Former Clinton Official Stole Classified Documents

[Hard Ball]

"Sandy Berger Probed Over Terror Memos
Tuesday, July 20, 2004

WASHINGTON — Former President Clinton's national security adviser is under criminal investigation for taking highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, FOX News has confirmed.

Sandy Berger is under scrutiny by the Justice Department following the disappearance of documents he was reviewing at the National Archives.

Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," Berger said in a statement.

There are laws strictly governing the handling of classified information, including prohibiting unauthorized removal or release of such information.

Lanny Breuer, one of Berger's attorneys, said his client had offered to cooperate fully with the investigation but had not yet been interviewed by the FBI or prosecutors.

Berger served as Clinton's national security adviser for all of the president's second term and most recently has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Clinton asked Berger last year to review and select the administration documents that would be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.

Deputy Attorney General James Comey told reporters Tuesday he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.

"As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously," Comey said in response to a reporter's question about the Berger bind, adding that the department has prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.

"It's our lifeblood, those secrets," Comey continued. "It's against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations."

Inadvertent' Action? A clear violation of the Espionage Act.

The FBI searches of Berger's home and office occurred after National Archives employees said they believed they witnessed Berger placing documents in his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers and that some documents were missing.

Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but could not locate two or three copies of the millennium terror report.

"In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said.

"When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."

Breuer said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals.

Government and congressional officials said no decision has been made on whether Berger should face criminal charges.

Although lawmakers didn't want to make a judgment call on Berger's fate until all the facts are known, they agreed that the situation doesn't look good for Berger, or even for Kerry.

"There's an ethic here -- that is of strict discipline, of not letting the fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions when it comes to national security," Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told FOX News on Tuesday.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., called the news "surprising" and said that "unless we learn otherwise, I have to assume that what Sandy said was right -- that any removal of documents was inadvertent. But it is serious."

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said, "we need more information -- obviously the timing of it is not good" for Kerry.

"From now on, until the election, everything like this will have a spotlight put on it, examined very carefully," Lott continued.

More 'Innocent Than It Looks?'

David Gergen, who was an adviser to Clinton and worked with Berger for a time in the White House, said Tuesday, "I think it's more innocent than it looks."

"I have known Sandy Berger for a long time," Gergen said in a television interview. "He would never do anything to compromise the security of the United States." Gergen said he thought that "it is suspicious" that word of the investigation of Berger would emerge just as the Sept. 11 commission is about to release its report, since "this investigation started months ago."

Berger testified publicly at one of the commission's hearings about the Clinton administration's approach to fighting terrorism.

Berger had ordered his counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, in early 2000 to write the after-action report and has publicly spoken about how the review brought to the forefront the realization that Al Qaeda had reached America's shores and required more attention.

The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report as it was being refined by the Clinton administration. The Archives is believed to have copies of some of the missing documents.

In the FBI search of his office, Berger also was found in possession of a small number of classified note cards containing his handwritten notes from the Middle East peace talks during the 1990s, but those are not a focal point of the current criminal probe, according to officials and lawyers.

Breuer said the Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day, Breuer said.

Officials said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey.

Berger immediately returned all the notes he had taken, and conducted a search and located two copies of the classified documents on a messy desk in his office, Breuer said. An Archives official came to Berger's home to collect those documents but Berger couldn't locate the other missing copies, the lawyer said.

Breuer said Berger was allowed to take handwritten notes but also knew that taking his own notes out of the secure reading room was a "technical violation of Archive procedures, but it is not all clear to us this represents a violation of the law."

[Jamie Young]

At a certain point Bush really needs to start using the term "traitors" when referring to the Democratic leaders in this Country. Clinton now claims to be laughing about this and thinks it all funny. These guys are about one step away from being full fledged enemies and soon they should all start to be treated as such.

[Fred Hansen]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm SHOCKED!!! Shocked I tell you!

[mete]

The New York Times reports it differently. The first day the story was on page 16, today it's on the front page but Berger's name is NOT mentioned. Typical of the NYTimes !! But Berger stole documents [National SECURITY Adviser] and retuned SOME of them .And Clinton laughs . Sure Clinton played us as suckers again.

