I will point out a difference, however. Walsh, who investigated Iran-Contra was a lifelong Republican (see here) although admittedly not so strongly ideological one that it seemed to affect his ability to carry out his job. Kenneth Starr was a strongly ideological Republican who was more than happy to turn his investigation into a fishing expedition. It could be argued that the Dems got turned off of the special prosecutor law when they found out how it could be used for ideological witchhunts. (Maybe you can find cases where it was used this way under Reagan…I don’t know, but I don’t see how anyone could claim the Walsh case was.)
Good, just so we’re all on the same page.
Now, can you explain the scenario again where Berger stole copies of this material in order to be prepared if there was an expected FUTURE theft of the ORIGINAL documents: because presumably neither he nor the entire 9/11 commission nor other security officials, nor Clinton, nor the man that WROTE the documents (Dick Clarke) would be able to remember the key issues discussed therein?
OK, let’s debate why he did it. You start because if you think this is debateable you should have knowledge of what was in Berger’s mind. Or maybe we’ll debate: What was in the missing documents? I’ll take the “con” side. There wasn’t anything in the missing documents. Were those the only copies? I’ll take the “pro” side this time. Of course there was otherwise they wouldn’t be documents but merely sheets of paper.
Your questions aren’t really debateable, are they? The first involves Berger’s private mind. The others are question of fact, none of which we know and once the facts of the matter are known there is not debate.
Removing secret material via inner clothing is not an accident. There is no way you can slice that pie and come up with the conclusion it was.
Senator Kerry was smart to drop him from his presidential campaign.
Oh, Heavens to Betsy, no! Why, in the one instance you merely have a casual, off the cuff discussion of the American order of battle for an impending war, discussed with a foreign diplomat from a nation riddled with corruption, nepotism, and internecine conflicts of loyalties.
Whereas the Berger incident …well, that involves some serious issues of national security! If Fatima were to pass such information along, Al Queda would be far better prepared to engage and outsmart the Clinton Administration.
liagle said:
Several people have made this point - that he only took copies, leaving the originals, or that all he took was his own handwritten notes. But that’s not what the article says:
He didn’t just take his own notes, or photocopies. He took the actual documents.
The handwritten notes were in addition to the actual documents he removed.
‘Some drafts’ could mean drafts that had information in them that was expunged from a final report. It doesn’t mean literal copies. A draft report is different from a final report.
This is not an accident. He knowingly did it. And it would appear to me that he tried to secret the documents away on his person so that he could pass a briefcase inspection. If he accidentally took the documents, he would have just put them in his briefcase along with his other material. Unless someone can give me a good reason why someone would say to himself, “Okay, this document goes in the briefcase. This one, I’d better put in my jacket. And this one I will put in my pants…”
What he did was suspicious enough that when archive employees saw him doing it, they notified the FBI. And note that they said that documents were MISSING. Not that he made copies and took them.
So some actual originals of investigations into the Clinton Administration’s handling of the millenium plot have vanished.
This confirms that the documents he took were the originals. He may well have thought that he was erasing part of the record by removing them, although the archive staff says they believe other copies may exist.
This may still prove to be a case of sloppiness, or of an arrogant official who wants to work at home and doesn’t think the rules should apply to him. But I just wanted to clear the air about what actually took place. It wasn’t just copies or his handwritten notes.
elucidator said:
I agree with luci on this. If the information given to the Saudis was not vetted and cleared, it is potentially MUCH more serious, as it has to do with actual military operations during wartime. The question is whether or not it was vetted. Since this has not been raised as an issue by anyone and was only mentioned in passing in Woodward’s book, I think we have to assume that what happened was proper. But if it wasn’t… Throw the book at 'em.
Well, according to the argument, one of the missing documents specifically described vulnerabilities that are open to terrorist attack. In the wrong hands, that could be disastrous. But there’s absolutely no evidence that Berger was trying to provide that stuff to anyone. To me, the most likely things that happened here are, A) Arrogance and hubris on the part of Berger, or B) an attempt to cover up something stupid he did while part of the Clinton administration.
My reaction to this is much the same as the suggestions that that Scooter guy in Cheney’s office had something to do with outing the CIA agent.
Shocking if true, but let’s let the proper investigating authorities do their job. If they find sufficient evidence, have thembring it to the courts for adjudication.
Is that a classified document in your pants, or are you just glad to see me?
Just my briefs.
Read Berger’s lawyer:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/20/wbr.01.html
(search for “Brian Todd, thanks very much for that report” to find the start of his statements)
Some salient points he makes:
-all of this happened in October of last year (but hey, try working Kerry into your talking points anyway!)
