grin, Bill asked Sandy what he was doing, and Sandy replied with a sheepish smile, "I'm sorry, I have a habit of inadvertently putting classified information in my socks." Everyone at the meeting roared at that (including the representative of the Peoples Republic of China, who seldom laughed at anything), and Bill--pretending to be stern--told Sandy to give the papers to the Chinese representative while he (Sandy) ran out to refill Bill's cigar humidor.

Right after that, the family pet became known as "Socks." (Sandy also became known as "Cigar Boy", but that's a topic for Bill's biography sequel).

Brand X
Brand X, you should take up writing fiction; you're good at it.

BBB

Re: Brand X


Thanks! But really....I have to take a bow to Woodward, Clarke, Wilson and Moore for they are much better at it than I. :wink:

Brand X
Brand X, you are far too modest. None of those gentlemen have had the imagination to create your version of the history of how the cat Socks got his name. Maybe its because Socks got his name before Clinton became a candidate for President and long before Clinton met Berger.

BBB

What is so interesting about this is that this morning, in an interview, President Bush claimed the White House could not have participated in any leaks to the Media. It took only two hours before Bush's Press Secretary had to announce a correction that, in fact, several members of the White House Staff knew about the Berger investigation for a long time. One can assume the leaks may have come from Vice President Cheney's office because Republican members of Congress were given talking points to flood the Media at a luncheon meeting in Cheney's office earlier this week. It seems evident that this leak was designed to divert attention away from the publication of the 9/11 report. ---BBB

DNC Press Release MCAULIFFE FILES FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST; Requests All Documents Shared Between the Department of Justice and White House Regarding Investigation of Sandy Berger
Wed Jul 21 2004 13:17:22 ET

Washington, D.C. -In response to the questionable timing of the public release of information regarding the investigation of former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe officially filed a Freedom of Information Act request today for the release of correspondence between the Department of Justice and the White House regarding this investigation.

Below is a copy of McAuliffe's official letter of request.

Melanie Ann Pustay, Deputy Director
Office of Information and Policy
Department of Justice
Suite 570, Flag Building
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

July 21, 2004

Dear Ms. Pustay:

This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §552, and is submitted on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.

According to recent reporting, an investigation into former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger has been going on for at least nine months, since October 2003. Yet, the criminal investigation only came to light three days prior to the release of a report expected to be critical of the Bush administration's lack of focus on the events leading up to the 9-11 attacks. As conservative scholar Norm Ornstein stated, "you can't look at the timing of this with anything but an enormous amount of skepticism." [CNN, 7/20/04]

In light of the seriousness of the possibility that the Bush administration and the Department of Justice have politicized an ongoing investigation, it is imperative that this Freedom of Information request is responded to in an expedited manner.

Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 and the regulations of the Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §16.3, I am requesting copies of the following:

Any and all communications relating or referring to the investigation of Samuel ("Sandy") Berger, between, correspondence (including electronic mail) between, memoranda between, phone records of communications between, meeting notes and/or minutes of meetings between, on the one hand, any official or employee of the US Department of Justice AND, on the other hand, (i) the Executive Office of the President or any unit or office thereof (including but not limited to the Office of the Vice President); (ii) any official, employee, or representative of the Republican National Committee; OR (iii) any official, employee or representative of the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign.

This request covers all documents created during the period from and including October 1, 2003 through and including July 20, 2004.

For your purposes in filling this request, please consider me under the category of "all other organizations," as defined by the Freedom of Information Act. If there are any fees for copying or searching for the records I have requested, please inform me of the cost prior to searching or copying, and only if the total exceeds $100.

If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemption which you believe justifies your refusal to release the information and inform me of your agency's administrative appeal procedures available to me under the law.

Please provide all information on a rolling basis if possible. I appreciate your handling of this request as quickly as possible and I look forward to hearing from you within 20 working days, as the law stipulates.

If you have any questions or need further information concerning the above request, please contact me at the address below or at 202-863-8121.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

Terence R. McAuliffe, Chairman
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Who says it was widely known? Why then would Novak call Plame a CIA "Operative"?

This is quoted from the primary source...Novak, July 14th Column "Mission to Niger"

BBB, My question is; since this investigations has been going on since October 2003, and since the investigation only became public yesterday, why did it take so long for Berger to resign? Surely, he knew he was being investigated, surely the DNC and the Kerry campaign knew he was being investigated. Why wasn't he pressed to resigned BEFORE the investigation became public?

...and since it's an on-going investigation, the DoJ won't release any of the FOIA stuff McAullife's requesting. Since McAullife knows this, he's pulling a Mikey Moore and shooting for the free publicity - counting on an ignorant electorate and a willingly complicit media, eh?

Sofia
Sofia, how do you explain the Bush administration's attempt to divert and bury the criminal investigation away from the White House?

BBB

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=802038#802038

July 20, 2004
-- Josh Marshall - Talking Points Memo
A bit more on Berger.

To expand on the post below, all the supposed nefarious motives I've heard for this seem ridiculous on their face. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
says that Berger took information on port security from those documents and gave them to John Kerry so he could use them at a photo op soon after the incident took place last October.

That makes no sense. As someone who runs in those circles, I can tell you that there are at least half a dozen Democratic think-tank homeland security mavens who will happily go on about port security with you until you're ready to strangle them, or even until you do strangle them.

The thought that Kerry needed Sandy Berger to pilfer one of Richard Clarke's after-reports about the millenium terror alerts to get whatever boilerplate he discussed at this particular press conference is truly ridiculous. And Santorum must know it.

Here's the transcript of Berger's lawyer Lanny Breuer on Wolf Blitzer tonight. He makes Berger's case.

