Archives Staff Was Suspicious of Berger

Washington Post ^ | July 22, 2004 | John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt

[ScaniaBoy]

No I don't think they timed this perfect for HC.

The Clinton's apparently have known about it for months. They knew Bergen was a poisoned chalice. So Hillary kept her distance from the Kerry campaign and waited, and waited...

...but the DOJ (or the WH) didn't do anything (because either they've decided to wait until after the Convention, which would have been much better timing, or the investigation is not finished - take your pick depending on how devious you think GW and Cheney are).

And suddenly the DNC Convention was looming and nothing had happened.

Then some Clinton minion leaks the story - but it is late in the day. The story is growing legs, but in all likelihood it is too late to interfere with the selection of Kerry/Edwards.

[Sir Gawain]

What??? You don't believe Gergen when he says Berger is a man of integrity?

The timing of your asking for his phone number is suspicious. lol

[Peach]

No reason to regret it. No one has been able to answer you/us whether it is possible to INSERT documents. We know you can steal them. LOL

I think it's a shell game. Do A and admit it and take the heat. It's so obvious that he's stolen the same docs over and over that there has to be a B plan we aren't seeing.

[what's up]

I think he's Deep Throat.

[nutmeg]

Archives Staff Was Suspicious of Berger

By John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 22, 2004; Page A06

Yup, that's right... not on page ONE!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[Samwise]

At least they're not printing the "it's all Bush's fault for leaking the investigation" DNC spin.

"I think he also feels a sense of injustice that after building a reputation as a tireless defender of his country that many Republicans would try to assassinate his character to pursue their own ends."

[Peach]

He's Deep something.

[Dianna]

On FNC tonight John Gibson said at the My Word segment that Fox contacted their sources (two) who confirmed that Berger was seen stuffing documents in his socks.

Let's use our common sense. If you want to hide 50-60 pages of documents on your person, how could you do it? Perhaps you could fold them in half and place them in an inside coat pocket. You could pretty easily slide them down your pants (pretty uncomfortable). It's also not hard to imagine shoving them two or three inches down into your socks which would hold the papers snugly against your calf.

The one thing you aren't going to do is try to put them in a pants pocket! Way too obvious. That's how we know he's lying.

[HAL9000]

We have officially exceeded Watergate proportions with this story.

We're at the first stage of the Watergate analogy - the security guard has noticed that the tape on the door is broken, and there is a burglar inside.

It won't truly reach Watergate proportions until it becomes a conspiracy.

[Destro]

"There must have been something incriminating in those earlier drafts."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175296/posts

Heard on the John Batchelor radio program tonight: John Loftus claims that documents removed from the National Archives by Sandy Berger contain information about the Clinton administration's hiring members of the Arab Brotherhood (?), an organization with Nazi and Al Qaeda connections, to terrorize Serbs during Clinton's war in the Balkans.

[Hoboken]

Right! Perhaps we should have waited 'til after Sandyburger Documentpants was confirmed as the Sec. of Defense. Truly despicable!

[tubebender]

Who had this story first this week? I saw it on Drudge two days ago I think...

[conservative in nyc]

Yes, but it's the last sentence of the article. The bulk of the article discusses how Sandy Burglar got caught. The Slimes took the opposite approach --- the evil Republicans took center stage in their DNC talking points hit piece.

[dano1]

HE wasn't doing this to protect Clinton's legacy.

I agree. I think the story is in the handwritten notes that were on some of the draft copies of the Millenium report, which Berger has now apparently destroyed. These notes could have been from Clinton officials, or even Clinton himself which showed Clinton's culpability for 9/11. It's not just about image management. Berger would not have committed such a serious crime for that. They are covering their guilt.

Probably they were thinking it was necessary in order to have Bush lose the election. Dirty tricks. Watergate. Sloppy break-in.

[Howlin]

They were the same documents...but with different handwritten notations on them from different Clinton officials.

Okay, if they are missing, how could the 9-11 Commission have completed their report not knowing HOW the Clinton administration handled the information they got?

[Steven W.]

you are exactly right - all the 9/11 commission was left with were the "final" copies of the original draft and the ultimate report ... gone are all the working copies that circulated in which Clinton, Berger, et. al. would have included their own sentiments in their own writing alongside their own fingerprints ... not to mention all of the documents he stole the first time around destroyed that nobody stills know exactly what or which documents will never be seen again (and one presumes those are probably the most damning of the stolen evidence).

[Howlin]

It's bigger than that for him to risk what he did.

I agree 100 percent.

[Keith]

I was supposed to be page ONE!!! Bastards buried it!!!

[Carry_Okie]

So why didn't they call the DC police?

[Dolphy]

I think it's a shell game. Do A and admit it and take the heat. It's so obvious that he's stolen the same docs over and over that there has to be a B plan we aren't seeing.

I agree, though I can't figure out what Plan B is. Weren't there earlier references to some middle east documents?

Another Dem spin is that there were copies of all the documents he took so he really couldn't erase the record. Is that accurate?