Skip to comments.'SOCKS DOCS' JURY GRILLS CLINTON CRONY
Posted on 01/11/2005 11:41:41 PM PST by kattracks
Former Clinton White House Mr. Fix-It Bruce Lindsey emerged tight-lipped yesterday after testifying before a federal grand jury probing whether top-secret documents were illegally removed from the National Archives.
The grand jury probe, reported exclusively in The Post Tuesday, is digging into why another former Bill Clinton aide, Sandy Berger, sneaked the national security documents out of the Archives possibly in his socks.
Lindsey denied any inside knowledge about Berger's sticky fingers.
"All I know is what he [Berger] said. He made a public statement," said Lindsey, Clinton's deputy White House counsel, after testifying under oath yesterday.
Berger admits walking off with 40 to 50 top-secret documents from the archives, but claims it was an "honest mistake" while vetting documents for the 9/11 commission.
Berger has admitted destroying some documents he says by mistake.
Lindsey declined comment on what he told the grand jury, but denied reports that he met with Berger in New York for crisis control as the scandal erupted last summer.
Among the documents Berger lifted were multiple drafts of a report assessing the 2000 millennium threat that is said to conclude that only luck prevented a terrorist attack then.
That conflicts with Berger's sworn testimony to the commission he claimed "we thwarted" millennium attacks by being vigilant, not lucky.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The plot thickens.
The Post also reports that Sandy the Burglar hasn't been called before the grand jury yet.
Kind of makes a person go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
we would have irate Democrats demanding a special prosecutor and demanding Senate hearings as well as resignations from anybody and everybody.....
It does show just how entitled the Democrat party feels it is....to be able to walk in, steal documents, hide them in your pants or your socks, and then claim it was just a mistake, oh well....
Sounds as though dear Brucey is in a whole lot of trouble and is NOT going to cover for Mr. Sticky socks.
Sandy Pants is up to eye balls in trouble
The real question is ... who will he take down with him ??
If Bruce is "stoney faced",he knows there's blood in the water.
This is too cool! We are actually doing something about the theft!
Makes me go "blech."
I agree ... I'd be surprised to see the Clinton's take a hit
But they are going have a difficult time spinning this all
This is turning out to be a VERY interesting week, and its only Wednesday!
*L* .. I hear ya ... my head is spinning just trying to keep up with it all
Boy, if they keep this up, they're gonna have to put in traffic control cops near the cannon at Ft. Marcy Park.
I guess Brucie decided not to lie about this GJ testimony, as he did once before, and got caught.
Lindsey also, if I remember. Spun a bunch of stuff about how the prosecutors were interested in lurid sex details and stuff.
The commission report makes clear that Berger had a habit of writing candid notes in the margin of memos, sometimes flatly rejecting plans for action. (Berger) nixed a plan to capture Osama bin Laden with one word: "No."
Now did he do that in conference with Clinton? Course, Berger was the national security advisor, so we might assume he counseled Clinton against taking out OBL.
No matter...... 911 happened thanks to these bozos.
I'm convinced that after 911, Berger was compelled to do whatever was necessary to hide, destroy, or pilfer damaging evidence of Berger's incompetence....and/or perhaps his and Clinton's complicity in corrupting US national security.
Oh, oh, oh! I just remembered something! When Clinton testified before the 9/11 Commision, he wasn't alone! He had two people with him: Berger and Lindsey!
If they keep on ignoring/whitewashing crime by the elite long enough, we'll all be able to forget about filing our tax returns etc. There'll be no justification for enforcing laws on anyone.
What are you talking about? How in the world do you think that a grand jury investigation is whitewashing something?
Want to start a "Dead Pool"?
Blumenthal Testimony Drawing More Attention
09 February, 1999
By Ben Anderson
CNS Staff Writer
(CNS) House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) is asking the Senate for subpoena power for he and other House managers to investigate whether White House aide Sidney Blumenthal lied in his Congressional deposition in President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. The issue centers around who said what to whom in what may have been an effort to coordinate a smear campaign against former White House intern Monica Lewinsky on January 21, 1998, when the Clinton-Lewinsky story broke.
