Posted on 07/20/2004 10:47:03 AM PDT by cyncooper
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Samuel Berger, former President Clinton's national security adviser, is under federal criminal investigation for allegedly removing classified documents and handwritten notes from a National Archives screening room during preparations for his testimony before the 9/11 commission.
Sources familiar with the investigation confirmed it to CNN on Monday.
The sources told CNN the investigation began last October, after Berger spent roughly 30 hours over three or four days reviewing what one said was "tens of thousands of pages" of Clinton administration documents to comply with a request from the 9/11 commission.
Berger was designated as the official from the Clinton administration who would review documents relevant to commission inquiries. He was also a witness at the 9/11 commission hearings and reviewed records to prepare for his personal testimony.
~snip~
A Berger associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the FBI served warrants and searched both Berger's home and office earlier this year as part of the investigation.
A government official familiar with the investigation said that some documents are still missing.
Among the documents Berger says he inadvertently took, the sources confirmed, were drafts of a Clinton administration "after action" report on efforts to thwart al Qaeda around the time of the millennium.
Archives officials told investigators that at least one draft of that report is still missing.
Officials close to Berger said it was ludicrous to suggest that he was trying to hide damaging information from the 9/11 commission.
They said the drafts were written by Clinton counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and had been changed somewhat, as is customary, as the drafts were circulated among relevant agencies and officials.
But the sources close to Berger said there were other copies of the drafts, that the commission had the final version of the report and that Clarke had said there were not significant changes during the drafting process.
The sources said the FBI had contacted Berger several months ago and that he hired Lanny Breuer, who has since been in contact with prosecutors.
~snip~
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.law.printthis.clickability.com ...
PING
Good post, cyn.
The Clarke link cannot be overlooked.
I want to see what Clarke actually said. And what he thinks now, now his prior words are becoming an excuse.
"not significant changes" - If they weren't significant, Berger wouldn't have taken them.
According to Berger, he "accidentally" stuffed the papers in his pants - and he didn't mean "pockets."
That ever happen to you? You accidentally stuff documents in your pants that you meant to put back where they belong?
Didn't think so.
CNN reports that Berger took documents authored by Richard Clarke.
Indeed...
DOES THIS ACT BY BERGER MEAN THAT
CLINTON KNEW ABOUT AL QUAIDA..........
DOES THIS ACT BY BERGER MEAN THAT
CLINTON KNEW ABOUT AL QUAIDA'S PLAN TO USE PLANES ..............
Berger has stressed his willingness to cooperate, but investigators have not asked to speak directly with him as yet, the sources said.
Asked if it unusual that Berger has not yet been interviewed, the government official familiar with the investigation responded that investigators would do so once they are satisfied they have the evidence they need.
Hmmmmmmmmm
Altering documents huh?
DANG .. is FR slow or is it just me?
Los Clintonos Lab notes....
/sarcasm
Good Gawd!!
OK, so he just has a fetish for paper?
Also, it isn't ludicrous to claim the timing of this scandal to be suspicious?
Knowing this crew I honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear one of his "associates" present this as an explanation. I'm serious.
And I guess we're just supposed to take Clarke's word for it?
I don't think so.
just draft documents with comments and edits as they go through the system to become final. Nothing sinister here.
I expect they just fell down his pants and he didn't notice them till he got undressed later in the whorehouse where he went to meet bill, it can happen you know.
Nothing to see here...move on..
Sorta like the nice soft feel of womens lingerie on the male body. I guess them paper cuts would be nasty down the shorts.
OK, so he just has a fetish for paper?
Also, it isn't ludicrous to claim the timing of this scandal to be suspicious?
Sandy Berger is covering his ass.
How can 911 comission make a report when they didn't have all the documents.
But of course, it's just like WACO, they get rid of all the things damaging to them.
Sandy Berger believes, just like Mr. Perry, that our soventy should be turned over to the United Nations.
After all that has transpired since '93 in national politics, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's true!
With paper.
Ping to the Richard Clarke connection.
ABC radio news just played a clip of Tom Daschle saying he is suspicious of the timing of the leak (talking point of the day), and then adding Berger deserves the benefit of the doubt while the investigation continues.
I bet that Michael Moore can explain the Sandy Berger issue.......
All we got here is Berger's anonymous friends interpreting what Clarke said months ago. I want to see what Clarke said, and I bet the "drafts" issue wasn't a big deal at the 9/11 commission hearings. Why would they have been among all the other things discussed?
UFO LOL
"That ever happen to you? You accidentally stuff documents in your pants that you meant to put back where they belong?"
And did you also put documents in your briefcase and walk out when you intended to leave them where they belong?
Thank you for the ping.
This just gets weirder and weirder.
