MSNBC reporting Sandy Berger to plead guilty to misd of mishandling docs

[Stinky The Clown]

no link up yet (5.55 EST)

[onefreespiritedchick]

1. Yes, I just saw this on MSNBC. Wow!

I wonder what in the world is going to happen to him now?

[skylarmae]

2. yes, but who outed Valerie Plame?

I'm so angry that we still do not know who outed her and that Robert Novak is walking around free.

[Newsjock]

3. An absolute freakin' travesty

And I'm growing more convinced that, unless and until we start sending out groups of demonstrators to stand in front of everyplace to demand TV coverage, we're going to get trampled on over and over again.

This is no longer my country, and I weep.

[maddezmom]

4. AP link here: Berger to Plead Guilty to Taking Material

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050331/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/berger_probe_1

[heyphillip]

5. Sandy Berger to plead guilty

At least he admittes his mistakes and wrong doing which is more than i can say for that MF Tom Delay.

[seriousstan]

6. Berger to Plead Guilty to Taking Materials

WASHINGTON - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said Thursday.



Berger is expected to appear in federal court in Washington on Friday, said Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra.


The former Clinton administration official previously acknowledged he removed from the National Archives copies of documents about the government's anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents. He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.


He called the episode "an honest mistake," and denied criminal wrongdoing.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&u=/ap/20050331/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/berger_probe_3&printer=1

[NVMojo]

18. I WANT EQUAL JUSTICE ON THE PLAME CASE!!!!

A far worse crime was committed there, lives were placed at risk. The jerks!!!

[David Dunham]

7. Bush will seek the death penalty.

[Renew Deal]

8. I thought he was cleared.

What changed?

[mountebank]

10. I heard that, too. Still, if those after-action reports

from the Clinton Admin they mention are still missing, then I can't say I disagree with this outcome. If that is true, and Berger never returned those documents, then I have to believe it's because someone wanted them to disappear - and Berger took the bullet. Any thoughts on this?

[Leilani]

65. No, he not only took the documents

but admitted to destroying some of them.

Because he pled guilty, he did not get jail time.

And it seems as if someone wanted the documents gone, or he is just irresponsible.

This news has been a right wing talking point for a while.

[Logansquare]

72. They were photocopies of documents, not originals

The National Archives doesn't put originals in your hands.

[Leilani]

74. Originals vs Copies?

I don't care...it was against the law, & he KNEW it was against the law.

[Logansquare]

77. See my post below. I agree. But don't swallow the GOP spin on this

Even if they were copies, it was against the law. It was incredibly stupid, as well. But there is no evidence that he was attempting to destroy evidence from the Archives; he may have been very well aware that they were copies and just wanted to get them home to read and make notations.

[Tuttle]

22. He *was* cleared -- reported by WSJ

I saw it in the print edition -- Friday, April 13, 2004 page A-6

I was puzzled why the puppy media never added it to the echo-chamber.

Tut-tut

[mountebank]

35. Obviously they didn't report it because it wasn't true.

No fan of the MSM here, but clearly he wasn't cleared, hence his guilty plea...... Looks like the WSJ got it wrong and the MSM did right in not reporting it.

[Gannon Man Date]

9. I thought he was completely cleared of all these allegations?

:wtf: :grr: :nuke:

[Generic Guy]

13. I thought he was cleared too.

The right wingers really made a big deal out of it then I swore he was cleared. Maybe this just is another diversion from bush slipping in the polls.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

11. what a non-story

There's a reason this is a misdemeanor. He took an original document which he thought was a copy. Regardless, the archives have MANY copies. It's not as if he was disposing of information. It's about on the same level as losing a library book. :eyes:

[James T. Kirk]

12. Um, no. He was not supposed to remove ANY documents.

Not even copies. And if I remember correctly, he was not even allowed to remove his notes. This is very serious. And then he lost the documents! Gah! Are they in the trash? Did he forward them to unauthorized people? Not a good situation at all.