(Scroll down to the phrase "Brian Todd, thanks very much for that report" for the beginning of the interview portion.)

I'd be curious to hear what people think after reading that interchange.

-- Josh Marshall
(July 20, 2004 -- 07:44 PM EDT // link // print)
In the days ahead I have to imagine that a lot of Democrats -- and not happily -- are going to be asking this question: Why didn't Sandy Berger step aside from his advisory position for John Kerry some time ago?

Set aside all the outstanding questions that will be churned over in the coming days, and consider the following ...

1) At a minimum Berger did something that was quite embarrassing for a man of his standing.

2) No one disputes that there is an FBI investigation and that there has been one for months.

3) Republicans, not to mention Democrats, aren't above a well-timed leak to maximize political damage against their opponents. All the more so since this is virtually the signature of the Ashcroft Justice Department.

Given the timing and other context I don't have much doubt this was a politically motivated and malicious leak. It's as dirty as it comes, but also highly predictable.

I think a lot of Democrats are going to be asking why Berger didn't see this coming down the pike, step aside from his prominent advisory role with the Kerry campaign, and avoid at least the immediate partisan political dimensions of the current predicament almost entirely.

I say it with much less than no pleasure. But I'm wondering. And I don't have a good answer.

-- Josh Marshall

(July 20, 2004 -- 07:28 PM EDT // link // print)
From this evening's Nelson Report, here's Chris Nelson on the Berger matter ...

Summary: apparent removal of classified documents from the National Archives by Kerry Campaign advisor Sandy Berger is classic "Washington scandal"...friends rush to the defense; enemies issue pious quasi-indictments; everyone tries to measure whether the victim/subject is mortally wounded, or will survive to play in the future. (If so, you'd better watch what you say now...) Quick verdict of the professionals...Berger's lost any chance at Senate-confirmed job in a Kerry Administration (Secretary of State was the presumed desire); timing of the leak was not coincidental (Dem National Convention opens Monday, 9/11 Report due this week). As to whether he's really "guilty", no one knows, perhaps including Berger. One thing is for sure...a political life can change in seconds.
----------------------------

1. First, on the scandal de jour, former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, lately a high-profile player in Democrat John Kerry's campaign for the presidency, today found himself publicly accused of illegally removing highly classified anti-terrorism documents from the National Archives, while reviewing the materials to prepare for his testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

-- Berger's friends and former colleagues rushed to his defense, but the Kerry Campaign appeared taken by surprise, and merely offered "no comment about an on-going investigation". Republicans could hardly contain their glee, issuing pious remarks about the seriousness of the matter, without wishing to rush to judgment against Berger. In short, a typical Washington scandal, with everyone looking over their shoulder to see how it might affect them.

2. As in any leak, one must always ask who did it, and why. In leaks, the motives can be played either way...sometimes opponents of something think a leak will stop it; other times, proponents leak to discredit opponents, etc., etc. Since the circumstances of Berger's potential discomfiture have apparently been known to a variety of players for several months, we may never know why this story just surfaced now.

-- for what it's worth, the Justice Department denied any involvement in, or political motivation for leaking word of the probe, implying a pure coincidence that it comes days before the Democratic National Convention opens in Boston, and the further coincidence that the 9/11 Commission report is coming this week. (Democrats, of course, darkly hinted that Berger was being thrown out as a diversionary tactic from what is presumed to be an embarrassing report for the Republicans.)

3. If Republicans and Democrats disagreed as to the motive for the Berger leak, one difference between this scandal and the "usual" is that both sides agree on one thing: to the extent that anyone is willing to discuss events "off the record", both friends and enemies agree that any chance Berger had of continuing a public role as a Kerry foreign policy advisor has been eliminated.

-- and for the future? To quote one old Washington hand who happens to be a Dem, "what do you think Republicans would do if Berger's name was submitted to the Senate for Sec State?" For the immediate future, what remains to be determined is whether Berger's embarrassment also becomes Kerry's embarrassment...and the mere fact of the question helps convince many Democrats of the political motivation of the timing of the leak, since Berger has apparently been under investigation by Justice since last October.

4. To show just why Democrats are upset/worried: Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of House Armed Services, lost no time in raising a serious charge, while pretending not to. Speaking to Fox News last night, Hunter suggested that Berger may have removed the classified documents to help the Kerry Campaign (since they apparently cover an "after action" report of things Clinton did, successfully, in the war on terrorism).

-- Hunter then went on to say he "accepted" Berger's "protestations and [his] proclaimed innocence and his good faith and [that] it was just a mistake - he was just sloppy. I think we accept that." Plunging home the knife, Hunter concluded, however, that there is a "certain discipline" required to separate politics from public duty, and that "he's obviously violated that discipline."

(Translation: if Kerry's people are "sloppy" with highly classified materials in the war on terrorism, how can Kerry be trusted with the responsibility of protecting the American people in the future? Especially, Hunter implies, if Dems are so reckless as to use classified information for political advantage. Shocking...shocking. Democrats choke in fury on that one, given Atty. Gen. Ashcroft's record since 9/11. Anyhow, that, in a nutshell, gives you the immediate bottom line.)

I think Chris has the dimensions of this about right.

-- Josh Marshall
(July 20, 2004 -- 06:00 PM EDT

Unless you were with Berger, whatmakes you think you know what is a lie or distortion?

What makes you discount the admission from Berger, which is now showing up on almost all news reports?

You want spin.... The line about the "timing" is 100% spin, and does not have any point in the Berger story, except to lend to the Democrat's Damage Control.

The facts are who did it, what did they do.