Clinton Aide Took Classified Material for 9/11 report prep

It seems tomorrow's Washington Post is gonna front-page some interesting tidbits ... apparently, Berger had been "under surveillance" for some time. A number of documents in which he was interested supposedly were tagged as a result of suspicions. They turned up missing. Berger was the only one who had accessed them. Berger admits he "inadvertantly" mishandled some documents. Reports are that two eyewitnesses have testified they witnessed Berger deliberately conceal documents on his person. There may be still or video images, but as far as I know, that is merely rumored. The way this is developing, spin ain't gonna matter a damned bit.

Kerry, who indicated Berger, his foreign policy wonk, was his pick for Secretary of State, claims he was unaware of the Berger investigation. Berger certainly was aware of the investigation ... he was supoenaed, he was deposed under oath, he had material siezed from his home and office ... and of Kerry's placing him on the short list for a cabinet post ... and didn't tell Kerry? Odd, that. Oh, well ... perhaps.

At this point, about the best the Dems can hope for is that Kerry remains unconnected. Berger's carreer is over; he'll be very lucky if he doesn't get Federal Time.

it's such an outrage.

Well, not page one, but here's the Washington Post article. Looks like Berger's sandbagged himself bigtime.

Berger's political future is toast
Berger's political future is toast as far as any role in a Kerry presidency. I cannot understand why he failed to tell Kerry about the archives investigation, which demonstrates very poor political judgment. With his experience he should have known it would be leaked to the Media. A huge disservice to Kerry.

---BBB

Things sure as hell ain't gonna get any better for Berger. Conjecture, of course, but I have to wonder what would cause an experienced, knowledgeable, respected individual to risk not just his reputation but his freedom. I find the "careless/unintentional" defense wholly inadequate, disingenuous to the point of arrogance. What remains to be seen, and of perhaps more significance and interest, is who, if anyone, goes down with him.

The question is--

Was it for Kerry, or to hide culpability of Clinton and/or himself re the 911 Commission.

A toss up, but I'm leaning toward 'hiding culpability from the 911 Commission.'

sofia

who was hiding anything from, the 9/11 commission has seen everything that he took because they had copies. He may not have known that and that is why he might have tried to take them, nevertheless, they do have copies so any "culpabitiy" is out there for the 9/11 commision and the report would have been the same had berger not taken anything.

An actual member from the 9.11 commission stated this morning for the record that they recieved ALL THE DOCUMENTS THEY NEEDED. This confirmation came from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

So unless you think you have more inforation then the actual people on the 9.11 commission and the Justice Department any claims about Kerry's and Clinton's supposed part in this is purt fantasy. However what else do the righties have their entire premise of Bush being a leader is based in mythical land.

I can't disagree with that last statement!

Weak.

He stoled documents. The charges he will face won't be reduced because he wasn't quite crafty enough to steal all the copies... LOL!! Hilarious!

He stole them for a reason. To hide from the world how lax Clinton was regarding terrorism--because, there is no way in hell Kerry would get elected if the Commission found, and reported, whose fault Bin Laden and 911 really is.

Well, how would they be hidden from the world if copies were already given, Sofia?

There are some questions that need answers.

What we know:

Fact: Berger aroused suspicion and an official investigation was begun

Fact: Berger was in unlawful possession of classified information.

Fact: Berger's CV and bona fides mitigate, and powerfully so, against carelessness or ignorance of applicable protocol and law

Fact: Both Berger and Kerry aver Kerry was unaware of the investigation.

What we don't know:

Why did Berger act contrary to his years of directly relevant experience and knowledge of applicable law?

Who, if anyone, besides Berger is involved ... involved, not merely implicated-by-inuendo.

Will the answers to the above two questions settle the incident?


Hmmmm ... I suppose we already know the answer to that last question. Still, what we don't know far outweighs what we have learned to this point. I suspect rather than concrete answers, the near term will yield only more questions.