[KittyWampus]

16. Actually, I Think You Are Mistaken. You Can Take Copies/Notes But

must follow protocol... which Berger did not.

You seem to be repeating Mediawhore/GOP spin.

[James T. Kirk]

20. No, you are the one who is mistaken. Notes cannot be taken.

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/politics/01berger.html?ex=1112936400&en=b1370b971165a3b2&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

"Mr. Berger admits to compounding the mistake after removing the second set of documents on Oct. 2, 2003, the associate said. In comparing the versions at his office later that day, he realized that several were essentially the same, and he cut three copies into small pieces, the associate said. He also admitted to improperly removing handwritten notes he had taken at the Archives, the associate said."

So, the New York Times is "Mediawhore/GOP"? I don't think so.

[Hoping4Change]

68. You don't think NYT is MediaWhore/GOP?

You may find the following interesting,


In another thread JohnOneillsMemory posted an excerpt from (The Origins of the Overclass, by Steve Kangas)


-snip-
Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.


The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)


MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

* Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
* William Paley (President, CBS)
* Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
* Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
* Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
* Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
* Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
* James Copley (Copley News Services)
* Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
* C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
* Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
* ABC
* NBC
* Associated Press
* United Press International
* Reuters
* Hearst Newspapers
* Scripps-Howard
* Newsweek
* magazine Mutual Broadcasting System
* Miami Herald
* Old Saturday Evening Post
* New York Herald-Tribune

Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation’s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip’s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband’s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper’s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post’s headlines.

Ben Bradlee was the Post’s managing editor during most of the Cold War. He worked in the U.S. Paris embassy from 1951 to 1953, where he followed orders by the CIA station chief to place propaganda in the European press. (9) Most Americans incorrectly believe that Bradlee personifies the liberal slant of the Post, given his role in publishing the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigations. But neither of these two incidents are what they seem. The Post merely published the Pentagon Papers after The New York Times already had, because it wanted to appear competitive. As for Watergate, we’ll examine the CIA’s reasons for wanting to bring down Nixon in a moment. Someone once asked Bradlee: "Does it irk you when The Washington Post is made out to be a bastion of slanted liberal thinkers instead of champion journalists just because of Watergate?" Bradlee responded: "Damn right it does!" (10)

It would be impossible to elaborate in this short space even the most important examples of the CIA/media alliance. Sig Mickelson was a CIA asset the entire time he was president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. Later he went on to become president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, two major outlets of CIA propaganda.

The CIA also secretly bought or created its own media companies. It owned 40 percent of the Rome Daily American at a time when communists were threatening to win the Italian elections. Worse, the CIA has bought many domestic media companies. A prime example is Capital Cities, created in 1954 by CIA businessman William Casey (who would later become Reagan’s CIA director). Another founder was Lowell Thomas, a close friend and business contact with CIA Director Allen Dulles. Another founder was CIA businessman Thomas Dewey. By 1985, Capital Cities had grown so powerful that it was able to buy an entire TV network: ABC.

For those who believe in "separation of press and state," the very idea that the CIA has secret propaganda outlets throughout the media is appalling. The reason why America was so oblivious to CIA crimes in the 40s and 50s was because the media willingly complied with the agency. Even today, when the immorality of the CIA should be an open-and-shut case, "debate" about the issue rages in the media. Here is but one example:

In 1996, The San Jose Mercury News published an investigative report suggesting that the CIA had sold crack in Los Angeles to fund the Contra war in Central America. A month later, three of the CIA’s most important media allies — The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times — immediately leveled their guns at the Mercury report and blasted away in an attempt to discredit it. Who wrote the Post article? Walter Pincus, longtime CIA journalist.


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html

[MADem]

23. No, it is not very serious, just slightly serious

If it were very serious, the charge would not be a misdemeanor. He messed up, and he is getting his hand slapped, that's all. That said, he's probably not too unhappy at the fact that this story broke during the ALL SCHIAVO, ALL THE TIME, interdispersed with ALL POPE, ALL THE TIME coverage...with a dash of Michael Jackson thrown in for fun and spice.

