saqndy berger pleads guilty to stuffing docs. in his socks...

[gardenweasel]

WASHINGTON -- """"""""""...Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton's top national security aide, pleaded guilty Friday to taking classified documents from the National Archives and cutting them up with scissors.

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.

"Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.


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 Robinson must accept, Berger would serve no jail time but instead pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. Security clearance allows access to classified government materials.

Sentencing was set for July 8.

The court appearance was the culmination of a bizarre episode in which the man who once had access to the government's most sensitive intelligence was accused of sneaking documents out of the Archives, which houses the Constitution, 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 independent 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 of the five 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 Democrats who questioned the timing of the disclosure of the Berger probe, three days before the release of the Sept. 11 report. The commission, reporting three months before the 2004 presidential election, detailed failures of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Leaders of the Sept. 11 commission said they were able to get every key document needed to complete their report"""".......

lord,do i wish there was a videotape of this.... :142smilie :142crying :wtf:

no jail time?.....hmmmm....wonder what would have happened if this were some lowly peon?....

can anyone picture condy rice pulling a stunt like this?......

way to funny....

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

No shit==
They're still covering up the trail on Mr Clinton.
Been trying to find this on the news and can't find anything. What was so important that he had to slip--steal than destroy documents to cover Clintons ass. Someone knows but not telling--YET!
Oreilly comes on in a few maybe he'll have the lowdown and the nuts to report about it.

 

[smurphy]

That's funny, cuz I kept trying to find stuff on the journalists being bought off by Bush and the"protestors" thrown out of Bush's Social Security rally in Colorado for no reason, but that stuffs being covered up pretty well too. ...AND OREILLY WILL NEVER have the nuts to report those things.

 

[StevieD]

It's all over the news! What world do you live in. I am not saying what he did wasn't wrong, of course it was, but it is all over the news. Every station, every network. I want to know why the networks don't report that Bush is using the publics money to push his agenda and he won't let those who disagree with him in the building. And it's on the taxpayers dime! Why doesn't O'Reilly mention that?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

He did have interviews with the people that were paid with federal funds to promote GOP programs--

for whats its worth I have found anything of interest on his program since the feeding tube fiasco-micheal jackson and last nights Pope documentary. He used to let Greta do these humanatarian/court issues.Bout last 4 times he was on,after seeing his format at beginning I switched to CSI Lasw Vegas.

I am interested in what was on notes that were worth time for former security adviser to Clinton and once campaighn leader of Kerry camp to risk stealing and destroying and then lie about it--of course lying /pergury ect is a way of life to some and slap on wrist does little in prevention of future deeds.

a little more light on picture but still vauge----

Former Clinton Aide Pleads Guilty to Taking Classified Docs

Saturday, April 02, 2005



WASHINGTON ? For months, he called it an honest mistake.

But on Friday, Sandy Berger (search) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court. Berger, who served as President Clinton's national security adviser, is acknowledging that it wasn't an honest mistake and that he intentionally took and destroyed copies of classified documents from the National Archives (search) and cut them up with scissors.

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 (search) celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him the documents were missing.

"Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.

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.

"It was a mistake and it was wrong," he said, refusing to answer questions.

It's part of a plea agreement between Berger ? who still claims he hasn't done anything criminally wrong ? and the Justice Department so he doesn't get jail time.

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 Robinson must accept, instead of jail, Berger would pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. Security clearance allows access to classified government materials.

Berger was released and sentencing was set for July 8.

After his court appearance, Berger told reporters that he "excerised poor judgement" and "deeply regretted it." He said his motivation was to help himself and others prepare for their appearance before the commission probing the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The U.S. District Court appearance was the culmination of a bizarre episode in which the man who once had access to the government's most sensitive intelligence was accused of sneaking documents out of the Archives, which houses the Constitution, 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 admitted that twice during 2003, he knowingly removed classified documents regarding the government's anti-terror efforts and notes from the National Archives Annex in College Park, Md., by putting the papers in his jacket, his pants and in a leather case. That's a misdemeanor that can bring a maximum sentence of a year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks. He called the episode "an honest mistake" and said he "deeply regrets" taking the material.