In videotaped testimony given to the House managers prosecuting the case, Blumenthal testified he spoke to no one, including the media, about a conversation he had with the president last year where Clinton described Lewinsky as a "stalker" and felt threatened by her sexual advances.
However, in a sworn statement to House impeachment managers made public Saturday, Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens contradicted videotaped testimony Blumenthal gave House prosecutors Wednesday in the impeachment trial. Hitchens, also a writer for the Nation, described in his statement a luncheon which he and his wife, Carol Blue, had with Blumenthal on March 19. Hitchens said that "several times" during the luncheon Blumenthal described Lewinsky as a stalker. He also said Blumenthal called President Clinton "the victim of a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman."
Bruce Lindsey knows where all the bodies are buried.
What is most interesting is WHY Bergerfelt compelled to do this. Was it on his behalf or someone else's? Was he covering up for security goofs or intentional malfeasance? And who else is involved...Clintons, DNC, or foreign governments?
OMG, I forgot about that!
Berger was covering up the fact that the Clinton Administration refused to deal with Bin Laden.
Clinton, Berger, and Lindsey met with the commission the day Condi Rice testified.
There has to be more to it than just that. By now it is pretty common knowledge that they didn't deal with OBL...heck Dick Morris has been blabbing about that for nearly 3 years.
True, and IIRC, Clinton testified privately, and unrecorded.
What on earth could it be then? Lord only knows it could be anything with that crowd! If there was ever criminals in the White house it was them. Nixon had nothing on them!!!
Great questions. I would venture to say Berger was goaded by some of each......bedeviled by some more than others.....but mostly to coverup his and Clinton's incompetent and corrupt-ridden tracks.
What if there is evidence of collusion with foreign governments at the expense of national security? What if it is something to do with Arafat (who visited Clinton more than any other foreign leader)? What if the papers have communications from the Chinese, or the Syrians, or the North Koreans?
There are endless possibilities, as you can see.
I just don't think Berger suddenly wokeup one day, thought "oh my gosh, I have to get those papers from the archives!" Also, I think that Clintonistas in the Archives were in cahoots with him, and he was caught because someone changed the schedule of guards. (This is my speculation, but it accounts for why he first was allowed to take things, then a sting was set up. It also accounts for the dismissal of the Director of the National Archives in the December of last year, after Berger had been put under investigation but before the news of his theft made the media.)
When Berger was observed taking the papers, people at the archives called BRUCE LINDSEY!
Don't hold your breath. The Dems have a way of sweeping truth under the rug. Rush is probably the only man that will push this to the Nth degree towards justice.
A government official with knowledge of the investigation said Archives employees took action promptly after noticing a missing document in September. This official said an Archives employee called former White House deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey, who is former president Bill Clinton's liaison to the National Archives. The Archives employee said documents were missing and would have to be returned.
Under this version of events -- which Breuer denied -- documents were returned the following day from Berger's office to the Archives. Not included in these papers, the government official said, were any drafts of the document at the center of this week's controversy.
The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 "after-action review" of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger's direction when he was in government.
Lindsey, now in private legal practice in Little Rock, did not return telephone and e-mail messages.
Wow......that is interesting.
I also think the Archives called Lindsey b/c he is the one in control of the 11,000 Clinton papers the 911 commission requested.
The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it.
At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.
This source and another government official said that archivists gave Berger use of a special room for reviewing the documents. He was examining the documents to recommend to the Bush administration which papers should be released to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said that employees closely monitor anyone cleared to review classified presidential materials.
Berger's contempt for US national security
Monday 26 July 2004
"[Lindsey's] nicknames have run the gamut from "the Enforcer" to "the Consigliere," the Sicilian word for a trusted counsel to a Mafia chieftain." Time Magazine, March 23 19981
The astonishing admission of Samuel "Sandy" Berger, Bill Clinton's longtime National Security Advisor, that he stuffed "code-word"-class secret documents into his pants, sneaked them out of a secure review room at the National Archives and "inadvertently" destroyed them is highly disquieting to those familiar with Berger's background and activities in the Clinton Administration.
