Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I find it interesting Berger didn't tell the Kerry camp he was under investigation. My conspiracy theory is the Clinton Dems will do and say what they can when they can to derail Kerry's campaign covertly to give Hillary her shot in 2008. Donald Segretti anyone?

Posted by Bill Maron at July 22, 2004 08:59 AM

Rand, please source the allegation that Berger used his trousers and socks to smuggle documents.

I have searched this and all I find is "Red Blogosphere" links versus "Blue Blogosphere" links and frankly I don't trust any of them.

Where is the hard evidence about trousers? If its there, well, okay.

Otherwise it reminds me of the mysterious missing "W-s" which was never actually proven.

= = =

PS - Blog links don't count, IMHO. ;-)

Posted by Bill White at July 22, 2004 09:19 AM

How about CNN? Or are they too right-wing for you?

You apparently didn't look very hard. Maybe you don't really want to know?

So if you don't want trousers, fine--call it pockets. Socks to me are even more damaging.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2004 09:34 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4189-2004Jul21.html

Archives Staff Was Suspicious of Berger
Why Documents Were Missing Is Disputed

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

Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m.

What he did not know as he labored through that long Thursday was that the same Archives employees who were solicitously retrieving documents for him were also watching their important visitor with a suspicious eye.

After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case.

The notion of one of Washington's most respected foreign policy figures being subjected to treatment that had at least a faint odor of a sting operation is a strange one. But the peculiarities -- and conflicting versions of events and possible motives -- were just then beginning in a case that this week bucked Berger out of an esteemed position as a leader of the Democratic government-in-waiting that had assembled around presidential nominee John F. Kerry.

As his attorneys tell it, Berger had no idea in October that documents were missing from the Archives, or that archivists suspected him in the disappearance. It was not until two days later, on Saturday, Oct. 4, that he was contacted by Archives employees who said that they were concerned about missing files, from his September and October visits. This call -- in Berger's version of the chronology, which is disputed in essential respects by a government official with knowledge of the investigation -- was made with a tone of concern, but not accusation.

SNIP

Several days later, after he had retained Breuer as counsel, Berger volunteered that he had also taken 40 to 50 pages of notes during three visits to the Archives beginning in July, the lawyer said. Berger turned the notes over to the Archives. He has acknowledged through attorneys that he knowingly did not show these papers to Archives officials for review before leaving -- a violation of Archives rules, but not one that he perceived as a serious security lapse.

By then, however, Archives officials had served notice that there were other documents missing. Despite searching his home and office, Berger could not find them. By January, the FBI had been brought in, and Berger found himself in a criminal investigation -- one that he chose not to tell Kerry's campaign about until this week.

But three days after the disclosure of the Berger investigation, many of the basic facts of the controversy remain unknown or are contested, as well as more subjective questions about how seriously his lapse should be regarded or its effect on politics this year.

SNIP

The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 "after-action review" of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger's direction when he was in government.

Lindsey, now in private legal practice in Little Rock, did not return telephone and e-mail messages.

The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it.

At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

SNIP

Sources have told The Washington Post, and other news organizations, that Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing. Through attorneys and spokesmen, Berger has denied doing that.

Berger has known for months that he was in potential jeopardy. Breuer was hired in October, and in January former White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was enlisted to remain on standby if a public controversy blossomed. But Berger allies said he did not inform Kerry because he had resolved to work privately with Justice Department officials, and received assurances that these officials would treat the matter confidentially.

The controversy is likely to continue, even after Berger relinquished his role as informal Kerry adviser on Tuesday. House Government Reform Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said yesterday that he plans an investigation.

SNIP

Posted by at July 22, 2004 09:37 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5267-2004Jul22.html

Socking It to Him

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 22, 2004; 8:42 AM

I've covered more than my share of scandals, mini-scandals and pseudo-scandals over the years, but I've rarely seen one as strange as the Sandy Berger mess.

Usually you have some idea of the nefarious goals involved, but difficulty proving who knew what and when, and how high in the chain of command it went. In this case, we know what happened--Bill Clinton's national security adviser took some top-secret documents that he shouldn't have, stuffing them in his pants (though the socks part is in dispute)--but we can only speculate about why.

Why would an experienced former White House aide risk his career like that? Could being "sloppy" really explain it?