According to a statement released by the Justice Department on Friday, Berger took the documents to his office in Washington, where he destroyed three of the copies. Soon after he visited the Archives in October 2003, building officials discovered that documents were missing and, two days later, contacted Berger.

Initially, Berger did not tell the Archives staff that he had taken the documents but later that night told Archives staff that he had "accidentally misfiled" two of them, according to the Justice Department. The next day, he returned to Archives staff the two remaining copies of the five documents he had taken during the September and October visits. Each of the five copies of the document was then given to the Sept. 11 commission.

"In his plea, Berger also admitted that he concealed and removed his handwritten notes from the Archives prior to a classification review, in violation of Archives rules and procedures," reads the DOJ statement. "Those notes have been returned to the government."

But still missing are drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's response to a failed terror plot to blow up the Los Angeles International Airport during December 1999, otherwise known as "the Millennium plot."

One source told FOX News that the report was critical of how the Clinton administration handled Al Qaeda threats to the U.S. homeland and that the missing report made security recommendations that were never implemented.

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

Clinton was among Democrats who questioned the timing of the disclosure of the Berger probe, three days before the release of the final Sept. 11 commission report. The commission, writing three months before the 2004 presidential election, detailed failures of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

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 (search) said they were able to get every key document needed to complete their report.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

even more interesting is reports by FOX in July on matter which Kerry and the Dems said were baseless and the GOP was using them for "for political gain and to distract attention from the Thursday release of the Sept. 11 commission report."

Iam going to take educated guess that documents destroyed were revelant to Clinton NOT wanting to pursue Bin Laden. We'll see.

We report--you decide

Berger Probe Focuses on Terror Plot Docs

Saturday, July 24, 2004



WASHINGTON ? The Justice Department investigation into whether Sandy Berger (search) copied and stole terrorism documents from the National Archives is focused on one highly classified report about the Clinton administration's response to a plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, FOX News has learned.

Sources familiar with the investigation said that Berger, Clinton's former national security adviser, took numerous copies and drafts of that report, and other related documents.

The report may be of interest to investigators because of handwritten margin notes on some of the copies, which may be attributable to Berger, sources said. Since the documents themselves have not been released, the specifics of those notes were not immediately clear.

However, a government official said the investigation will likely lead to the declassification of the report.

The terror scheme in question is the millennium bomb plot (search), which was planned for Jan. 1, 2000.

Algerian national Ahmed Ressam (search) was convicted in April 2001 of terrorist conspiracy and eight other charges related to the plot. He was arrested in Port Angeles, Wash., in December 1999 after crossing the Canada-U.S. border with a car allegedly with bomb-making material. Authorities said Ressam, 33, had ties to Usama bin Laden (search).

Seattle's millennial celebrations, and those in several other cities, were canceled as a result of Ressam's arrest.

Prosecutors say statements from Ressam prompted the government to seek the July 2001 arrest of Abu Doha (search), described as a London Al Qaeda operative. Doha has been charged with conspiring with Ressam to blow up Los Angeles International, but also is accused in other terrorist plots around the world.

Ressam's testimony also helped convict Mokhtar Haouari, 32, of supplying fake identification and cash for the millennium bomb plot. Haouari was sentenced to 24 years in prison.

The documents in the Berger case originated with the White House National Security Council and dealt with actions and recommendations stemming from the threat in 1999 of a terrorist attack during the 2000 millennium celebrations. The documents, written by former National Security Council aide and counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke (search), were classified at the extremely sensitive "codeword" level, which is above the classification level for the nation's nuclear secrets.

Berger is being investigated after witnesses at the National Archives said they saw him copying notes from the copied documents, and stuffing some of the copies in his shirt and socks.

Berger was reviewing the materials in 2003 to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Berger claims he made "an honest mistake" but was innocent of any wrongdoing, saying he must have discarded the missing documents.

The House Government Reform Committee said this week that it will look into the allegations.

"At best, we're looking at tremendously irresponsible handling of highly classified information," said committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said the questions the committee should answer include whether there was any attempt to cover up embarrassing materials, what happened to documents removed by Berger that are still missing and what security risk the entire episode poses.