[PKAY]

This morning's L.A. Times featured the story on the front page just under and to the right of a larger headlined hit piece claiming Halliburton has illegal dealings with Iran!! Anything to deflect attention from this glaring breach of national security by Sandy Berger. Berger's THEFT of classified documents relating to the Clinton administration's handling of a planned terrorist Millenium incident is clearly a federal crime of great consequence. It should be pursued vigorously by the Justice Department.

[gburner]

'inadvertantly' took classified documents from the National Archives. How can concealing memoranda in your socks and underclothing be even remotely construed as 'inadvertant'? YOU go to Washington and try and remove something/anything from the Archives the Smithsonian or the Library of Congress and see how fast yer ass is in the slam. Meanwhile, this hump gets a pass cause he's part of the ruling elite. He should be gettin' a beatdown by a gangbanger over his dessert in the D.C. jail while sweating out the threat of a forced gang colonoscopy and anxiously awaiting the arrival of his bail bondsman and public defender. Justice for all my rumproast.

[myopicmouse]

Documents always see mto go 'missing' in every country, in every walk of life. In fact right now on the news Castlereagh police station has a missing file, and they've suspended 38 people until they find out what happened. It's not the first time stuff has went missing there either.

[Destructo6]

Mouse, it is not really that these documents were missing, the archives knew who checked them out (Berger) and that some had not been returned, but who was allowed to see the most classified of documents and why some were destroyed while others were returned.

Berger is trying to play this off as an innocent mistake, but he knew the rules and intentionally violated them.

[paratrooper]

How soon Sandy forgets . During the Klinton administration it was strictly forbidden to stick your hands into your pants . Now sticking your hands into somebody elses pants was a different story .

[joab]

Meanwhile, this hump gets a pass cause he's part of the ruling elite. He should be gettin' a beatdown by a gangbanger over his dessert in the D.C. jail while sweating out the threat of a forced gang colonoscopy and anxiously awaiting the arrival of his bail bondsman and public defender.

Or hosting a radio talk show like Ollie or G Gordon

[myopicmouse]

Mouse, it is not really that these documents were missing, the archives knew who checked them out (Berger) and that some had not been returned, but who was allowed to see the most classified of documents and why some were destroyed while others were returned.

Berger is trying to play this off as an innocent mistake, but he knew the rules and intentionally violated them.

Defiantly, he knew the rules, and I think he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Whats the point of rules & inforcment if you just say "woops, i forgot" - thats what the rules are there for, lock him up!

[Geoff Timm]

Let's Face Facts Folks,

His master's demanded the documents and he complied.

Vince Foster is an ultimately convincing argument against disobedience.

Based on the rules for handling classified documents, how the heck did he just walk out with them? Somebody at the National Archieves is guilty too.

Geoff
Who believes this is grounds to pull all security clearances Democrats hold.

[Redondo]

The talking head liberals all seem to think, the only crime, was leaking his actions to the press. Once again they are defending criminal actions by saying those Republicans are MEANIES! Berger certainly knew the rules for handling classified documents. How anyone can defend his actions is beyond me!

[RickD]

Berger did this twice.

When he first went to the archives, the people who are in charge of security noticed that he was acting strangely, taking numerous restroom breaks. They later found some documents missing.

He returned to the archives at some later point. They were ready for him. They marked each document. They really set the poor guy up.

Speaking of set-ups. The apologist leftwing press is saying that the "timing is curious." This is their way of saying that the information was leaked, and leaked by the Bush administration.

If the info was leaked by the Bush Admin, it was really poor timing. Remember that in the 2000 campaign, the Gore people had long-known about Dubya's DUI arrest. They could have released that information at any time, yet, they being disciplined operators, waited until the weekend before election day.

It is more likely that the Dems, wanting to control the news cycle, leaked this information themselves so they could spin it better. As well, with the 9/11 report due out two days later, the news cycle, they hope, would leave the Sandy Bergler story in its dust.

This is from Opinion Journal -- Best of the Web Friday, July 23, 2004

Lanny the Leaker?
The partisan press is trying to recast Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger's alleged theft of documents from the National Archives as a Republican scandal. Today the Washington Post gets on board, with a news article reporting that "for the second day in a row, administration officials said yesterday that more of President Bush's aides knew about [the] investigation . . . than the White House originally acknowledged."