In Watergate, the motive of the break-in was to discover some dirt on the McGovern Democrats--and it took two years to prove Nixon knew of the coverup.

I once wrote about Billy Carter's shenanigans, and basically he was trying to use his connection to his brother to make some dough.

Debategate erupted when the Reagan team got hold of Jimmy Carter's briefing book before their only televised showdown.

The Iran-contra embarrassment involved the Reagan administration trading arms for hostages with Iran, and bypassing Congress by secretly funneling money to the Nicaraguan rebels.

The Clinton fundraising scandal rested on using White House coffees and the Lincoln Bedroom to butter up potential donors. The Monica debacle involved (take your pick) sex with an intern or lying about sex with an intern.

Ken Lay, Dennis Kozlowski, Martha Stewart--the allegations are all about corporate honchos lying to make money.

But Berger? What grand scheme might he have been trying to pull off? That, at the moment, remains fuzzy.

SNIPPED EXCERPTS OF VARIOUS MEDIA REPORTS/OPINION COLUMNS

Posted by at July 22, 2004 09:44 AM

Sources have told The Washington Post, and other news organizations, that Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing. Through attorneys and spokesmen, Berger has denied doing that.

Taking documents? Sure, that has been admitted.

The sensationalism about socks and trousers remains a blog hyped story as of yet unsubtantiated. Sources have told. . . :-)

Posted by Bill White at July 22, 2004 11:16 AM

I take exception to Mickey's suggestion that Berger taking TS SCI data out of a vault to his house because reviewing it there was more comfortable, would be excusable. Plenty of folks with ranks in govt. below SES have been fired for crap like that, and it is NOT excusable. Not for ordinary folks at least, and if it's a disaster and a firing offense for a GS-12 to lose a TS SCI document, it should be just as bad, if not worse, for the former National Security Advisor to be doing it.

Posted by Celeste at July 22, 2004 11:18 AM

"Sources" who are law enforcement officials who took testimony from the archive staff who saw him do it. You're in denial, Bill.

Celeste, you're right, but it's apparently all right to be cavalier with secure and private documents (and national security in general) if you're a current (John Deutch, Craig Livingstone, etc.) or former (Berger) Clinton administration official, because as we all know, they always had our best interests at heart.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2004 11:23 AM

Got link?

I am not saying its not true.

I am saying the only people I can find who insist the socks/trouser business is true are members of the Red team on-line action brigade.

No problem there, the Blue team has it own on-line action brigade as well and frankly I don't trust either side to be fully truthful.

If I am wrong give me a link to a seemingly unbiased source. Most of the google news links are journalists and bloggers (mis)quoting each other and it all falls back on unspecified credible sources.

= = =

What annoys me most is that the Red Team and the Blue Team are going to hammer each other with mud between now and November.

Posted by Bill White at July 22, 2004 11:32 AM

I don't insist it's true, Bill, but I do insist that it is reported to be true by the archive staff, and I have no reason to disbelieve it (and no, a carefully-parsed denial by Berger's lawyer, who has no first-hand knowledge himself, doesn't provide a reason).

And here's another link.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2004 11:49 AM

Command Post has an amazing Op-ed with original material in it.

Posted by thinker at July 22, 2004 11:58 AM

Bill, what would constitute a good source for you, if CNN and the Washington Post do not?

Would you prefer stone tablets or a burning bush? Or would nothing short of a Berger confession written in his own blood satisfy you?

Posted by Spoons at July 22, 2004 12:05 PM

Regardless of where they were stuffed (socks, pants, etc.) He stole the files. From news accounts, he returned a few times and took the same document, and some accounts have him taking a leather binder (I am guessing the originals?). Now he cannot find some, are the ones still missing the originals? How many accidents and honest mistakes can one make? I have never seen Mr. Magoo in this much of a folly.

Nobody has speculated much as to why. To benefit potential embarassment to the Clinton Administration? Supposedly, the 9/11 commission had already reviewed the missing docs. This leaves on the Kerry team or Burglar himself to gain something. He was supposedly up for a cabinet post should Kerry win. Was he hiding something embarrassing to avoid negative press during a confirmation hearing?
Did Kerry benefit? Unknown. Could he? Until we know what was in the docs, we won't know.