Probably.
I can't believe that kerry was involved. there would be too much to lose should it come out, as it has, and besides, berger's been under investigation for quite some time, and undoubtedly, kerry would have known that. and despite what you may think of him, kerry is not a stupid man, while that would be a stupid action. That suspicion won't pan out, I'd bet.
I don't see that there has to have been anyone else involved. berger was probably trying to cover his own ass. Unless Clinton put him up to it so nothing would be used against Hillary in the future, but I don't really believe that, either.
In any case, we may never know, yet people will always have their suspicions, and turn them into convictions, as they always do.

A perfectly reasonable outline, and it is perfectly reasonable to conduct an investigation of the matter.

Only the most partisan of individuals equates investigation with a guilty verdict.

Although one might argue that Berger should never have been allowed to enter the secure room with a briefcase, and that he would have been familiar with this prohibition, it is not difficult to imagine that a former National Security Advisor would have been given a pass on the rules by whomever was charged with enforcing them. There's nothing sinister about this. In fact, it would be more unsual for a civil servant to religiously enforce a set of rules upon one of the high and mighty (past or present) in Washington.

Once inside the room with a briefcase, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine how papers might have inadvertantly been mixed up with those brought into the room; in the briefcase.

Berger will have a harder time explaining how papers got into his pockets.

He will also have a harder time explaining why any of the papers removed from the room might have innocently been discarded.

This is not to say that he is guilty of anything other than sloppiness, but it
is not difficult, given what we know, to creat a fairly plausible scenario where the papers were removed and discarded for nefarious reasons. This being the case, an investigation is called for.

The fact that every single piece of paper discarded had been copied by the archives is entirely immaterial. Just because an illegal act doesn't produce its intended result, doesn't mean it is any less illegal.

If, in fact, there are duplicates of every piece of paper Berger left with, then, assuming he is innocent of wrongdoing, his defense should be fairly straight forward. If the discarded papers are totally innocuous, then error rather than design would be indicated. On the other hand, if the discarded papers were somehow problematic for Berger and/or the Clinton Administration, then the evidence of wrongdoing may only be circumstantial but it would be convincing, and a conviction can be based on convincing circumstantial evidence.

Love Leno's twist on this -- Berger alledgedly smuggled the documents out by putting them in his pants. Why does every scandal have to involve something in the pants?

Seriously, I didn't particularly like Berger but that this is any kind of smoking gun about Clinton's or anyone else's handling of the terrorist threat, it's a non-starter IMHO. It'll have to play out in the political arena and we all know what happens there. Anyone smell the odor of whitewash?

I don't think the story will go anywhere in the public because the 9/11 commision has already said that they had copies of whatever it was that berger took so there is no mystery waiting to unfold regardless of what those papers contained. I haven't been watching the news lately so I don't know if they are making a lot of it or not. I don't see too many articles about it on the internet news though.

I'm calm now.

Of course my conjecture on "why" Berger did what he did was pure speculation.

When Clinton got away with the pardons, I never got over it. I do see him in this--but it may be due to personal umbrage at the way he ducks so much. IMO, he has left a wide swath of jailed FOB's.

I retract my anti-Bill diatribe.

For now...

I very much doubt that this has anything to do with either Clinton or Kerry, but it may have very much to do wih Berger and the archive.

I have been involved for many years with publicly funded archaeological projects and with some of those projects my field notes and draft reports have ended up in official archives. On occasion I have had to refer to those notes or drafts. I am sometimes very much irritated by the regulations, rituals and attitudes of archivist toward material that was once stuffed into the back of trucks or scattered about an office or lab with coffee rings and potato chip stains on them. I don't steal or destroy them but I often irked the reverence that archive staffs sometimes demand.

These were once Berger's documents and he may have been arrogant enough to resent not having the control over them that he used to have.

"I am sometimes very much irritated by the regulations, rituals and attitudes of archivist toward material that was once stuffed into the back of trucks or scattered about an office or lab with coffee rings and potato chip stains on them."

haha! Yeah, I'll bet that's aggravating!