Sandy's little 'docu-drama' will sink like a stone in the current listing of top stories. Talk about a Friday dump! If it had to happen, couldn't have happened at a better time for him.

Also, I look at it this way: I'm hoping they are crossing t's and dotting i's. Perhaps Fitzgerald will have something to say about Plame eventually...can't happen too soon, if you ask me, but perhaps better to wait until the media frenzy on all of these other issues dies down.

[lynne]

15. Afraid not -

- even at the state level, screwing with the archives is serious business.

Security is priority #1 at any archive. To gain entry to most you must leave personal belongings in a locker - no books, notebooks, binders allowed in with you to minimize theft of documents.

Documents are requested from archive employees, who then records what you want - brings you the documents - and then records what you return. Which is exactly how Berger got caught.

Theft is theft regardless if it is an original or microfiche or copy. Copies are not limitless and the loss of any one is one too many. As a researcher who uses and respects the state and federal archives, I have no sympathy for Berger as I know that it is impossible to accidently remove documents from any archive. He had to really work at it to be able to pull it off.

[KittyWampus]

17. Again, IIFC, There ARE Procedures For Taking Notes & Copies.

the issue was Berger didn't follow proper procedure.

It's absurd to posit the notion that people aren't allowed to take notes from archives or make copies.

[cyfly]

19. The problem here is that the documents in question are classified

there are enormous security hoops to jump through to legally remove any classified documents or even the notes you made concerning them from the National Archives.

It's a national security thing.

[Lerkfish]

31. straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.

if its a concern over national security, those who outed Palme would be in irons by now, but they're not, so this is partisan bullcrop.

[lynne]

24. Notes are okay -

- for the great majority of documents. I do not know if there are limitations for classified documents, which is what Berger was handling. Some documents in archives can be photocopied for you by the archive staff providing that the document is NOT classified and is not a fragile original which may be degraded by the photocopy process.

However, theft of any document - and most especially classified documents - is a big no-no and is not something that can be done without the full intent and knowledge of what you were doing.

[sadiesworld]

26. But wasn't the big fuss over the idea that he was trying to

hide some docs, thereby thwarting the 9/11 commission? Yet since then the commission has admitted that there were multiple copies of the docs taken by Berger (which he surely knew).

It looks like he got a slap on the wrist for a fairly technical violation. Whether it was done out of hubris or sloppiness remains open for debate, but it still doesn't seem to amount to much. :shrug:

[lynne]

46. The big fuss and the actual charge against him -

- was that he stole classified documents from the National Archives. Period. What his proposed intent to do with them would be basis for an additional big fuss if one felt his intent worth fussing about.

Theft from an archives cannot be done out of carelessness or sloppiness - absolutely NO debate there - as it takes forethought and deliberation and I would imagine a bit of daring to remove a document from an archive. In all of them that I have ever been in, they watch you like an absolute HAWK at all times. I've never looked at classified documents so would think that the security even greater there.

Hell, most of the time I'm half frightened to excuse myself to go to the bathroom for fear they'll pounce on me as I try to leave . . .

[Psephos]

42. Not absurd when the documents are classified; in fact, it's policy

Berger knew that he was supposed to turn in any notes he wrote about classified documents. But that's a side issue.

The real issue is he knowingly took and destroyed classified archive documents. There are copies elsewhere of the documents themselves, but not of the marginal notations made by people who reviewed the documents when they were first issued. Berger judged whatever those notes said to be damning, and he wanted them gone.

I'm pissed at him for two reasons. One, whatever information was in those notes was useful, possibly even very useful, for understanding how to deal with early warning signs of potential attacks in the future.

I'm also pissed because his actions made it a little harder for Democrats to be convincing and credible on matters of national security. The recent hawkish tilt of Hillary Clinton is a natural consequence of this image problem. It's an extra hurdle for future Dem candidates to clear.

Just because the perception is based in imagination and not reality, doesn't make it less pernicious.