Posted by John at July 22, 2004 12:06 PM

Posted by John at July 22, 2004 12:07 PM

Yeah, at the very least a GS-12 doing something like this would have his security clearance lifted. In effect this would prevent him from doing anything related to classified national security.

Posted by Ernst Blofeld at July 22, 2004 12:10 PM

Destroying evidence is usually the job of an underling, in order to keep the target clean. If Berger was disposing of evidence, then who what he working for?

And the only reason to obsess about the clothing used to transport the documents is when a person can't find anything else to challenge in the reports.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at July 22, 2004 12:11 PM

Nobody has speculated much as to why. To elminate potential embarassment to the Clinton Administration? Supposedly, the 9/11 commission had already reviewed the missing docs, or that is what we are led to believe. But if he did this last October, then they probaby were not reviewd YET. Maybe, since they were returned, they were reviewed, but perhaps the motive was to get rid of them PRIOR to the commission's investigation and he was caught. This leaves on the Kerry team, since Burglar worked for Kerry, or Burglar himself to gain something. He was supposedly up for a cabinet post should Kerry win. Was he hiding something embarrassing to avoid negative press during a confirmation hearing?
Did Kerry benefit? Unknown. Could he? Until we know what was in the docs, we won't know.

Posted by John at July 22, 2004 12:11 PM

Yeah, at the very least a GS-12 doing something like this would have his security clearance lifted. In effect this would prevent him from doing anything related to classified national security.

Posted by Ernst Blofeld at July 22, 2004 12:11 PM

Destroying evidence is usually the job of an underling, in order to keep the target clean. If Berger was disposing of evidence, then who what he working for?

And the only reason to obsess about the clothing used to transport the documents is when a person can't find anything else to challenge in the reports.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at July 22, 2004 12:12 PM

The main thing here is that Berger apparently took documents out of the archives (without checking them out) and took them to some undivulged location, where he apparently lost them. By his account.

So, in other words, he's lost documents classified TS-codeword. The mind boggles at the very idea that this is excusable.

And, Rand, Deutch is only walking around unmolested these days because he was pardoned by Bill Clinton. You probably knew that already, but apparently some others haven't heard.

Posted by Slartibartfast at July 22, 2004 12:15 PM

Slartibartfast -
Even before Deutch was pardoned, he was let off with little more than a slap on the wrist for gross violations of security. All they did was take his clearances, and they didn't even take his DOD clearances until a stink was raised about it. Then he was pardoned.

This, after he was caught with TS SCI documents on an unsecured home computer; his family members had access to it; someone was accessing porn sites with it (spyware, anyone?); he had a foreign national maid with unescorted access to his home; and he refused a security detail to gaurd the place.

This isn't limited to Clinton cronies either. It's a pervasive problem in the intel community, where higher-level of employees are treated far less harshly for breaking the rules than rank and file employees are.

Posted by Celeste at July 22, 2004 12:56 PM

Here is another link for ya Bill. Is three enough or do you need four, or five, or 100? Just checking how much it will take to get past your obtuseness.

Posted by Steve at July 22, 2004 01:12 PM

Oh and nice job moving goal posts there Bill. First you wanted a news source for the claim, now you want proof the claim is true. Are you usually this dishonest?

Posted by Steve at July 22, 2004 01:15 PM

Celeste, the heat was being turned up on the Deutch affair as recently as September 2000. The Pentagon IG was briefing on it as recently as November 2000.

Despite his being cleared on the matter of compromise, this is the exact opposite of the way things normally work. What ordinarily exonerates is positive evidence that NO compromise was possible. This report concludes that no compromise could be proven.

Posted by Slartibartfast at July 22, 2004 01:33 PM

Oh. On rereading, I see I'm preaching to the choir.

Posted by Slartibartfast at July 22, 2004 01:34 PM

Does any reader actually know Berger? I would be curious whether the "sloppy" argument is consistent with his character.

The reason I mention this is, when Deutch's security goof came to light, the details and the explanation offered were consistent to me, because I did know Deutch slightly at one time, and a certain degree of sloppiness and what can most charitably be called extra confidence is not especially surprising to me, although I must emphasize he is a supremely capable man. Also that I believe he didn't particular want the ODCI job but rather the DoD number 1 or 2. I did believe at the time, and still do, that he did it more or less innocently.