I bet Ben Vanista was his NARA observer while Sandy reviewed the documents for stuffing down his pants and socks.
I find it funny the at least 2 klitoon cabnit personnel have tried to steal classified material. It is a crime to be in the possion of classified material when not in the chain of coustdy, need to know, out of the control of the material manager. This is a federal crime, but he will skate out of it, just like Paul O'Niell.
And, I can't help but comment that given how the papers were smuggled out, I'm glad I wasn't the one who had to deal with them. Pee-yoooo.
Look at it from another direction. How suspicious would it seem if the info came out AFTER the Commission made their "final" report???
That would be worse, and the 9/11 commission would go beserk. (BTW, I don't know if any knew about the investigation)
(Go Brits)
The plot thickens...
Thanks for the info Cyn.
Has anybody heard of any Hillary sightings....Just wondering if she has made here usual daily press op or if she decided to sit today out for obvious reasons...
Oh, another "blockbuster" in the making? /s
Its not you...my connection is slow also.
He says someone with B/C '04 is interested in this story and how it relates to the Kerry campaign. Wright said they cited a February 2004 press event Kerry held where he spoke about terrorism and the B/C folks wonder if some of the information was passed on to him.
Nuff, good point, I want to qualify my prior remarks. Those remarks assumed Clarke spoke to this "draft" issue at the 9/11 hearings. Closer reading (by me) indicates Clarke's "not substantial changes" may be recent, verbatim or filtered through Berger's friends. In that case, Clarke could be helping the cover-up.
Cameron reporting that one of the missing documents refers to infrastructural security, a topic that Bergler briefed Kerry on in the spring.
I heard .. a February 27th event briefing the reporters
Thanks for filling in the details on the Fox reporting.
During a Rush timeout on WLS in Chicago (ABC) Headline News was that the 9-11 commission considered the information that an ex-Clinton official may have been involved with some missing documents but it wouldn’t affect the commission’s report and considered it a government matter.
The spin begins.
More about Clarke in the (new) NYT article:
"While reviewing one copy of the document in September and another in October, Mr. Berger noticed a slight difference and examined the two more closely, his lawyers said. Then, they said, he inadvertently packed them away and brought them home. It is possible that Mr. Berger repeated the mistake with more versions of the document.
Mr. Clarke said Monday night that it was doubtful that there was malicious intent on the part of Mr. Berger. He said that it would not have made sense to destroy a few versions of the memo; while several copies of that document existed, substantively they were all the same. The Associated Press said that employees of the National Archives alerted the F.B.I. to the possibility that Mr. Berger had removed documents. Agents subsequently searched his home and office in early January."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/politics/20CND-BERG.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
Hmmmmmmmmm
More of a tooth-sucker than a "Hmmmmmm". Poor Sandy Bergler (sp-but appropriate). If the feds really intend to prosecute this I can see this scenario playing out long enough to make the Sand Man sweat bullets.
What do they know?
Who else have they interviewed?
Can my excuse hold up?
Will Hillary!(tm) burn me?
Will Bruce drop a dime on me?
Must be a million questions like these running through his tiny little boot-licking mind. Hope he isn't on any drugs that, when withheld, cause him to assume room temperature like Bill & Hill's old Whitewater partner.
If we were smart we would take out a huge Life Insurance Policy on Sandy. He future doesn't look too good,.
It should read "Berger, a former clinton national security advisor and a current KERRY ADVISOR..."
I am wondering if it might have been dems who leaked the info that Berger was being investigated.
Does anybody know if the Justice Dept. announced this?
How did the info get discovered. In the article it indicates that the JD is not talking.
And I have noticed the Dem talking puppets all saying..."this has been going on for months...so why talk about it now"...
Could there be a slim chance that they figured if they(the dems) leaked it now...that the coverage of the Dem convention will overshadow this quickly and...thus make it a lesser issue for the rest of the campaign????
Cause we know that the liberal media will be shameless in their devotion to the the big Rat Party in Boston.
I did not think of this until I started seeing all the Rat talking heads come out with what seems to be the same rehearsed line of...."why are they releasing this now" garbage.
There are several important thread out there today that intrepid Freepers culled about what Clark said / or did in actuality about terrorism during the Clinton Administration. These are eye openers and taken in conjunction with the pdb release, highly informative.
In 1999, Richard Clarke cited gains against bin Laden; "We've made life difficult for him" The Washington Post Archives | January 23, 1999 | Vernon Loeb http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115213/posts?page=11
and this one: In 2000, Richard Clarke argued against WH based Interagency Coordination Office for Terrorism The Washington Post Archives | October 9, 2000 | Vernon Loeb http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115167/posts?page=64#77
Hey, Tom Kean,
Check this out!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.