Thanks for nothing, Berger.

[sadiesworld]

48. Do you have any support for your claim that the docs

taken by Berger (unlike the remaining copies) contained "marginal notations made by people who reviewed the documents when they were first issued"?

[Psephos]

53. Yes, sad to say

I've followed this story since it broke last summer.

Here's an excerpt from a story in The Guardian (UK):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4907625,00.html

"Rather than the 'honest mistake' he described last summer, Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration.

'Guilty, your honor,' Berger responded when asked how he pleaded."


According to the Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

"The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an 'after-action review' prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil."

From the same article, this next excerpt confirms that Berger did not simply make a mistake, as he originally claimed. His intention was to steal the documents and then destroy them, and he succeeded at both.

"Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: 'He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent.' "

Berger testified before the 9/11 commission, specifically about the national state of preparedness against rising terrorist threats. Berger's testimony before Richard Ben-Veniste, which helped exonerate the Clinton Administration, was based in part on the "research" he did at the Archives. Now repugs can have a field day picking apart what he said.

Here is how I see it. There were multiple copies of the after-action report in the Archives. However, although the report copies were identical when handed out, they were circulated among high-level officials and cabinet members. The reports are marked with comments from those who read them before they are returned or passed to the next person in the circle. Only if a reviewer feels the need for a lengthy remark does he/she generate a formal memo to attach. (Bob Woodward and Elizabeth Drew both mention the process in their books on the Clinton presidency, but there's nothing exceptional about it: it's S.O.P. for all modern administrations, including the current one.)

Under guise of researching for the 9/11 Commission, Berger gathered multiple copies of the same report, and at great risk to himself smuggled them out of the Archives, then took them to his private office, and destroyed them by cutting them into tiny pieces with scissors. Berger has admitted to exactly this, so it's beyond contention.

I asked myself, why? The risk was extraordinary. Using Occam's Razor (the principle that the simplest explanation is, all other things being equal, usually the best), it seemed pretty clear there was something on those physical copies that Berger wanted permanently tossed in Davy Jones' locker. We already know the reports themselves were copies, and that Berger didn't/couldn't destroy the original, anyway.

So, not only is the destruction of marginal notes and commentary the simplest explanation, it is the only explanation I can think of that doesn't involve Rovebots and Manchurian Candidates. I'm all ears if someone else has a reasonable alternate.

I want there to be at least one party in this country that tells the truth. The repugs make it easy for us; all we have to do is not lie. That's what made me mad about Berger.

Peace.

[hezekkia]

70. proper procedure?

by "not following procedure," you mean he stuck papers down his pants, took them home and scissored them.

This is not just an issue of not following protocol. Call a spade a spade. This was a dumbass, criminal thing to do, just as it would have been if Condi Rice had stolen papers from the Archives.

Just because he was in the Clinton Admin does not make him a saint. thank god this didn't backfire on Dems any more than it could have.

[Cicero]

44. I think the hooraw concerns handwritten notes on those copies

...which would, in effect, make them unique, and would tell to whom each copy had originally been issued to. If those notes contained damaging info, and then Berger shredded those docs, well...

Berger got off with a slap on the wrist.

Later,

[stubertmcfly]

14. why is it...

...that people like berger and rather fry and the REAL culprets are still walking around scott-free? unreal.

[James T. Kirk]

21. Berger was dumb, and that's why he got caught.

He was either so arrogant that he thought the rules didn't apply to him or he was incompetent and didn't understand what to do. Either way, he was dumb, dumb, dumb. And now he'll be a convicted criminal.

Also, he knew he had done something wrong and it had not been publicly revealed yet and still agreed to be a Kerry advisor in the 2004 campaign, which was another huge mistake. When the truth hit the news, it was an embarassment for the campaign.

[laylah]

27. Who you talkin' about?

Oh, NOT Novakula, but Berger.

Sandy Berger made a HUGE mistake; however, I believe it was an honest mistake. And, unlike "others", he has owned up and admitted it.

