Posted on 03/31/2005 4:30:05 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, March 31 - Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, has agreed to plead guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge and give up his security clearance for three years after removing classified material from a government archive, the Justice Department and associates of Mr. Berger said today.
A well-respected figure in foreign policy circles for many years, Mr. Berger has also agreed to pay a $10,000 fine as part of an agreement reached with the Justice Department in recent days after months of quiet negotiations, the associates said.
He is expected to enter his plea Friday afternoon in Federal District Court here, capping an embarrassing episode that reverberated in last year's presidential campaign.
Mr. Berger had been a senior policy adviser to Senator John F. Kerry's presidential bid - and initially was mentioned as a possible secretary of state if Mr. Kerry were to win. But he was forced to quit the campaign abruptly last July after accusations first surfaced that he had inappropriately removed classified material from a secure reading room at the National Archives, and the case became a political tempest.
The material involved a classified assessment of terrorist threats in 2000, which Mr. Berger was reviewing in his role as the Clinton administration's point person in providing material to the Sept. 11 commission. Officials with the archives and the Sept. 11 commission ultimately determined that despite the incident, the commission had access to all the material needed in its work.
When the issue first surfaced last year, Mr. Berger insisted that he had removed the classified material inadvertently.
But in the plea agreement reached with prosecutors, he is expected to admit that he intentionally removed copies of five classified documents, destroyed three of them, and misled staff members at the National Archives when confronted about it, according to an associate of Mr. Berger who is involved in his defense but who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plea has not yet been made formal in court.
The Justice Department, without discussing details of the plea agreement, acknowledged that Mr. Berger had agreed to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor count for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents.
Mr. Berger, 59, was unavailable for comment this evening. In a statement, his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said Mr. Berger "has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near."
"He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives," Mr. Breuer said, adding that Mr. Berger "looks forward to putting this episode behind him very soon and continuing his career of public and private service to this country."
It is unclear what long-term impact the case will have on Mr. Berger's once-flourishing career in government.
While the plea agreement requires Mr. Berger to give up his secret security clearance for three years, it also allows him to have his clearance reviewed and restored within that time if the government were to ask him to serve on a panel or in another position with access to sensitive material, associates said.
But some political analysts said the case against him - which Republican leaders seized on last year in accusing him of imperiling national security - may have made him unemployable in government in the short term. He is currently chairman of a global business strategy firm.
The criminal charge stems from Mr. Berger's removal of documents from the National Archives on two separate occasions during his review of material for the Sept. 11 commission.
On Sept. 2, 2003, during an hours-long review of documents, Mr. Berger took a copy of a lengthy White House "after action" report that he had commissioned to assess the government's performance in responding to the so-called "millennium" terrorist threat prior to the 2000 new year, and he placed the document in his suit pocket, the associate said. A month later, during another session at the archive, he removed four more copies of other versions of the report, the associate said.
Mr. Berger's intent in removing the documents, the associate said, was to be able to compare the different versions of the 2000 report side by side and trace changes.
"He was just too tired and wasn't able to focus enough, and he felt like he needed to look at the documents in his home or his office to line them up," the associate said. "He now admits that was a real mistake, which he regrets."
Mr. Berger admits compounding the mistake after removing the second set of documents on Oct, 2, 2003, the associate said. In comparing the versions of the report at his office later that day, he realized that several were essentially the same, and he cut three copies into small pieces with a scissors, the associate said. He also admitted improperly removing handwritten notes he took at the archives, the associate said.
Two days later, staff members at the National Archives - who had grown suspicious about Mr. Berger's possible removal of documents - confronted him, and he now admits to misleading the archive about what had happened. He indicated that the removal was inadvertent and, while he returned the two remaining copies of the report to the archive, he said nothing about the three copies he had destroyed, the associate said.
I bet he hates the Ten Commandments as they talk about stealing and lying.
Not to be conspiratorial or anything, but does anyone think its curious that this is announced on the same day as Terri Schiavo dying and the Pope apparently on his deathbed?
Thankyou sir for such an informative post.
I blame his pants
Thanks for the very clear explanation of how security is supposed to work. I too spent over 30 years living with the rules. How is Berger's action only a "misdemeanor"? I would have thought there was a felony offense there somewhere if the authorities wanted to pursue it.
Sandy going to get OWNED.....
Given the light sentence, there is reason toi believe he is owned.
Who? to what advantage? What did he spill?
Maybe we should starve and dehydrate him to death!
That, by the way, might have been an additional crime: improper disposal.
Even if otherwise permitted to destroy a document, that is not an acceptable way to do so.
Anyone else would have pled to 20 years..
Un-freaking-believable! A public slap on the wrist for the benefit of the ignorant public.
Berger should have been locked up in a federal prison (not a country club) for 20 years with no parole. And if he lived to complete his prison term, permanent restriction from all classified material.
More than a slap if we're to believe foxnews who reported he may get one year in prison and a fine of $100,000.
What....nothing about the socks?!?!?!
ping
OPINION.
No self-respecting newspaper editor would EVER let this pass in a straight news story. But, then again, we're talking about The New York Times - not exactly known for their journalistic standards.
Never heard of anyone getting that kind of punishment for a misdemeanor.
Thanks for thinking of me. Yes, I commented on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1374996/posts
Now, to sum up my thoughts; I was happy to hear he'd plead, then disappointed at reading the first report, then better when I heard Pete Williams on MSNBC report.
Williams' report stated that it is significant that Berger has agreed to plead to "knowingly" removing the documents.
Williams also stated he had learned Berger is cooperating. Williams actually said this seemed mysterious as the case seemed simple enough.
This is what cheered me up because I respect Williams but was surprised by his analysis. I had posited for months that the reason Berger hadn't been charged yet was because they were pressuring him to cooperate.
So...this may not be the end of the story, I hope.
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.