And, while he is "walking free," let me note for the poster above that his top-level career was ruined. Many (including me) thought he had a very good chance to be named SecDef sooner or later, but it all went up in smoke then. I don't think, given his prospects, his punishment was any less severe than the hypothetical GS-12 mentioned further above.

In any event, a lot turns on the question of whether Berger was an arrogant goof or a dangerous antisocial who figured anything that was good for the donkeys was ipso facto good for the country, laws to the contrary notwithstanding. Obviously nothing his attorney says can be trusted. But someone who knows, or knew, Berger enough to say whether this kind of stunt was likely the result of boneheadedness or not would have very interesting things to say.

Posted by Stephen Maturin at July 22, 2004 01:37 PM

You red state types don't seem to get it. You cannot - CANNOT! - discuss the reported facts until they are proven in court and sustained on appeal. Until then, anything and everything you say, regardless of whether it is reported or otherwise put into the public domain at any time by anyone, you're all just lefty-haten-right-wing-nuts!

One a couple of marginally more important points: 1) what matters is the actual content of the purloined memos, 2) the missing documents were apparently drafts of whatever memo might have ultimately been reviewewed by the 9-11 Commission, 3) given the timing of the "Berglery," the 9-11 Commission apparently did NOT review the drafts, or have the added insight of whatever might have been removed from them in the final version, and (this just hit me!) 4) it was the draft version that Ashcroft was specifically referring to to in his testimoney before the 9-11 Commission when he, knowing Berger had absconded with all copies, effectively threw down the gauntlet to the Commission, challenging it to release the drafts of the after-action report. Given the charade that the public hearings were rapidly becoming at the time, I think it now fair to say that, certainly as between Ashcroft and the Commission members, it was "game over" at that point.

Posted by Blinded at July 22, 2004 01:48 PM

What Sandy Berger did is wrong. Period.

How wrong? The Justice Department will get to the bottom of it. And act accordingly. I have no problem with that. After all isn't John Ashcroft the Attorney General?

What I am questioning is the "trousers and socks" hysteria which thus far appears to be nothing more than a blog-whipped frenzy of rumor mongering being spread among salivating Reds.

Posted by Bill White at July 22, 2004 02:03 PM

For everyone who's still stumping the "socks" charge, please check out this article from the Daily Howler, which should hopefully convince you that the socks idea is almost certainly bogus.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072104.shtml

Posted by G C at July 22, 2004 02:07 PM

"Hysteria" is your mischaracterization of it, Bill. It simply appears to me to be a discussion of reported facts, facts which, for some reason, make you extremely uncomfortable. Do we know for sure that he put stuff in his pants and socks? Of course not, no one does other than him and the people who saw him put them there. But at this point I'm much more inclined to accept the word of the archivists who, as far as I know, have no reason to lie. And Mr. Berger has not said anything on the matter, relying instead on denials by his lawyer, who also has no first-hand knowledge.

I really don't understand your issue here, Bill, unless you're continuing to hope to minimize his behavior. Because it's a lot easier to talk about an "inadvertent" act of putting something into a pocket, than one of stuffing it into a sock, isn't it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2004 02:10 PM

Ugh... multiple law enforcement sources tell CNN, the Washington Post, Fox News and the New York Daily News that he stuffed his socks. Bloggers didn't make this up out of thin air, and Berger's flackies saying it ain't true means almost nothing.

Posted by HH at July 22, 2004 02:20 PM

The Daily Howler has Wilson almost right on and Berger almost totally wrong. Yesterday he misstated and mischaracterized CNN's account (and its coverage vs. Fox, which was in fact equal on the "socks" charge) and to this day, the sole "evidence" against it is that Berger and co. deny it. No one has shown any proof that the "socks" charge was from anyone with bad credibility or with an axe to grind.

Posted by HH at July 22, 2004 02:29 PM

Rand, you have hit it right there. The "It's all about socks!" mantra is a diversion right out of the Clinton playbook. Why? Well, while there is a persistent core who MAY be dumb enough to believe that one can "accidentally" walk out of a secure room THREE times with different copies of the SAME memo in your pocket (an 81/2"x11" pocket by the way) there is NO ONE of voting age in this nation stupid enough to believe that someone could ACCIDENTALLY cram sheets of paper into their socks. That is why it is so crucial. It will support or cripple the idea that this was an innocent mistake. The monopoly media will spin itself to atoms on this one. And a good riddance.