BTW, why so secretive about who/what YOU are re: profile? Just askin'

Jenn

[James T. Kirk]

54. Who was behind it?

1. Berger knew he had committed a crime and was under investigation.

2. Berger joind the campaign and kept this fact secret.

3. The investigation was revealed after Berger had been working with Kerry for a long time.

4. Berger gets off later with a small fine.

Who could have come up with a plan like this? Who was clever and crafty enough to outwit and gain control of Berger nad place him in the campaign and trigger the announcement of the investigation? Hmm? Hmm? Novak? I think not. Someone smarter.

[James T. Kirk]

55. Profile?

I'm male, I live in Massachusetts and I have about 600 posts. Everything else is none of your business. Nosy. Does it matter where I live and if I'm male or female?

[Jack Rabbit]

28. If Berger were one of the real culpets

If Berger were one of the real culpets, then Bush would have given him the Medal of Freedom.

[doc05]

33. He's not frying.

He's not frying. He got a fine and will look like a jackass in the press with a below-the-fold story for a day. What he did was probably just boneheaded rather than nefarious and this is just accoutability.

[indepat]

25. Makes one wonder if a future Dem administration will nail anyone from

the current administration for any wrongdoing.

[underpants]

29. ABC WNT last night left out the "misdemeanor" part

:grr:

[robcon]

30. Berger lied about taking and destroying the documents

Last year he said the documents were taken inadvertantly:

"...Berger's attorneys have acknowledged that he removed numerous classified memos, and apparently discarded some, as he reviewed materials on behalf of the Clinton administration for the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They said the removal of documents was inadvertent but that Berger was aware he was violating the law when he removed his handwritten notes without submitting them for review by National Archives staff..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64379-2004Jul20.html

Now he admits he took them deliberately...

"... The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent...

...Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

He should have his National Security clearance removed permanently, not just for 3 years, IMO. I can't think of any reason why he would do what he did unless he was trying to cover up something.

[CityDem]

45. Martha Stewart went to jail for much less

Stewart lied to FBI/SEC and went to jail for 6 months. Berger transgressions were much greater and he got a slap on the wrist. Goes to show you that as long as you are a member of the one party system in Washington, you will be taken care of.

[Roland99]

32. What a dumb-ass. At least he's finally admitting it, though.

Too bad the same can't be said of the numerous criminals in the Propagandist's administration.

[AngryAmish]

34. I can't stand it when they call him Sandy Bergler

RW sucks.

[demokatgurrl]

36. More diversion to distract us from the real criminals in

the white house and congress. What about DeLay????

[Bossy Monkey]

37. Berger Pleads Guilty to Taking Materials

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton's top national security aide, pleaded guilty Friday to taking classified documents from the National Archives and cutting them up with scissors.

Rather than the "honest mistake" he described last summer, Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration.

"Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.

The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.

(more)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BERGER_PROBE?SITE=SCCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Pisser.

[geomon666]

38. My question is...Why? nt

[napi21]

39. Why did he do this?

I don't remember what was in those docs, but I also don't remember a national scandal starting over them either!

I have to assume he was trying to hide something he or BC had ignored and shouldn't have, but having been NSA, surely he knew there were cameras and he'd be caught!

Why would he do something so stupid???

[DoBotherMe]

40. That's why it's a misdemeanor

there was no criminal intent; no motive; a mistake. Dana ; )

[Disfronted]

56. Actually, he admitted he did it on purpose

Not a mistake. :(

[SouthernDem2004]

58. It was a misdemeanor because of a plea agreement.

[meti57b]

41. Wow... great week for bush! Comes off as a champ in the "culture of life".

Commission clears him of lying, says he's just stupid, incompetent and gullible. Clinton flunkie pleads guilty to copping some scratch paper. bush is on a roll!

[calimary]

43. Won't make much difference with all the media whoop-de-doo about the Pope.

This time, the Friday night news dump will have Sandy Berger in it. Won't make much noise. If anything were to come out that's adverse to one of the Good Guys, THIS is a most favorable day for that to happen.