-even though its against proceedure, no one even now that’s actually involved has made a big deal about the notes: only the documents are at issue
-the one document in question, Berger claims he took inadvertently
-but even if he hadn’t, the document was one that he had asked Clarke to prepare, and Clarke did prepare
-this document at the core of the case had already been read by many many other people, and its contents were well known and have been widely discussed. The idea that he would be trying to cover it up is pretty ridiculous on its face, given that even stealing the only copy of the original (and there were many copies) would be useless for this purpose
-the “stuffing into his pants and socks” stuff has only one source: the unknown leaker who suddenly, right before the 9/11 report decided to break a story about an ongoing investigation into something that happened a year ago
-there’s no evidence or even any suggestion that Berger has done anything but cooperate fully with the investigation, no evidence that he destroyed anything
-if Berger had thought this was a serious issue that was going to break, he would have disassociated himself from Kerry. That he didn’t, even though he knew that it was under investigation, suggests that even his prosecutors weren’t particularly worked up about it
He’s just a bit slow. Or he thought he could get away with it. Regardless:
Boy, these investigations, they sure burn along at a blistering pace, don’t they? The FBI’s been on this one about what…six months. And the Plame thing, about a year now? Good thing none of that leaked out, huh? Its bad when stuff like that leaks out, nobody seems to know how it happened, even though the steely eyed Ashcroft is watching over the Justice Dept., stuff just seems to slip through thier fingers…
Boy, life is just chock full of funny coincidences, huh?
It’s a travesty that while I’m not allowed to complain about your merits or lack thereof in GD, you are allowed to clown it up like this.
Yes, I knew that he disassociated himself from Kerry NOW. The point was: if this was anything other than a non-issue that he didn’t see coming, why didn’t he do it beforehand? It was apparently common knoweldge
Hannity and Coulter are yucking this up. Foxnews seems to be hearing a lot of unamed people “saying things” that they need to breathlessly relate. But so far, while they’ve hinted at dark designs of some cover-up, no one has actually bothered to lay out how you’d go about covering up reports that had already been widely read and discussed, and whom the principal authors and recipients were still alive to relate the contents and source research of, just by taking a single copy of something home inadvertantly OR deliberately. Sam Stone has made dark allusions to come devious Kerry connection, but has yet to describe how or why the Kerry camp would need the actual documents when has and had had direct access to the information via people who actually wrote and read the freaking documents.
Yeah, kinda like the Left making much ado about nothing over Arnold’s “girly men” comment.
Opps… Today, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Berger took classified documents from the National Archives on five seperate occasions. (Seems that Berger has a penchant for “inadvertant mistakes”.)
And why not make the Kerry connection? Berger is a Kerry advisor and supporter. Speaks volumns on the character of the Democratic ticket.
But there is a difference, Berger’s infractions are criminal.
Yeah kinda like the price of tea in China. What?
Do YOU have any sort of plausible reason why Berger would want to deliberately steal these documents, or are you going to hang your hat on unspoken vaguery as well?
It’s fair to get your yuks at Kerry, deserved or no, but at some point it would be nice if you could come up with a plausible conspiracy theory to explain why he is reponsible or involved.
Wait a minute, did you just whoosh YOURSELF on your OWN hijack?
News reports today are reporting that he removed all five or six drafts of a critique of the government’s response to the millenium terrorist threat. This theft was carried out over several visits to the archives, which lessens the chance that it was an inadvertant act and heightens the chance that it was a premeditated one.
It’s not a big stretch to assign motive. Berger may well have believed that he was scouring the files. The Washington Post says this morning that “it remained unclear the degree to which [his actions] stemmed from carelessness or an intentional effort to hide and remove the documents.”
I don’t think he was involved. His campaign says he found out yesterday, and I’ll trust him on this score. But that leaves the question of why Berger was working for Kerry while the FBI was investigating him, potentially jeopardizing Kerry’s candidacy.
Class act, that.
I don’t find this implication very plausible.
The files had already been widely read and seen by first their author (Clarke), then Berger (who originally requested them written), then presumably other Clinton people, then a whole host of other intelligence parties and, as far as I can tell, the entire 9/11 commission. Their contents had already been widely reported on and discussed, and both Clarke and the White house revisited them during the writing of Clarke’s book.
So any “scouring” would not only have been ineffective but counter-productive: when those files turned up missing, it would not only be obvious who took them, but any suspicious content that Berger would have supposedly been trying to cover up would be well known from a host of other sources including from their author, his own research, and so on.