Posted on 07/28/2004 7:51:45 AM PDT by johnny7
Even after a week of sorting out, it's difficult to make heads or tails of the flap over Sandy Berger's handling of classified documents. Berger's behavior was inexcusably sloppy, but no plausible motive of malice has been suggested. About all that can be said is that this will likely prove a tempest in a teapot, though one with lasting consequences for Berger.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Give the Clinton Mob a year to shread, bury, intimidate, erace, mangle and cover up an incident and it will be white as new fallen snow.
A very plausible explanation I've heard is that he took copies which had his and others handwritten comments and that tose copies were unique. I don't know if that is true, but it is certainly plausible.
Earth to StarTribune.....Earth to StarTribune.... Ths is Izzy Dunne of the planet Earth reporting.
A motive MIGHT be to cover up the handwritten margin notes of AllBright, Cohen, et al, about how taking real action against terrorists might result in political or financial pain.
Over and out.
Hey! NFL training camps start this weekend!
And how about Laci and Lori? Don't forget about them! Feel their families' pain as Fat Rita checks in with her famous "sources"!
Come on, what's the big deal? The guy stuck some classified documents in his socks. It's not like he was trying to be sneaky or anything.
You must hate Sandy because he happens to be a slob. I sense the ugly spectre of slobism here.
I have a dream that one day in this country a person will be judged by the content of his character and not the gravy on his tie.
It's been public knowledge for a couple of weeks now.
Still, as this POS walks around free, the politicos scratch their heads and wonder why the People have no respect for the 'law'!
Keep your papers and government on this...BE ACTIVE!
Over the past week I have heard dozens of Democrat Party officials, media talking-heads and editorial writers use the word "sloppy" to describe Berger's actions. It seems like the DNC issued a script for everyone to use as they circled the wagons around Sandy.
I read that this morning too.
The Red Star absolutely makes me sick.
I don't believe that I have ever seen an editorial page more virulently rabid than theirs.
I read the article during breakfast and was shaking my head. None of this should surprise me but you know what? It still surprises me about the level the Red Star will sink to in its hatred.
MOTIVE never has to be proved in a crime. That is a common fallacy brought on by toooo many silly detective and courtroom shows and books.
Only two things have to be proved: the evil act and the requisite state of mind.
In this case:
1) did he in fact take classified documents?
2) did he intentionally and/or knowingly take those documents?
a prosecutor does not have to show why he took them. obviously, it is nice to be able to show a motive and reason, etc, etc. But all that does is help show that he had the "evil state of mind"
otherwise, all a crook would have to do, is to make it look as if it doesn't make sense, and he would walk.
bump
Well rectums do sometime eat one's drawers, but Berger's is so talented it eats only classified documents that could cause problems for the Clinton Administration, Berger and Clinton's legassy.
Berger needs to put a muzzle on his ass.
Whatever the motive, its got to be big....ain't for nuthin' somebody risks prison for a trifle. FBI and intel must be 'connecting dots'. Prolly we'll never know...national security concerns.
SLOPPY! SLOPPY??!! Is that all they can say? He's just sloppy? How sloppy do you have to be to end up with highly classified documents in your pants? And even so, this man was National Security Advisor, and should KNOW BETTER! That's scares the hell out of me. I am so angry about this, and all this, "Oh, that Sandy, he's just sloppy. He didn't mean any harm" is just so over the top!
No plausible motive of malice has been suggested? Why, yes, one has. Aren't these clowns paying attention?
A key player in the 1972 Watergate burglary charged Wednesday that the Ashcroft Justice department was dragging its feet on the seven-month-old investigation into former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger's role in the theft of top secret documents from the National Archives.
"Why is the Bush administration giving Sandy Berger a pass on what appear to be five felonies, intentional acts violating the law with respect to codeword material?" complained G. Gordon Liddy, who served five years in prison after he was prosecuted in connection with the Watergate break-in. "There‘s no higher classification than this stuff," he told MSNBC's "Scarborough Country." "People die when it gets out."
Liddy rejected comparisons between what critics called his "third-rate burglary" and the National Archives document heist, saying what Berger did was far worse.
"I think [Berger's] was a first-rate [burglary], because, after all, he did it five times," Liddy explained.
The former FBI agent, who now hosts his own nationally syndicated radio show, said pronouncements from Berger's legal team that they had hoped to resolve his case quietly were laughable. "I would like to have quietly resolved Watergate," he lamented. "That would have a been great deal."
"Sandy Berger, five felonies, and we are going to resolve this quietly," he added. "What is wrong with the Ashcroft Department of Justice?"
Though it's not clear whether a grand jury has been impaneled, on Tuesday Ashcroft's deputy James Comey hinted that Berger was in serious legal hot water.
"We take issues of classified information very, very seriously," Comey told reporters. "All felonies in the federal system bring with them the promise of jail time, that's all I can say about that."
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
It's so interesting how the most charismatic ex-President, Bubba, has allowed his spin to be the controlling commentary on the Berger theft.
Remember, Bubba weighed in early, that he and his other friends, were "laughing" at the news that Berger was caught, and that he was known for "his sloppiness"
So the mantra of the media-land is that he was just sloppy.
So Berger; like Foster; like Susan McDougall; like Webb Hubbell; like Juanita; like Monica, takes the fall for Bubba, and his life is forever destroyed. What an f-nn disaster to have been involved as a friend of Bill.
The Clinton M.O. was to take 2nd-rate hacks and put them into positions of power well above their capabilities in order to breed loyalty. Berger would have been nothing without Slick, so the Clintons have no qualms in their amoral mind about hanging him out to dry, just as they have done with so many of their other cronies.
I think in this case, we can assume the party line is actually refering to his getting caught, as in; "very sloppy of him to get caught like that".
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.