NationStates Jolt Archive


Sandy Berger Again and Again...

Myrmidonisia
21-12-2006, 18:45
It doesn't seem like this will ever just go away. And it shouldn't, in all honest. Not until some important questions are answered. And, more than likely, they never will be answered, now that he's been convicted.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.

The report was issued more than a year after Sandy Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removing the documents.

Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the September 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration's representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.

What documents did he take/lose/destroy/compromise?
Did the 9/11 commission ever get what it wanted from him?

This should be fuel for weeks of stories in the NYT or Washington Post, shouldn't it? All the editorial pages should be screaming about the careless treatment that classified information has received by high ranking government officials. But will they? Not likely, Berger is a guy that is well liked inside the beltway and the rest of us would rather read about Rosie and 'The Donald' or watch Survivor re-runs.
Mininina
21-12-2006, 18:56
There already is a thread on this... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511775

And those angry editorials you are looking for were written or should have been written back in '05, when he admitted to destroying documents...

So...
You like reading about 'The Donald', huh? Interesting... ;)
Ashmoria
21-12-2006, 19:02
it certainly would be interesting to know what the fuck he was up to but they let him plead out so i guess we'll never know.

why do an investigation AFTER the case is closed? shouldnt they have investigated THEN decided what to charge him with?

odd

its an old story that has already reached its legal conclusion. its an outrage but there are more current and pressing things to talk about.
Eve Online
21-12-2006, 19:10
it certainly would be interesting to know what the fuck he was up to but they let him plead out so i guess we'll never know.

why do an investigation AFTER the case is closed? shouldnt they have investigated THEN decided what to charge him with?

odd

its an old story that has already reached its legal conclusion. its an outrage but there are more current and pressing things to talk about.

At least now we know he wasn't "innocently forgetting" that stuff was in his pants.

He was actually cutting it up, throwing it away, or trying to hide it under random construction trailers.

We now also know that the archives did not copy everything he took - they only started after they became suspicious that he was taking stuff out. And, they don't have an inventory of the documents he was examining, so they have no idea what is missing.

So much for the "there was a copy of everything and besides, the 9-11 Commission got all the information".

Now we know there was not a copy of everything, and the 9-11 Commission didn't get all the information.
Khadgar
21-12-2006, 19:11
I'd say lock the bastard up, but they have already tried him so they can't.

Yay for our legal system.
Ashmoria
21-12-2006, 19:14
At least now we know he wasn't "innocently forgetting" that stuff was in his pants.

He was actually cutting it up, throwing it away, or trying to hide it under random construction trailers.

We now also know that the archives did not copy everything he took - they only started after they became suspicious that he was taking stuff out. And, they don't have an inventory of the documents he was examining, so they have no idea what is missing.

So much for the "there was a copy of everything and besides, the 9-11 Commission got all the information".

Now we know there was not a copy of everything, and the 9-11 Commission didn't get all the information.


yes but shouldnt we have known that BEFORE he was allowed to plead out? its not like no one knew that he wasnt acting innocently when they decided to get the case quickly closed.
Eve Online
21-12-2006, 19:17
yes but shouldnt we have known that BEFORE he was allowed to plead out? its not like no one knew that he wasnt acting innocently when they decided to get the case quickly closed.

Pleading out is more a factor of who you have for a lawyer.