In particular, the Washington Post reports1 that Berger purloined all draft revisions of a key critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, a document that detailed Administration knowledge - and inaction - regarding al Qaeda presence in the U.S. in 1999 and 2000. Stolen were crucial notes in the margins of these drafts which reveal the thinking and agendas of the Clinton Administration relating to the mounting terrorist threat.
Cui bono? And when the losses were discovered, why did the Archives staff notify Bruce Lindsey? Lindsey, whom Time Magazine called Clinton's consigliere, is the brilliant legal tactician both Clintons can thank for their continued freedom.
Berger has an impressive resume, but not one that obviously qualified him as NSA. He entered White House service a millionaire lawyer and lobbyist with a career centered on expanding trade with China.3
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh opined that "he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press."4 Indeed, Clinton's brilliant poll-meister, Dick Morris, noted Berger "seemed to work overtime at opposing tough measures against terror",5 advising vetoes of legislation aimed at crippling Iranian terror funding and working to block antiterror sanctions.
It was Berger who repeatedly rebuffed Sudanese offers to hand Osama bin Laden to the United States in a deal brokered by a $900,000 contributor to Democrat campaigns.6, 7
It was Berger who allowed bin Laden and his top lieutenants to escape to Afghanistan.8
It was Berger whose calls Bill Clinton ducked in 1998 when bin Laden was briefly vulnerable to missile attack.9
It was Berger who was singled-out by former UN Inspector Scott Ritter for the collapse of UN inspections efforts in Iraq.10
It was Berger who helped broker the farcical antinuclear treaty with North Korea. It was Berger who ultimately admitted that the Clinton Administration had failed to develop a war plan to fight al Qaeda.11
At the same time, it was Berger who was the go-to man in the Administration on matters regarding China policy in the years when Communist Chinese money was being funneled into Democrat Party coffers in exchange for policy concessions and strategic nuclear technology.
It was Berger whom DNC Chairman Don Fowler approached for favors for George Chao-chi Chu, a Chinagate-linked John Huang crony described as having "unusual access to high-ranking Communist officials in China" who, like the just-exited chief-foreign-policy-advisor Berger, has current ties to John Kerry.12
And it was Berger who the Energy Department approached with warnings of Chinese spying in Los Alamos, and who stonewalled the matter for three years.13
The list goes on and on14: Berger was not just the malfeasant, poll-driven, cowardly hack at the helm of our national security apparatus who enabled the global metastasis of bloodthirsty jihad; he was not just one of the key people who roadblocked cooperation between law enforcement and foreign intelligence, stacking "Gorelick's Wall" ever higher. In fact, as bagman for the Communist Chinese, Sandy Berger was himself likely one of the key beneficiaries of Gorelick's Wall.
Viewed against his record, Berger's theft and destruction of "code-word"-level secret documents - and "The Consigliere's" stealthy involvement - is all too readily understood.
The article kcvl just posted says that Lindsey was Clinton's liaison to the National Archives. Now what would be the point of calling Lindsey to tell him Berger had taken some stuff? Why not call Berger? Or (silly me) the FBI?
That last list provides an interesting list of possibilities for collusion, doesn't it?
Wake up! It's almost 5 AM and things are popping! Read this thread as soon as you can!
I've always been skeptical that 911 was planned so thoroughly for so long and that no one claims to have known about it. When Berger was asked about it by a Congressional committee shortly after, he said it probably took "three months" to plan (right after Bush took office)...............which is ridiculous in the extreme. Berger was CYA'ing himself and Clinton b/c they know 911 was planned under their watch. And now they're trying to cover it up by stealing documents that prove it.
Why did the Archives call Lindsey? Apparently, the Archives wants us it think was b/c they had previous contact with Lindsey, but that does not preclude your theory that there was collusion, and the call may even be evidence of it.
Good point. Let's remember Clinton showing up in New York and walking the streets right after it happened, handing out hugs and tears. Given your statement, it creeps me out.
I had to go put the dishes in the dishwasher and start my laundry. LOL! I'm baaaccck.
Oh, good! I will have to leave to make breakfast, but I am definitely going to pay attention to this thread today.
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.