Jeeze, Czarcasm, ya coulda deleted the one with the typo 
Magellan01 seems to be curiously silent in this thread today. I wonder why he hasn’t responded…
Agreed. The “evidence” seems to be limited to the speculation that because he had access to original documents, “…ther is no basis to conclude that he did not remove original documents.” It’s a classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
I posted this thread because it was the first official complete report I had seen. Are there others? I had heard of most of this in bits and pieces as it unravelled, now it’s all here in one place, in the fullest form to date. Specifically, this was news to me:
From Bullet Point 7 in The Findings, Page 5: “The Archives Inspector General and Justice Department officials clashed over notifying the 9/11 Commission of the extent of Berger’s document removal and the fact that Berger had access to original documents that may have been responsive to Commission document requests. No one told the 9/11 Commission that Berger had access to original documents.”
From Bullet Point 8: “There is no basis for concluding Berger did not remove original documents responsive to 9/11 Commission requests during May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003 visits to the National Archives. Nevertheless, the Justice Department’s representations to the 9/11 Commission left the impression that Berger’s document theft was limited to what he admitted to taking.”
From Bullet Point 9: "The public statements of the former chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because berger had access to original documents on May 30, 2002, and July 18, 2003, there is no basis for his statement that “nothing was lost to the public or the process.”
From Bullet 10: “The 9/11 Commission relied on assurances from the Department of Justice that a full and comlpete production was made, and that no original or any other responsive documents were withheld. No one told the 9/11 Commission that Berger had access to original documents. The 9/11 Commission was specifically interested in the office files of White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, and never was told that Berger had access to Clarke’s original office files on May 20, 2002, and July 18, 2003.”
Are you saying that this was all reported? Were you aware of what the Commission was told by whom and what portions of it were inaccurate. Could you please point to those sources that you gl;eaned that information from and cite the passages? I’d appreciate it. I’d like to see what I missed and keep those ssources in mind for the future.
But I’m glad to see that you consider a cite from World Net Daily to be valid and newsworthy. I’ll keep that in mind, as well.
That said, I’m glad I gave you the opportunity to pad your post count in the manner you did. (Post 16 was particulalry transparent.) Maybe you should always post that way. At the very least it will get you the attention you seem to so desperately crave. Maybe you can get the Most Posts of ANYONE EVER Award! Then you could buy yourself a nice little blue ribbon or a shiney plaque. Fittingly, one made of a nice dense wood, like oak.
Are you willing to retract your claim that Berger stole original documents?
I did not conclude that he did remove any documents. We cannot know with the information available. But the questions are many. That, in addition to a piece of information that was new to me—namely that the 9/11 Commission had been given incorrect information—caused me to start this thread.
Another thing I’d like to know is the degree to which his extremely lenient sentence (IMO) was due to the the type of incorrect information given to the 9/11 Commission.
Bricker, from a legal perpsective, IF his sentence was due to incorrect information given to the 9/11 Commission, which was then used to excuse a lenient sentence, is there any further action the government could take against Berger? If not, what new finding, if any, would allow additional action?
First, point to where I claimed that. I don’t think I did. From the information available (that I am aware of) I don’t see how we can conclude that he did.
But if I did claim that to be a fact I would be happy to retract it, as it would be in error.
:dubious: I think you need to read the OP. 
Nope. We already played that game. You lost. See above. You listed out what you believed to be new information, that might persuade posters from previous threads to change their minds. I provided links to where most of the items you listed were reported in 2004-2005. You don’t get to change the rules now.
Okay. I just did. The only thing that comes close is: "It also seems that not all of the documents he pilfered were copies, some were originals. "
Is that what you’re referring to? If so, I’d point you to the word “seems”. I would certainly not be surprised to learn that he did steal original documents. And I certainly fear he stole original documents. But there is no proof that he did steal original documents. That is why word “seems” is there. If I felt that the evidence supported my belief (guess) that he DID steal original documents I would have gladly said so. Still, if this was unclear, and I can see how it might have been, my apologies.
Game?Do you mean the MOST POSTS EVER GAME, or some other one? Oh, the* debate*. Okay.
Well, I’ll leave it to you to claim whatever “win” you would like, but as far as what you posted here you are incorrect. But knock yourself out. (Also, you used the word “most” above, so at best you’re free to claim a pertial “win”.) My list that you refer to and responded to included my saying that, among the other items, this was new to me:
Also, from the OP: (bolding added)
So, you are clearly wrong.
Now, please provide me with those cites I requested of you. Those showing previous articles for all the items I listed minus the “most” you say you already showed to be old news. (Which, for the record, I said was new to me.)