Posted by megapotamus at July 22, 2004 02:32 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the first reporting of the socks aspect came from CNN. It hit the blogosphere, bounced around, was then placed in doubt by some, and then CNN backed up its story later in the day.

I mean, would anyone believe a blogger's post saying Burglar was stuffing his socks if said blogger didn't reference a report from the MSM?

Posted by Mike at July 22, 2004 02:42 PM

Bill...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/

The quote goes something along the lines of "Law enforcement sources said Berger was seen stuffing documents into his jacket and pants." So. CNN quoted the law enforcement folks who said Berger stuffed his pants. Therefore, your problem must only be with the socks claim, right? That seems like kind of a small thing to be calling a "frenzy." :)

Posted by ali at July 22, 2004 03:09 PM

Just to help our liberal friends, who may have forgotten their canned talking points since Bill Clinton left office, here's a refresher that should help you get up to speed and rescue this here "FOB".
------------
You can't prove Berger took the documents, or the notes. Sure, you may have eight or ten witnesses to it, but it's Berger's word against theirs. What makes you think they are telling the truth? And besides, his "lawyer's" admissions are second hand, printed in newspapers. They are probably distorted by the right wing press, who we'd like to bring to their knees, but found them already there, etc.

This is trumped up because the news media, which is dominated by the Washington Times and Fox, trumped it up.

It happens all the time, we lose top secret classified, special access program documents. All the time.

Ted Olson and Richard Melon Scaife were behind all of this. And Jesse Helms' butt imprint in a chair in the Hart Senate Office Building.

It's really the fault of the archives. They are a little bit nutty, a little bit bookish, a little bit slutty. They're just jealous because Berger was pawing their favorite documents.

It's a Republican setup.

Berger took the documents to protect the presidency; to leave the drafts in there would have allowed the 9/11 commission to discover Dick Clarke's harsh, frank assessment of George Bush: "I think we'll have a massive attack if this dope becomes President." To let that leak out, even though it would be true, would have wounded the presidency, and maybe cost the Constitution.

Chris Lehane says it's a right wing hit job, George Bush says it isn't. Who are you going to believe - a man of honor, proven integrity, who says what he means no matter what the consequences, or George Bush?

Berger had to do it, to save the Constitution.

You are just doing this because you resent the fact that Sandy Berger was the first Black National Security Advisor.

You are only doing this because Sandy Berger refused to lie to the 9/11 Commission about Bill Clinton.

It's all about the sex, and what Democrats have in their pants. You are dirty Republican puritans.
-----------------------

See? It's easy. Even a right wing monkeyf*** like me can come up with stuff like that, so the experienced prevaricat... um, I mean political consultants at Terry Mac's beck and call, should be able to do at least that much. Just stick to the talking points, boys, and it will all blow over. I promise. And really hit that thing about "you haven't proved anything." It's legally true until there's been a jury trial - and there's no way a jury in D.C. would ever convict a Friend of Bill, given the way race relations have been so poisoned against the current Administration. So keep plugging.

Oh, and shut that lawyer up. His compulsive truth telling about knowingly taking classified notes simply won't do.

Posted by Al Maviva at July 22, 2004 03:12 PM

Celeste is right. I've worked for DOD for 25 years, and the inside the beltway folks, the SES's and flag ranks are notorious for being lax on security. They just think that the rules don't apply to them. So, I could believe that he took them home for convenience. (However if I did that, my next comment would be sent from Leavenworth). But lose a document? Lose 4 or 5 of them? And these particular ones? Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test. He was either up to no good, or such a flake that we should have impeached Clinton just for appointing him.

BTW, bleep the socks. (NOT Socks.) I'm already sick of that debate. It doesn't matter. The fact that he took documents and lost some is not in dispute. It doesn't matter if he put them in his socks, a body orifice, or made paper airplanes out of them and threw them out the window. Arguing about socks or pants is a diversion. And a ridiculously transparent one at that.

Posted by at July 22, 2004 03:32 PM

Al, LOL! You had me rolling!

Posted by Brent at July 22, 2004 03:33 PM

As Celeste and Slartibartfast have intimated, Berger violated security rules first and foremost because he was a big-shot, and they don't think their "important" work should be hindered by compliance with the often cumbersome security procedures. Hell, his lawyer basically says so:

Wolf Blitzer -- "Why would he violate Archives procedure?"