A Post editorial also takes aim at the administration:

It's hard not to be repulsed by the reaction to the affair by President Bush's campaign spokesmen and Republicans in Congress. They have suggested, without foundation, that Mr. Berger took the papers to benefit Mr. [John] Kerry, who [by the way served in Vietnam and] says that he knew nothing of the matter.

Well, fair enough; the claim that Berger filched the docs to help Kerry, repulsive or not, is indeed without foundation. But the Post concludes its editorial with some unfounded speculation of its own:

It's worth noting that news of the months-old investigation of Mr. Berger just happened to leak on the week before the Democratic convention, and two days before the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report--which covers serious lapses by President Bush as well as President Bill Clinton. Officials at the Bush White House had been briefed on the Berger probe. Could that be a coincidence?

It's weird to see journalists engaging in this Beltway speculation over who "leaked" the information to the press. After all, journalists are supposed to like leaks, which further "the public's right to know" and, more importantly, reporters' ability to get scoops. But somehow when the leak is seen as benefiting Republicans--recall the Valerie Plame kerfuffle as well--the press's partisanship seems to override its thirst for information.

But as long as everyone else is playing this game, we might as well join in. Many observers have made the point that it's far from a given that it was a Republican source who put this story into circulation. Democrats could have done so now to avoid its coming out just before the election. On Wednesday National Review's Jonah Goldberg fingers one suspect, Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton:

The fellow who broke the Berger story was John Solomon [of the Associated Press]. And According to Davis, Solomon was "the most fair" reporter he knew because Solomon was willing to take so many items from Davis.

Goldberg quotes an April 12, 1999, article by the Washington Post's media reporter, Howard Kurtz:

In "Truth to Tell," [a book] out next month, Davis argues for "good," factually based spin over "bad," deceptive spin--but concedes that some of his spin was "so transparent that it is amazing that we thought we could get away with it." . . .

Davis called the reporter he deemed most fair, the AP's John Solomon, with documents suggesting that Clinton had made fund-raising calls from the White House residence. The leak occurred on July 3, 1997, so the story would get lost on the Fourth of July holiday.

Yesterday Davis appeared on Linda Chavez's radio program, and a caller named David asked him if he was the Berger leaker. He evaded the question (an audio clip, in MP3 format, is here):

David: National Review is insinuating that the whole hoopla about who leaked this to the AP reporter could be settled by posing the question to Mr. Davis. They've suggested that since he cites the same reporter in his book and his articles about public relations . . .

Davis: (laughter)

Chavez: I think we're getting a response, David.

David: . . . that he may be the one that may have leaked this, since this is his favorite reporter.

Chavez: . . . Lanny Davis, did you leak this?

Davis: Well first off, thank you caller for asking me that. I've heard about that. The caller is absolutely correct; I wrote a chapter in my book about one of the great reporters who covered the White House, John Solomon of the Associated Press. I always get him into trouble by saying he's a great reporter, because people think he treated us with a soft touch. In fact [he] killed us almost all the time. But I'm afraid that if I asked John Solomon "Who leaked it to you?" he would give me the same answer that he's always given me when I ask that question, which is, "None of your business."

Chavez: Well, OK, Lanny, but David was asking you; he wasn't asking John Solomon: Did you leak this information to John Solomon in order to get the bad news out first?

Davis: Oh, did I? (laughter) Well, let me put it this way: Had I been asked last October by my old friend Sandy Berger, who is a great man, an honest man, and has done something that he sincerely regrets--I would have suggested to Sandy that we call John Solomon and that he sit down with John Solomon and tell him the whole story and get the story out last October. Because sure as the sun rises in the east, Linda, there were enough people who knew about this that this particular week out of 52 weeks in 2004 is not surprising as the week that somebody chose to leak the story.

Davis's evasion doesn't necessarily mean he was the leaker, but it's certainly curious.

Rick

[Quartus]

These guys are about one step away from being full fledged enemies

No, they are many steps across the line.

[johnr]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175187/posts
Yes, Down My Pants. Oh, Like You Haven't? The Sordid Sandburglar Story
various FR links | 07-20-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

[Fred Hansen]

I'm still deeply shocked that a member of the most moral and ethical administration ever to grace planet Earth is being accused of such a thing.

[Monkeyleg]

Let's not forget that this is the same Sandy Berger on whose watch nuclear missile technology was illegally given to the Chinese.