Nice try, but it doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to demand I produce cites to challenge statements you make. Especially not after I already debunked your first list, and you decide to ask for a do over.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. The cites I provided were obtained by running a google search on Sandy Berger, and looking at the articles on the first page of results. Thus, if the items in your first list of shocking “new material” were truly “new” to you, it means you didn’t look very hard for information…most of which was reported long ago.
:rolleyes: Let’s recap, shall we?
We have my OP and post #6, both of which you attempted to pooh-pooh by oh-so-maturely posting four posts in a row. The implication of those four posts, along with your subsequent post wondering about my whereabouts (thank for the concern) was to make the OP look like nothing but old news. Your latest posts support that assessment.
Now while it would not ordinarily fall to you to disprove my points with cites, when you post four posts in a row using cites to seemingly prove your point, and then claim that your cites disproved that ALL of my cites were old information, it does fall to you to prove that claim. You can do it by pointing to posts you’ve already made, or (taking a second bite at the apple) by providing new cites.
So that’s where we are. You have two choices if you wish to act honorably here in GD: 1) admit that you were wrong and there was, in fact, new information in my cite (this leaves aside that fact that I’ve said that some of the information was new to me) or 2) point to where you have shown that this:
is old news.
So are we clear on your options, Oakie? I hope so. I’ll await your cite or retraction. Maybe even with an apology for unjustly trying to jump my shit.
Next. It is clear you have a bug up your butt about me. Fine. Come after me if you have nothing better to do in your life. Then again, you’ve posted an awful lot for a guy that’s been around since June, so maybe you don’t. But at least post fairly and honorably. Read this thread over. Look at those four posts in a row? Proud of that? Look at the fourth; in your determination to slay me you point to an artickle that’s a whole ten days old! Wow, what was I thinking? Now again, maybe you have nothing else in your life and you can read every paper as it comes off the presses or spend 20 hours a day on the net reading stuff. Though your time here would eat into that. But this is a diversion for me. A interesting one most of the time. Not so interesting when dealing with a rabid, childish game of gotcha. Especially with those who are wrong.
In closing, let’s focus on the last few words of your post above: “…most of which was reported long ago.”
Notice the word “most”. That alone shows that you have now backpedaled. That is good. Your acknowledging reality. Also, I’ve explained that I heard much of this information, but in dribs and drabs, and not with any finality or without apologists attempting to give Berger every benefit of the doubt. It was hard to know what was actually known and what wasn’t. Now we have this official report. I find that helpful. If you presaged ALL the information in the report I cited, good for you, though I wonder why you waste your time on a message board if you have that ability. And that brings us back to: if you have sources that provided ALL the information in this report with the degree of clarity and finality it provides, share it.
Your choice: #1 or #2?
What part of you don’t make the rules are you not understanding? My posts stand. The only claim I’ve made and you’ve objected to is that your first try at listing new information was mostly not so new. That claim was backed by cites to a variety of sources. I’ve made no comment on your do over.
I also offered a comment on something I find disturbing here…that the National Archives apparently did not know what was in the files Berger was allowed to see. It seems to me that before anyone is allowed to access original documents, those documents should be inventoried and some sort of tracking sytem put in place.
I’ll take this one first. On this point we are in complete and absolute agreement. Hopefully that has been rectified.
But that is not what you came after me for. And come after me you did.
I’ve explained this to you already. But no matter. I appreciate your change in tone. I think that begins to speak well of you. We both, as you say, will stand behind our posts. As it is my wish to have less of this type of personal attack—both indirect and direc t—not more, I am willing to let the matter drop. I am sure we will disagree in the future and hope it will be on the merits, or lack thereof, of the debate. Not because we may not care for each other.
Good night.
:smack: Preview. Preview. Preview.
Would a mod please fix the coding. The later half of the quote tag says “/QIOTE”?
Thanks.
Do these “new details” (assuming they are new) tell us anything more about why Berger did what he did? I’ve never been clear on that point.
As a general principle – and *especially when discussing a crime – it is absolutely useless to say, “We cannot know with the information given.” The burden in debate is on the one advancing the assertion to provide evidence of hsi claim. In the criminal context, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his accusations have merit.
In neither case may we start with the observation that “we cannot know” and proceed as though we have established some sort of guilt.
No. He has been convicted and sentenced.
[/quote]
If not, what new finding, if any, would allow additional action?
[/QUOTE]
The discovery of additional crimes, outside the time period of the indictment or information, or otherwise not covered by the indictment.
Or Berger’s violation of the terms of his sentence in some way might open him up to further action. Berger was sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service. If he failed to complete his community service or violated the terms of his probation, he could receive additional punishment.
Unfortunately not.
It’s more accurately described as a political smear attempt. There are none fallacious enough for *nobody * to buy into.