Lanny Breuer -- "Because there's something more important than Archives procedure and that's the hard work of the 9/11 commission."

That's a crock, but that's the way those people think. And then they try to excuse the worst breaches as "carelessness," which is also a crock.

Posted by Lynxx Pherrett at July 22, 2004 03:36 PM

Sorry, forgot to put my name on the July 22, 2004 03:32 PM post above.

Posted by at July 22, 2004 03:47 PM

Arrrgh, it happened again!! And I didn't do it! Or if I did, it was inadvertant. Actually, if you leave the page and come back, the comment is there but the name and email have disappeard, so when you hit post...no name. BTW I am using Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1. YMMV.

Posted by ray_g at July 22, 2004 03:52 PM

Rand, take a breath. You've won, no need to fight anymore on that one. Let Bill retain some scrap of face-saving...

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at July 22, 2004 03:53 PM

I agree with Celeste. Security of documents is taken seriously by most people with security clearances. The first thing they teach you when you handle secure documents is that you can't just take them anywhere you want. There are procedures you have to follow, logs to fill out, etc. And that's just CONFIDENTIAL documents (the lowest official level of security). Apparently, these documents were higher than TOP SECRET.

Posted by Gus M at July 22, 2004 04:00 PM

Has anyone taken a breath and realized that "stuffing docments in his pants" could mean that he put them in his pockets?

Posted by Dave J. at July 22, 2004 04:02 PM

Dave J. -- to quote a former president, "There you go again". IT DOESN'T MATTER! He took them, he lost some of them. He admits it. He is a bad doggy. End of debate. (Why he did it is still a matter of speculation.)

Posted by ray_g at July 22, 2004 04:18 PM

Yes, certainly. I believe it is quite possible they meant he was stuffing highly classified documents into his pants pockets. And you point is ... ?

Posted by VR at July 22, 2004 04:41 PM

The cover sheets for classified documents is quite heavy and would have to be folded before going in a pocket (unless he has 9" x 12" pockets). Nope, I'm not buying it. If it was stuffed in his pants it was down the back or down the front.

The training, indoctrination, and procedures you must go through on a regular basis to handle classified material is such that you cannot possibly "inadvertently" take those type of documents home with you. You would have a better chance of convincing your high school teacher the boogie-man ate your homework than convincing someone who works with classified materials that Bergers story is plausible.

Posted by Joe Huffman at July 22, 2004 05:49 PM

Calling for release of the millenium report is not going to work and will only backfire. The report, in its final version, was widely known and hence probably does not contain damaging information.

The damaging information must have been in comments on the drafts that Berger stole and destroyed.

Posted by csh at July 22, 2004 07:29 PM

Crap!! Don't you smart people recognize a diversionary tactic when you see one? Now all we have to figure out is what our attention is being diverted from. And I'll bet the ranch that it's of monumental proportion.

Posted by recon at July 22, 2004 09:32 PM

Hmmm.

1. The documents in question were evidently "Top Secret, Code Word". The ascending order of classification is "Confidential", "Secret", "Top Secret" and "Top Secret, Code Word". Thus even if you had a "Top Secret" clearance level you *still* would need the specific "Code Word" clearance to access those specific documents. So the restrictions are quite severe.

2. The "lost" documents were evidently multiple copies of a draft memo concerning the After Action Report of the Millenium Bomb Plot. This is very very interesting because the standard practice for draft memos is to write one up, and then send them out to all involved people. These recipients then add their notes to the draft memo and then return them to the sender, who then collates everything and writes up the final report. The reason this is interesting? Because this would make each and every single copy of the draft memo a completely *unique* document.

3. It's possible that the lost documents were photocopies of originals, but this is unlikely IMHO. The primary reason being that the National Archives would then have to photocopy each and every single page of every document that any allowed individual would like to view. Just a single person thumbing through a single series of documents could generate hundreds, if not thousands, of additional pages of photocopied documents which, due to the classified documents rules, would also be classified.

While this might be standard procedure, I frankly don't know, I'm willing to doubt it unless someone can confirm it. If providing photocopies of original documents isn't standard practice then the only other conclusion is that the stolen documents were in fact unique and irreplaceable originals.