Of course, Clinton said that while Berger was aware of the problem, Clinton didn't know about it until he read it in the papers. The National Security Advisor meets with the president every day. Wouldn't it have been unusual for the NSA to not say, "oh, by the way, Mr. President. The Chinese have gotten some of our most sensitive nuclear information." ?

[LAK]

So when's the indictment?

[clem]

I hope I'm around for the trials!

[Fred Hansen]

Notice how this story fell off the edge of the Earth?

[paratrooper]

The National Security Advisor meets with the president every day. Wouldn't it have been unusual for the NSA to not say, "oh, by the way, Mr. President. The Chinese have gotten some of our most sensitive nuclear information." ?

To which Klinton would no doubt answer "Chinese Sminese . What's the scoop on the new skirt in the mailroom?"

[gburner]

So the media continues to focus on some rat bastard in Cali who either did or didn't give his preggo wife a one way fishing trip to San Fran Bay for Christmas and a 'goody two shoes' NBA player who played a little consensual one on one with the hotel help until she cried foul because of an alleged backcourt violation...



Meanwhile, the Sandy Burglar story falls completely off the radar screen; arguably one of the most important stories of the political season, cause the media just can't seem to bring itself to bite the hand that feeds it. Just what the in the hell is happening here????

[Quartus]

Same thing that's been happening for many, many years.


Big Media ran an experiment a couple of decades ago. They decided to see just how much news they could get away with NOT reporting. See, they had a problem. This "Great Communicator" fellow had the White House, and he was kicking their agenda downfield at an alarming rate. What he said, the American people believed. (It helped that he was RIGHT, of course, but still, he really WAS a Great Communicator.)

So there was this little argument going on in some Central American country, and the liberals didn't like that we were supporting some folks that were trying to run some communists out of town. Oh, no! Can't run the COMMUNISTS out of town! They are the GOOD guys! Well, Congress decided they'd just UNFUND that little operation, and so the showdown at O.K. Corral got underway. Who's gonna win, the Gipper or the Congress?

Well, if the Gipper were allowed to tell the American people what was really going on, and what was at stake, well, they'd tell Congress to give the Gipper what he wanted.

Can't have that.

But how to stop him? He's the PRESIDENT, for crying out loud! If he decides to give an address to the American people, it's NEWS!!!! Presidential addresses have ALWAYS been news! But if he talks to them, we're sunk!

So, all three networks (this was pre-CNN, remember) all togther came to the conclusion... uh, independently of each other, of COURSE! ... that the topic really wasn't news at all, and they didn't need to cover the speech. It got mentioned on the 11 o'clock news, of COURSE! But there was no need to actually televise it.

Oh, yes, they interviewed themselves to see why they didn't cover it, and explained how it really wasn't all that important.

Then they held their breath to see if the American people would sit still for this outrageous action.

And we did.


So, if you are considering the topic of media bias, please don't get distracted by the red herrings. It's not about how Dan Rather or Peter Jennings or Katie Couric sneers when talking about conservatives. It's not about how they fawn over Democrats.

It's about all the stories that never get covered. It's about major issues that show up - if at all - as a quarter of a column on page 37, lower left corner.


Example - is it news if a half millon people conduct a political rally on The Mall? Sure it is. It was news when Farakkan got less than that out for his Million Man March. It was news when the Millon Moron March got way less than that.

It would be news if... pick a group... MADD, NAMBLA, the NEA, The Trial Lawers Association, VFW, PETA, The Boy Scouts...

WHOEVER! You get a half million people to demonstrate on The Washington Mall and that is legitimately news.


So how many of you know that pro-life rallies that big have been held on The Mall? I mean a FULL half million.

Why isn't that news?

No, I'm not bringing up That Topic. Just pointing out how the media picks their stories carefully.

So don't be surprised when something like this drops off the radar screen. Be surprised if it's mentioned at all.

[gburner]

Thanks for the perspective, Quartus. I sometimes forget that our free press is free to print or not print anything that they bloody well want to.

BTW...joab, Liddy and North are both convicted felons with Liddy spending time in the Fed. They took their lumps and were standup guys about it. Sandy Burglar is a whining, lying traitor who is still walking around without legal sanction. He should be learning the finer points of jailhouse sodomy at Lorton under a no bail/threat to flee paper.