The White House acknowledged that its lawyers were notified months ago about the Berger investigation. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee filed a Freedom of Information request for any correspondence about the probe between the Justice Department and the White House.

Meanwhile, the Sept. 11 commission said it was able to get all the information it needed despite the Berger snafu.

Panel Chairman Thomas Kean told reporters Friday that he and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton were told by Bush administration officials about six months ago that Berger was the subject of a the Justice investigation.

Kean said the commission has been assured that they were able to obtain copies of each document that was apparently lost. If those lost documents had written notations on them from Clinton or others, they would have been included in those copies, Kean said.

Berger stepped down as an informal foreign policy adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry after the investigation hit the headlines earlier this week. Democrats accused the Bush administration of leaking the news for political gain and to distract attention from the Thursday release of the Sept. 11 commission report. Administration officials have denied those claims.

 

[smurphy]

It's all over the news! What world do you live in. I am not saying what he did wasn't wrong, of course it was, but it is all over the news. Every station, every network. I want to know why the networks don't report that Bush is using the publics money to push his agenda and he won't let those who disagree with him in the building. And it's on the taxpayers dime! Why doesn't O'Reilly mention that?

These are the damn questions more people need to be asking. Bottomn line - F#$K Clinton! That is so September 10th. Get over it. Clinton is no longer relevant.

But Bush and his inability to respond to opposing views is an absolute embarrasment to democracy.

Then there's the sham of a network that is Fox. It claims to be 'of the people', but it is such a joke it's unfathonable. Yeah these independents are so cutting edge - RIGHT! so sad. O'reilly and his kind WILL NEVER make mention of bought off jouranlists and silenced opposition to ANYTHING of this administration. Party line all the way down. They;d rather dwell on Shiavo crap and bring up old Clinton sh11t then ever deal with anything of the here and now in regard to the amazing failures of this administration.

Would be so nice if we woke up.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"O'reilly and his kind WILL NEVER make mention of bought off jouranlists and silenced opposition to ANYTHING of this administration."

Smurph for the umteenth time--did you not see it when I said that Oreilly gave several interviews to those that received the funding?? Do you think I just made it up--or do you as most liberals just block out facts that don't fit your beliefs--Sheez

Maybe we could have 2 political forums--one supported by facts and the other by opinions---in case you thought I made it up---not that it will change your and others opinion on fox--but might show others you can get both sides on some media outlets--of course the ratings pretty well sum that fact up---------

The Bush Administration Pays Another Journalist

Thursday, January 27, 2005



This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Jan. 26, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Impact" segment tonight, another situation where the Bush administration has paid a journalist. Maggie Gallagher (search) is a columnist, who often writes about family issues. In 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services (search) paid her $21,500 for some consulting work. But Mrs.Gallagher did not tell her readers that. And so she's in a similar position to Armstrong Williams (search), who was paid far more by the Department of Education, as you will remember.

Joining us now from Washington is Dr. Wade Horn, the Assistant Secretary for Children of Families at HHS. And here in the studio is Maggie Gallagher.

All right, now they paid you 21 grand for what? What did you do for the feds?

MAGGIE GALLAGHER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Let me tell you this. Bill, if you'll give me a minute to say, The Washington Post published what I consider an extremely serious charge against me, which is that I took money from the government in order to promote the Bush marriage policies. As far as I'm concerned, that's indefensible if I did that. You know, if you think I did that, then it's...

O'REILLY: Well, I...

GALLAGHER: No, I'm now telling you...

O'REILLY: Yes, I don't think (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I want to know what you did.

GALLAGHER: Right. Well, actually, it's not true.

O'REILLY: OK.

GALLAGHER: What actually happened is that in 2001, I was approached by HHS officials, who told me, Maggie, we don't have anyone here who's got the expertise. You have on the marriage and social science evidence on its importance. Can you do some brochures for our clients on what parents and why marriage matters? Can you write ? help us draft an article for Wade Horn's signature on the social science evidence that marriage matters? And can you attend an in-house meeting with our regional managers...

O'REILLY: All right, so you were consulted.

GALLAGHER: ...on the social science effort.

O'REILLY: You were a consultant?