4. I'm willing to doubt the whole "socks" thing until someone actually has to testify about it under oath. But that is such a minimal aspect of this whole set of nonsense that it's largely irrelevant. That CNN and The Washington Post are willing to stake their reputations on this, not being right-wing MSM sources after all, I'm keeping an open mind.

The simple fact that he took multiple sets of incredibly classified documents over multiple incidents tends to disprove the whole 'sloppiness' meme. People who are accidently sloppy, and I know since I am one, do so absentmindedly. However even I can tell when I'm about to stick a brightly colored bound document, that runs to about 50 pages, into a portfolio. That's rather hard to miss. Even if I were such an idiot to have done so, I would have eventually noticed it in that same portfolio when I arrive home for the night and empty it out.

That Berger not only took the documents home on multiple occasions but didn't even **notice** them in his portfolio simple incites my incredulity. How is it possible that he NEVER NOTICED this stack of brightly colored bound documents all titled "Top Secret"? Did he never empty his portfolio? Did this guy walk around with hundreds upon hundreds of pages of highly classified brightly covered bound documents all with titles of "Top Secret" in his portfolio? Never once thinking "WTF? This thing is getting damn heavy!"?

And I'm to believe that he threw those selfsame brightly colored bound documents with titles of "Top Secret" into the garbage?

Frankly if I am to believe all that nonsense then I'd also have to believe something else. Any Presidential Candidate who would even consider such an arrogant moron for a high government position has no credibility whatsoever.

I judge the relative worth of a person by the individuals that person has drawn to himself / herself. If the caliber of the surrounding individuals is high, then that redounds on the person in question. If they are complete and utter buffoons who are seemingly incapable of following the most basic level of common sense rules, that also redounds on the person in question.

Posted by ed at July 22, 2004 10:07 PM

As a long time blog lurker, I must preface this by saying that this is the first time ever I have commented on an issue. As a recently retired federal law enforcement agent with 30 years of criminal investigation, my interest is on the way Berger has been and is being investigated. I have seen precious little coverage of any details of this. All the debate of motives, politics involved, red and blue guesses, socks or trousers, mean nothing to the central issue which is:
Was a crime committed or not? If so, what was the crime (cite the law regarding classified documents and if expressions like "with intent" comes into play)? This is critical. Many federal laws are written like jigsaw puzzles, requiring that the investigators prove multiple conditions to show that a crime has been committed--such as "If Subject with intent does x, and in addition does y, which results in z". Folks, if there is a 'with intent' provision in the relevant law being investigated, then that would be the entire explanation for the statements of 'inadvertently' and 'sloppiness' that have appeared. It would be a legal defense, not a political one, although it could serve as that also.
Who committed the crime? In this case it is only one suspect, Berger, and he has admitted it. What evidence is there to prove that the crime was committed by Berger other than his admissions?

Has the investigation been accepted by the US Attorney's Office in the appropriate district? If so, at what level of prosecution (felony or misdemeaner)?
Has it been presented yet to a grand jury? If not, why not? At this point in the investigation, 8 months allegedly after the FBI was called in, it should have been.
The way the FBI works is to set up a 'task force' with an operational name, and in this case the possibilities are endless, considering the takeoffs of his name. ( Insert your own operational name here, but remember, nowadays, you have to be PC). I should mention that I did not work for the FBI, but I worked with them at times. They then platoon in a massive amount of agents to work the case, probably at least 30-50 in this case due to the sensitivity at the beginning. By now the bulk of the investigation should have been completed, unless there are spin-offs that we don't know about. I would really like to hear some reporting on this, but that ain't gonna happen, due to its ongoing nature.
I also would really like to know the exact procedures of the Archives. First, did Berger even have a current security clearance? His last stint with the government was what? nearly four years ago? If so, who granted it? It is inconceivable to me that his clearance was current as a private citizen, unless there is some deviation from the normal that us low level types don't know about. Legally, who cares what he was and what his political status was? Who cares that he was accessing top secret codeword documents that he may have even generated himself? If there was not a current appropriate clearance, then it is wrong.
Now for what the archivists did. It has been generally reported that in September, they noticed that documents went missing. They were suspicious enough to run a sting on him in October, feeding him coded docs which then went missing. My question is, does the Archive have a police force, or an investigative arm, or any type of security beyond guards? Did they also include in this 'sting' a covert video camera installation in this 'special room' they put him in? As a tech agent, I really do hope so. Good grief, that should have been one of the first things they did. Is that legal, you ask? Oh yeah. It's a government building and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, along with the reports that the employees there had an eyeball on him anyway. By the way, overt CCTV cameras should be SOP at the archive reviewing rooms, with tapes running at all occupied times. If they actually have a tape of him doing it, case is closed, from the criminal standpoint, unless of course, there is an 'intent ' clause in the law. Also, why did it take so long (three months) for the FBI to be called in?
Sorry, Director of the Archives, a crime is a crime, and it matters not how prominent the subject is. And once the prohibited documents left the premise, the deed is done, no matter whether you get them back or not.

