BACKSTORY: BERGER PLEADS GUILTY TO TAKING MATERIALS (this should fuel your outrage)

Sandy Berger answers questions in the White House briefing room in this Thursday, March 25, 1999 file photo. 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. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds, File)

WASHINGTON Apr 1, 2005 — Former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who once had unfettered access to the government's most sensitive secrets, pleaded guilty Friday to sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives, then using scissors to cut up some of them.

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. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him documents were missing.

Magistrate Deborah Robinson did not ask Berger why he cut up the materials and threw them away at the Washington office of his Stonebridge International consulting firm. Berger, accompanied by his wife, Susan, did not offer an explanation when he addressed reporters outside the federal courthouse following the hearing.

Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, would not discuss Berger's motivation, but said the former national security adviser understood the rules governing the handling of classified materials. Berger only had copies of documents; all of the originals remain in the government's possession, Hillman said.

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.

However, under a plea agreement that still must be approved by Robinson, Berger would serve no jail time but pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. Security clearance allows access to classified government materials.

The court appearance was the culmination of a bizarre episode in which Berger, who once had access to the government's most sensitive intelligence, was accused of sneaking documents out of the Archives, which houses the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and other cherished and top-secret documents.

The Bush administration disclosed the investigation in July, just days before the Sept. 11 commission issued its final report. Democrats claimed the White House was using Berger to deflect attention from the harsh findings, with their potential for damaging President Bush's re-election prospects.

After news of the probe surfaced, Berger acknowledged he left the National Archives on two occasions in 2003 with 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 commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. He called the episode "an honest mistake" and denied criminal wrongdoing.

Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said that Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

He returned two copies of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration.

The Associated Press first reported in July that the Justice Department was investigating Berger. The disclosure prompted Berger to step down as an adviser to the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Clinton was among the Democrats who questioned the timing of the disclosure of the Berger probe three days before the release of the Sept. 11 report. Leaders of the Sept. 11 commission said they were able to get every key document needed to complete their report.

Granted, it really annoys the liberal elite when the "little people" speak up, but we must let it be known that we value our national security, even if Sandy Berger doesn't.

Face it, if this were a Conservative, liberals would be tearing their hair out, blue-staters would be marching en masse, the MSM would be following the story 24/7, the NYT and LATimes would be rife with damning op-eds. If Dr. Condoleezza Rice had been caught stuffing documents down her pantyhose, the story would be a feeding frenzy.

Everybody knows liberals are above the law because they are (sob) “tolerant and compassionate,” and they, and only they, know what's best for America (sniffle). These liberals think the "little people" should be silenced....that we should shut up about Berger breaking the law, that he should be allowed to shove documents down his pants and stroll out of the National Archives as he damn well pleases. After all, onetime CIA Director John Deutsch co-opted national security secrets as well, but Clinton pardoned him. Then again, is there anybody Clinton did not pardon?

Now, since Sandy is a Clinton Dimocrat, he has only to wink at the judge and cop a sweetheart deal. No jail, maybe a ten cent fine, and a loss of clearance for 3 or years, just in time for the 2008 appointments. Has Hillary promised to make Berger Secretary of State?

Berger's sentencing is set for July 8.... and he apparently got a sweet plea deal. Now, you can bet if Berger is not cooperating---- as his plea demands----the deal will be off. These are the main concerns that we should articulate:

(1) Have all the people connected with the Berger theft been prosecuted?

(2) Were the stolen documents actually destroyed, or were they secreted for Mr Berger's later use?

(3) Is the plea deal conditioned on Berger giving up information?

(4) Mr Berger apparently did not act alone. Is naming names part of the plea deal?

FReepers, demand Berger’s crimes be subjected to the fullest extent of the law. Send your concerns about national security, and Berger's outrageous plea deal here:

U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson
c/o US District Court
US Dept of Justice
Judiciary Center
555 4th Street NW
Washington, DC 20530

Judge's Chambers phone: (202) 354-3070

Prosecutor's phone (202) 514-6933

Please keep your phone messages short and civil.

It is important that all who believe that justice should work for both sides, that we, the people, should not be left out of the justice equation. It's become apparent that individuals like Berger would set up kangaroo courts ala Third World banana republics, in order to exculpate himself. It's an outrage that the interests of we, the people, are being ignored, and that justice under our Nation's sacrosanct rule of law is being left out of the equation.

U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson should be urged not to accept Berger's inane defense----the foolish notion that Berger's going back to steal documents more than once was inadvertent.......Berger's excuse that his thievery was inadvertent could and should be classified as lying to a judge......every lawyer knows this is very serious -----and if Berger filed official documents with the court attesting to this lie, that could be considered foisting a falsehood on the court, and is prosecutable.