GALLAGHER: But the most important thing is I was paid for specific work progress. I have the invoice. I offered it to "The Washington Post."

O'REILLY: OK, all right.

GALLAGHER: And they were not interested.

O'REILLY: So you were paid to do a job by...

GALLAGHER: I was paid to do research and writing on marriage...

O'REILLY: ...the federal government...

GALLAGHER: ...which is the field of my expertise.

O'REILLY: OK.

GALLAGHER: I'm a marriage expert. You know, some people know me as a syndicated columnist, and I am one. But nine-tenths of the work I've done over the last 20 years is research and public education on the importance of marriage as a social institution.

O'REILLY: All right, here's where you made your mistake.

GALLAGHER: That's what I do.

O'REILLY: And I think you've already admitted the mistake, is that you should have, at some point along the line, told your readers that you were being paid by the government for some work.

GALLAGHER: Yes I think that's right.

O'REILLY: Simple as that.

GALLAGHER: When "The Washington Post" called me up and said ? they didn't ask me what they later printed ? which is should you promote the marriage policies...

O'REILLY: Don't worry about "The Washington Post."

GALLAGHER: Well, that's what's bouncing around the whole Internet and newspapers.

O'REILLY: OK. So just tell your story to the folks. We don't care about them.

GALLAGHER: What I ? what I ? when they asked me, should you have disclosed this government contract, I thought about it for 10 minutes after I got off the phone. And I said, Bill, yes.

O'REILLY: Yes.

GALLAGHER: The answer is yes, I should have.

O'REILLY: All journalists have to do that.

GALLAGHER: It had never occurred to me. It's not, in fact...

O'REILLY: Innocent mistake, you say?

GALLAGHER: Well, I mean, I was completely befuddled when I was asked the question because I had never really...

O'REILLY: OK.

GALLAGHER: ...they were completely separate things in my mind. It was a mistake.

O'REILLY: All right, Ms. Gallagher...

GALLAGHER: It will never happen again. That's all I can say.

O'REILLY: We will take your word for it, OK?

GALLAGHER: OK.

O'REILLY: Good.

Now Mr. Horn ? Dr. Horn, I've got a bigger problem with you guys up there. You and the Bush administration and the departments shouldn't be hiring active journalists to do work for you because of the conflict of interest appearance, sir. Am I wrong?

WADE HORN, PHD, HHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY: Well, what we did is we hired Maggie Gallagher as a nationally-recognized expert in the field of marriage and marriage education. It was an expertise we didn't have in house. And in fact, what we do when we don't have the expertise in house is we hire consultants in order to build the capacity in house, as well as to help us develop materials.

You know, Barry Brazelton (search) is a pediatrician. ?Very famous.? He's known as America's pediatrician. He also happens to write a syndicated column. Under the kind of new standard, which is really kind of new, it would suggest that if the government were interested in doing something around the issue of child health and development, Barry Brazelton's expertise would be barred from being accessible by the federal government.

O'REILLY: OK, but it's not a good policy for the federal government to be paying journalists, people who are practicing journalism, whether they have another profession or not, because of the conflict of interest, it looks bad.

Now my own situation. ? I get offered a lot of money by political groups, all the time, to speak to them. And if it is a political group assigned to a party, Democrat or Republican, or libertarian or whatever, I say no. I turn it down. I don't want anything, all right? And if I do do something like that, I'll tell the folks right away. That was Ms. Gallagher's mistake. All she had to do was say, hey, Dr. Horn wanted me to write him up a brochure. I was happy to do it. I was compensated. Then there's no interview here.

But you guys in the Bush administration, this is Armstrong Williams, and now Maggie Gallagher. How many more guys do you have? Do you have any more?

HORN: First of all, I am not an expert on what happened with Armstrong Williams. That was in a different department. But I do think you make a valid point, that it is important for people in government to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.

O'REILLY: Yes, right.

HORN: And the fact of the matter is that we did not ever pay Maggie Gallagher to use her position as a columnist to advance the president's marriage issue.

 

[StevieD]

The really sad thing is that these people actually believe that someone like O'Reilly is in the middle. Every so often he will go against the President on some stupid issue that nobody cares about but 95% of the time this guy plays the staight network line.