Well, that is a lot of questions, and there are bunches more, that I hope to see answers to in the coming months.

One last thing. For those of you who think that maybe there will be a great deal of political pressure trying to shape the investigation, all I can say is that I really doubt it. I am confident that the case will be left up to the street agents and the US Attorney's Office. The agents will do their job professionally, and if there is any sort of pressure, it will be on the US Attorney to prosecute or not. I can only hope the USA will base his decision on the facts, not on any pressure from anyone, anywhere, anyhow.

Posted by Nightflyer at July 23, 2004 05:00 AM

Naturally, I post something and new info comes into play. At instadpundit there is a link to a newspaper article describing the Archives process.

"The process is somewhat different for those who have security clearance or otherwise are allowed access to classified information, as Berger was.

"He was a special case," Kornbluh said. "He was a former government official who was there to look at still-classified material."

Only a few come to the archives to thumb through classified information, and they go to a different room with its own strict set of rules, said Cooper. Only a few archives employees are authorized to work with classified material, and elaborate regulations govern who is allowed to come in to see them.

Former presidential appointees such as Berger may, under certain conditions, see papers that they dealt with while in office.

Such researchers must have clearance, sign a form pledging to safeguard the material and authorize a review of their notes.

Because they are not working in the main reading room with others, they are not required to put everything in lockers."

Some rooms have cameras, some don't.

Interesting details are coming to light. It has been reported that Berger persuaded his monitors to leave the room while he made sensitive phone calls. Huh? It is permissable for someone reviewing classifed docs to make phone calls during that process? If so, were the calls made on secure lines? Also reported is that he made frequent bathroom breaks. Why? Medical problems? Or phone calls from a cell phone? Those phone records could be interesting depending on the investigative time line. And I can just imagine a team of plumbers taking apart the traps in the building looking for possible ripped up docs.

Posted by Nightflyer at July 23, 2004 05:37 AM

The posters that think the socks stuff is a diversionary tactic are probably on to something, but I don't think it will be enough to send this investigation down the wrong path.

Furthermore, the thought of stuffing things in your pants, and especially in your socks, is funny. Funny stuff that happens in DC gets mentioned on the latenight shows. Now I don't stay up late enough to follow those shows, but would this story have any chance of getting mentioned by Leno, Letterman, and Stewart if it didn't involve this aspect? And keeping this story alive in at least some part of the major media is not the goal of diversionary tactics.

Posted by Mike at July 23, 2004 05:46 AM

BTW, just for clarity's sake, I thought I read that the whole socks thing had to do with NOTE CARDS, which one CAN imagine putting a few of in their socks...

But as many have said, the point is not how he did it, but the fact that he did it and above all, *why* he did it.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric Strobel at July 23, 2004 03:54 PM

In order for Berger to have viewed the documents, one of two things had to occur:

1) Berger was re-cleared at that level, his clearance reactivated, or never lapsed to begin with.

or:

2) The archives personnel are themselves culpable under the law for allowing uncleared people to view highly classified documents.

There are no grey areas. Here's my conjecture:

Berger had proper clearance. He deliberately removed documents that he had no right to remove. This is a violation of the law. One Berger has admitted to, and one that his subsequent actions (on being told that he'd removed some of the documents, he returned them) further attest to. For me, the issue is not so much whether Berger has committed a crime or not, but whether he's prosecuted for it. Do the facts support any alternative scenario? As others have noted, classified documents are clearly and colorfully marked; it's nigh-on impossible to unknowingly walk out with this sort of document. And even if he did so, it's a violation of the law to do so even inadvertently.

Posted by Slartibartfast at July 26, 2004 07:56 AM

Post a comment