It is important to remind the judge that there is probably nothing in the National Archives that could ever have caused Berger any personal or political damage because of his protected status at the time-----acting as a member of the cabinet for a former president. Anything Berger was attempting to do in stealing documents was done to protect someone else and at the behest of someone else. It is hard to say what did, or what might have happened, with the Sandy Burglar deal -- there are so many double standards and complicity in Washington nowadays that one can only wonder. We can conjecture about who Burglar was/is protecting. But it may go beyond that, and that anything Berger was attempting to do in stealing documents was done to protect someone else, and at the behest of someone else.

It could be reasonably postulated that Berger was not covering for the Clintons as is commonly thought, but that the Archives theft was to reinforce Berger's usefulness as candidate John Kerry's national security advisor---to get something to use against GWB. That possibility became more apparent when it was discovered that the US Pentagon traitor Lawrence Franklin gave US national security documents to AIPAC, and that candidate Kerry hired Steve Grossman, a past AIPAC president, as his key campaign advisor. Suspicions arose that candidate Kerry was being coached, and that somebody might have been leaking privileged national security information to Kerry in the effort to defeat President Bush. Berger was serving as Kerry's national security consultant when he pilfered the classified US national security documents from the National Archives. So, the Berger theft may not be as originally suspected (a Clinton cover-up)----but an attempt to compromise the 2004 election to undermine George W Bush's reelection.

Americans ---that is to say the “little people”----need to know the extent of culpability engendered by these activities--- primarily whether our President was harmed ----and whether Sen Kerry and his advisors--- Steve Grossman and Sandy Berger---played any part in undercutting the reelection chances of President Bush through the use of stolen classified documents, and, of course, the degree to which spying impaired President Bush's ability to conduct US foreign policy. One of the most important questions Americans need to know about the connection between the Berger thievery, and the AIPAC-Pentagon treachery, is the degree to which these activities hurt President Bush and the president's 2004 campaign.

We should consider that Berger's thievery served several purposes:

(1) A coordinated attempt to coach Kerry----positioning Berger to get a Cabinet post if Kerry was elected, and if Hillary (gag) is elected.

(2) Covering up for the Clintons' pre-911 negligence.

(3) And finally, even after the Archives burglary, Berger was slithering around Washington involved in profiting from US government business in Iraq.

Berger's Firm to Aid Oil Interests in Iraq
By Judy Sarasohn
Washington Post Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A29

Stonebridge International, the "global strategy firm" founded by Berger, has taken on an interesting client, Gulfsands Petroleum Ltd., a private Houston-based oil and gas company. Gulfsands, along with its larger partner Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City, has oil and gas exploration and development interests in Syria. And now Gulfsands is looking to Iraq. "Stonebridge is assisting Gulfsands in organizing meetings in Washington with administration officials to discuss the company's business interests in Iraq and U.S. policy toward Syria," Stonebridge Vice Chairman H.P. Goldfield said in an e-mail response to written questions.

Remember, this is the place where Berger cut up the Archives documents.

We should ponder this: when caught with the goods in his skivvies, Sandy Berger admitted to taking top secret documents the National Archives did not even know went missing. ....leading one to conclude, Berger took a lot more than has been wont to reveal, a lot more than even the Archives knew about.

Berger's plea deal is conditioned on Berger's "cooperation." We need to make very certain that we, the people, got something in return for Berger's plea deal. Like for whose benefit the documents were being stolen, when was the order given, who was involved in the conspiracy, and who knew about it.

We demand to know:

(1) Have all the people who conspired with Berger been named and prosecuted?

(2) Did Berger actually destroy stolen docs--as he said---or are they being secreted for Berger's self-serving reasons: (a) for Hillary's campaign in exchange for Berger getting a political appointment, for (b) Berger's financial benefit in his oil consulting business, (c) to cover-up 9/11?

(3) Berger admitted to stealing documents the Archives did not list as missing .

(4) What did he do with them? Is his plea deal conditioned on Berger returning these as well?

(5) Who was in on the cover-up?

In an earlier public statement, Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, would not discuss Berger’s motivation, but said the former national security adviser understood the rules governing the handling of classified materials.

Duh---excuse me while I crawl back onto the turnip truck.

So why isn't the public allowed to share the info about Berger's motivation?? Why is Hillman holding this back? These compelling questions should be posed to the proper authorities.

Send your concerns about Berger's plea deal to the judge who will sentence Berger July 8.

U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson
c/o US District Court
US Dept of Justice
Judiciary Center
555 4th Street NW
Washington, DC 20530

Judge's Chambers phone: (202) 354-3070

Prosecutor's phone (202) 514-6933

Caution: phone number listed is a prosecutor and the judge's personal phone line - keep messages short and civil.

NB: As of today, July 11, 2005, we, the people, have not been advised as to the adjudication of Berger's outrageous offenses against the USA.

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.