[CTyankee]

47. Why did he do it? My hunch

is that he wanted to burnish his image and something was left undone, not seen to, not anticipated, or maybe bungled by him. He couldn't stand the shame of it, not to mention the effect it might have on his career and ability to make a living as a consultant on international affairs. Whatever was in the material he scissored out, it must have had the potential of scarring him and his career. People go to extremes to protect their asses in such cases. I am convinced that this is one of those cases.

[DoBotherMe]

49. He wasn't given access to the originals, he

only had access to copies.

[CTyankee]

64. So that means that

his action couldn't be viewed as an attempt to "cover up" some Clinton mistake. The idea that marginalia was what he scissored out makes some sense, however. Gotta go with that explanation.

[Up2Late]

50. Ex-Clinton Aide Pleads Guilty to Taking Documents(Reuters)

(on edit:posted old story, this is now updated)

Ex-Clinton Aide Pleads Guilty to Taking Documents

Fri Apr 1, 2005 05:14 PM ET

By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger on Friday pleaded guilty to taking classified documents from the National Archives while preparing for an investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Berger, who served under former President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor in the U.S. District Court and will be sentenced on July 8. Under a plea deal, he will not serve jail time but must pay a $10,000 fine.

Berger, who also agreed to surrender his U.S. government security clearance for three years, was forced to step down as an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry last summer after reports emerged of the inquiry into the incident. He admitted to taking copies of five documents from the National Archives in late 2003 while preparing for testimony before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 hijacked-airline attacks. "I exercised very poor judgment in the course of reviewing the files," Berger told reporters outside the courthouse after pleading guilty. "I deeply regret it. It was mistaken and it was wrong." "My motivation was to help prepare myself and others," he said. The plea agreement is subject to approval by Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson.

According to the facts admitted by Berger, who knew he was not authorized to remove classified documents from the Archives, he concealed and removed one copy of a document on Sept. 2, 2003 and copies of four others on Oct. 2, 2003.

(more at link above)

[Old and In the Way]

51. Did we ever find the anthrax attackers or who outed Valarie Plame?

I'll bet Sandy lifted documents that prove the Bush administration was warned about AQ or that Iraq was WMD-less. Just keeping them for posterity purposes. Documents have a habit of getting lost in this administration.

[DemFromMem]

52. Last year's joke

I remember getting a good laugh out of a very serious sounding story on a device for dogs that could translate their barking into human speech.

This morning CNET has a funny one about an announcement from Palm and Apple regarding a combo iPod/Treo phone that would be held together with duct tape.

[realFedUp]

57. Berger to get Wen Ho Leed

What a stupid thing for Berger to do....karma
come around also...

[Dover]

59. Berger admits destroying materials

Berger admits destroying materials

Plea agreement would let Clinton's former adviser pay a $10,000 fine but avoid any jail time

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger knew better than almost anyone the ground rules for handling classified documents. As President Clinton's national security adviser, he routinely reviewed the government's most closely held secrets and determined what needed to remain off limits to the public.
But on Friday in federal District Court, he admitted to a sequence of events at once slapstick and criminal: sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives in his suit, cutting up some of them in his office and then lying about it.

U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson didn't ask why and Berger never explained.

Rather than the "honest mistake" he described last summer, Berger acknowledged he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of a document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration....>

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3113748

[etherealtruth]

60. Ah Sandy, I believed every denial... n/t

[Hoping4Change]

61. Rethugs are going to make hay with this. WTF was he

thinking? Has he said what the documements were?

[Leilani]

62. They already have

this has been big news for a long time.

The documents covered Clinton Administration & handling of terrorism.

By Berger's action he has given the right wing "talking points"...that he was hiding info about Clinton's ineffectiveness, & this was talked about during the Prez campaign.

[Hoping4Change]

63. I knew he was accused and then denied it. I was wondering if

part of the plea agreement required that he provide greater detail of the contents of the documents.