 

[dr. freeze]

The really sad thing is that these people actually believe that someone like O'Reilly is in the middle. Every so often he will go against the President on some stupid issue that nobody cares about but 95% of the time this guy plays the staight network line.

Is his constant antagonizing of the administration's border policy an issue nobody cares about?

We sure dont hear the mainstream press hard on Bush for border security.

 

[StevieD]

I haven't listened to the sexual deviate for a long time so I don't really know what he says about it. But I truly hope you are not going to try to make the case that this guy is in the middle? But the border is a perfect example. Bush could clean it up anytime he wants but it isn't going to happen because his base believes in cheap labor. So a guy like O'Reilly, mentions it now and then and everybody says "See, that O'Reilly guy is really fair!" Let's see him devote a whole show to the boarder and reasons why Bush won't do anything about it.

 

[dr. freeze]

for the 1 hundred millionth time it has nothing to do with cheap labor

it has everything to do with the hispanic constituency

are you really this dense?

 

[StevieD]

It has everything to do with the cheap labor.

 

[smurphy]

Sorry to DTB! I stand corrected. Never saw that one on O'Reilly and never saw posts by you on it before. I was definitely jumping the gun with that tirade. I take it back - obviously I was wrong.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"I haven't listened to the sexual deviate for a long time so I don't really know what he says about it."

Folks this quote from Clinton backer--reported phone conversation and one is sexual deviate--however shoving cigars up interns-and accused of every deviate act under the sun including rape and paying accusers off also and no problem--more liberal logic at its finest--and what about your congressman Ted Kennedy--you think he might be nominated for new Pope?

---and I can't remember hardly a week that goes by he is not harping on border--however my days on having to link facts to dispute liberal logic are about over---per above analogy--to rationalize with some is futile.

 

[gardenweasel]

not surprised that smurph stood up and copped to the mistake.....

a fair guy,imo.......

 

[smurphy]

thanks weasel. sometimes i speak of things i don't really know. not a good thing to do. ....but there's always the promise of improvement.

and i'm definitely no clinton lover.

 

[dr. freeze]

It has everything to do with the cheap labor.

lol who do you think is calling the shots then for all republicans to suddenly refuse to do anything about the border

they were tough on the border 10 years ago....did it not have to do with cheap labor back then?

you see, you liberals do not understand how the political system works....you are unable to explain with any kind of accuracy why things are as they are...then you get these delusions in your head like "cheap labor" which is nothing more than a democratic talking point

No, my simpleton, Republicans have been T-O-U-G-H on the border for years. However, the leadership of the party is now dominated by people who seek power over principle -- similar to how the democratic party has been run since the 70's.

They are now all forced into lockstep if they want to keep their seats in the Senate and the dissenters in House are quickly shut up as well too. Now we have 2 parties who refuse to lock down the border.

No one wants to lose the Hispanic constituency.

Also -- "big business" which really doesnt employ the illegal immigrant population despite what you might conjecture -- "small business" on the other hand DOES employ them in huge numbers....any time a big business does so it gets whacked by the feds...

It is a stupid liberal talking point which is designed to
1. villify the Republicans
2. villify corporate America
3. Imply that the Rep' are bought by corporate America (when both parties get about the same $$ from the business world)

The Hispanic constituency is up for grabs and Republicans led by Rove and others realized that tehy will lose power if they give it away to the dems. So the CANNOT be tough on borders. As explained ad nauseam in another thread, the mainstream press will portray them as bigots, racists, against civil rights, etc. etc. if they get tough.

Then Texas, Az, NM, more of California, would turn blue. Colorado, Florida would be close behind, and even Oklahoma would soon be in play.

 

[smurphy]

Freeze, even many people here on the Right acknowledge the cheap labor argument. It's probably not 100% of anything, but certainly the labor issue is a huge part.

Just because enforcement, border control, INS deportations etc have declined doesn't automatically transalate into vote pandering. It's pretty obvious that corporations have more power than ever in government now. I'd tend to think lobbyists of these companies are probably the biggest instigators

 

[dr. freeze]

what corporations do you think get rich off of this labor?

do you think ANY of them employ illegals?