[Leilani]

66. Because the documents were so secret

we probably wouldn't get any details.

But according to the article I read, he had to admit he deliberately did these acts to avoid jail time & have it filed as a misdemeanor.

[Leilani]

67. I'm always amazed by the moral relativism by some here.

Because Bush & cabal are criminals, it's OK for Dems to break the law.

Berger not only hurt himself & his reputation for the rest of his life, but he hurt the Dems.

People's reaction is "What was he hiding?" & it just plays into the right wing talking points: lying Clinton Admin & can't trust the Dems with national security.

[Hoping4Change]

69. I agree with you completely. What he did is wrong, period not

to mention it plays right into the hands of the rethugs.

[Leilani]

71. Thanks, Hoping4Change!

I'm hoping 4 change also.

[Logansquare]

73. He stole COPIES of documents, because notes weren't allowed

It was STUPID for him to do that, but presumptions of some sort of conspiracy are hardly called for. The originals of the documents he removed are still safe and sound in the National Archives, unless our current administration has gotten to them.

[Psephos]

76. They were more than copies...

They were notated copies of an "after-action" review prepared by Richard Clarke, circulated among top-level Cabinet officers and national security advisory staff. Marginal notations on circulated documents are standard short-hand in modern administrations, documenting the reactions and recommendations of those who read the reports. This is how they communicate.

In short, through the act of marginal notation, the copies ceased being copies, and became originals. These were then classified, not Top Secret, but a level *above* Top Secret. Think about that for a moment. These weren't xeroxes from the wastebasket.

The information written on those documents did not belong to Sandy Berger. He stole it, at great risk, and that implies there was a substantial reason to take that risk. Now of course, we'll never know what it was. Clinton laughed it off last summer, said something like, "Oh, that Sandy...always losing papers." But the real laughter in this case comes from the repugs, who got a Christmas present to use whenever they want to beat us up for being soft on terror.

Sheesh. As if our job wasn't hard enough already fighting against the imaginary perceptions repugs generate, Berger has to hand them something actual. If we don't clean up our own messes, then those lizards will do it for us.

Grrrrr.

[Festivito]

75. I've tried to piece together a scenario that fits. Thoughts?

Berger orders docs for review, reviews, sends or takes to 9-11 comm. Pockets 1 home fo confer with ... his calendar. The archive office may be reasonably lax. Month later, got away with 1. They are lax. Coat pockets 2, ten minutes later briefcases 2 more. Confers with home calendar. Securely shreds crumpled 3. Returns 2 or not -- who cares? Office finally wakes up. All hell brakes loose.

Berger means no harm. Causes no NS harm. Considers it an honest mistake to not sign out mere copies into well cleared hands, for a good purpose. Archive didn't seem to notice or care, so, just another government office with more rules than are necessary.
Suddenly, after not noticing docs were missing when they went missing, the office starts to yelp about its secure lock procedures -- after the horse was stolen of course.

One person's honest mistake is another person's egregious act. He broke the rules. Was it to be like doing 45 in a 40 zone, or like running a red light. Well, in a Bush admin, it seem like running a red light. (5 over the limit is usually dropped.)

Bush doesn't want it known that these docs showed BC did thwart terrorism. Certainly Bush does not want people to hear again that BC had meetings often, unlike himself with 9-11 as a result. So, they dump this on a Friday.

NOTES:
. I don't buy that Berger tried to destroy contents. These were copies.
. Could have tried to hide own or other comments not on originals, but, I won't pay much for this. If the copy becomes a document, then it should have been archived as an original, not presented to Berger as a copy.
. Did Berger think that Bush admin might be changing the originals, so he wanted a copy for backup. Could be. I like conferring with his calendar better(which I made up). (Not that I'd put anything past the Bush admins.)
. I don't know if he could not sign papers out. There are real concerns, such as dying with those papers in his car. For this he realized it was not an honest mistake.
. I also think that the papers in question probably do no harm to National Security other than showing Bush to be a jerk.

Any thoughts?