Redstate

I am very incensed to read this.  How can a National Security Advisor "accidentally" trash "two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report."  It is absolutely galling...

...there may be a flip side, we'll have to wait & see.  Berger's lawyer says the taking of the documents is a "technical violation of Archive procedures, but it is not all clear to us this represents a violation of the law."  Now this sounds like the same ol' parsing of legalisms that so characterized the Clinton presidency, but it appears the Archive may have copies of the discarded drafts of the millennium terror report.  If this is true than the offense isn't horribly grievous, but still disturbing: a National Security Advisor knowingly violates protocol involving highly classified information which not only may be harmful to the Clinton administration's legacy but is no doubt harmful to the efforts of the 9/11 commission to gather all relevant information pertaining to that horrible September day.

Some other brilliant blogger wrote about this very thing.  National security--and Kerry--advisors should know better.  Given what's missing, this stinks to high heaven.

Which other blogger might that be? :)

wait until the full information comes out.  This could be anything from brainfart to the evil machinations you all hope it is.

Do any of you work with classified information?  Some of us have to go to regular training reminding ourselves what we can and can't do.  Course we still don't know the specifics, and if he wasn't allowed to take anything from the room then I give you all full permission to dance around with glee.

....from time to time.  Nothing special.

Anyway, we already know he wasn't supposed to take the stuff.  It's in the story.

"Do any of you work with classified information?"

I used to.

I am pretty sure that I remember stuffing classified documents in one's pants as being a definite no-no.

Used to do some classified work as well, and depending on the basic classification and other annotations, several things could be possible, but it would be very interesting to see what the posted rules for this "secure reading room" are. I would expect that to use the facility, one would have to read and sign acnowledgement of some pretty stringent and explicit rules. I would also expect there to be a rule about removing any material, to include notes. Those are pretty basic in any kind of secure storage facility.

The other thing is that with the level of clearance Berger has to have had and undoubtedly still holds, because of his old job, and because of the type of knowledge he still possesses, he is subject to periodic refresher courses on the do's and don'ts of classified documents. I see no way he can plead ignorance, accident, or brain fart.

I'm in agreement that there's probably little way that he keeps his job.  

But whether he gets canned for being an idiot or canned for being malicious remains to be seen.

As opposed to Tacitus's jumping to conclusions ... it remains to be seen, for instance, whether "the pilfered items ended up being withheld from the 9/11 Commission," but that seems unlikely insofar as they appear to have been copies of drafts of documents.

It is hard to judge what's up here without a better sense of what Berger's role was and what the working conditions were. If he was supposed to be preparing the documents for the commission he'd have to be working with them pretty intensively, no? Was he supposed to leave all his notes and other relevant papers behind at the archive when he left every day?

I'm sure we'll find out ... too bad for Berger, he's a grownup and a good guy in the fight against AQ.

I'm just saying hold up till we label him dumbass or label him criminal.

and I read the story and understand he was not supposed to take the stuff, however the story doesn't really elucidate the sensitivity of the information he took.  Did he just take a page of notes by mistake or was it reams?  And I'm curious what the reports are that he took

definitely sounds shady though

....a good guy in the fight against AQ.

Yeah, I remember when my wife finally made it home on the morning of 9/11.  Ash in her hair, scared, the works.  And I thought, "Sandy Berger -- nay, the whole Clinton team! -- were good guys in the fight against AQ."

the documents in question appear to be originals not copies.

For those interested, the National Archives (where the secure reading room in question is located) has oversight responsibility for all security classification operations in the US Government. NARA | ISOO | Executive Order 12958-Classified National Security Information, as Amended spells out a lot of things. Berger, as NSA, had to have been an original classification authority at a rather high level (can't think of a much higher level than the NSA). That means he received training on the proper safeguarding and handling of classified information. That "training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and of the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be brought against an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure." So he knew what he was doing.

A quick browse of the document shows a couple of things:

1. Any notes Berger took were classified at the highest level of the document they were extracted from. He would have known that. (And classified documents typically are marked with classifications at every paragraph)
   
   
2. Berger as a former NSA, who "previously ... occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President under section 105(a)(2)(A) of title 3, United States Code" was the logical choice to go on a damage control expedition (if you want to take the paranoid view) because he did not require any special permission. He could (from my reading of the doc) simply walk in and look at whatever he wanted to. Of course, the Executive Order does not say anything about him being allowed to walk out with whatever he wanted. He knew that, too. Otherwise he wouldn't have padded his drawers with paper.

Rules for the Unclassified Research Room (where anyone can go and look at general records) include:

When working with textual records,  

You are responsible for safeguarding the condition of the records that have been brought to you.  

You may remove from a cart and open only one box or bound volume at a time.  

You may remove and open only one folder from a box at a time.  

The records should stay flat on the table at all times.  

The records must be kept in the same order in which they are given to you. If folders in a box or pages in a folder appear to be out of order, do not rearrange the records yourself. Alert the staff instead.

And your next thought was probably "too bad that Condi Rice and her team didn't listen to their outgoing briefings." Because that's just how in the loop you were: you knew that 9/11 happened because the Bush administration dropped the ball.

In Re Tacitus's Hugh Hewitt quote, is it in fact the case that every document the 9/11 commission sought from the current White House was given to it? Or did Kean et al have to threaten the White House with subpoenas to get just a deal allowing them to see most, but not all relevant documents?

Just asking.

n/t

n/t

"It's not like we did nothing for eight years -- there was a memo we prepared for the next team at the last minute!  And, er, we whacked the crap out of Sudanese big pharma."

Well.  Absolved.

Hey, if you think 9/11 happened because no one listened to the Clinton Administration, probably not much I can do to reach you.

As for Kean, I was (and am) all for subpoena-ing the White House up and down the National Mall, if necessary.  The stonewalling there was disgraceful.  That being said, did any member of the current Administration get caught shoving classified documents down his pants?

Just asking.

Would that have been the thought before or after I realized that the Clinton team had never mentioned the threats from Al-Qaeda that they had in their possession going back to 1998?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58615-2004Jul17.html

The money quote:

"There is no record or recollection of the new White House team having been briefed on that threat information," said an administration official, who said the 2001 memo, based on information provided by the CIA, "is the first record of the new White House having that information."

Just because Clinton claimed it to be true doesn't make it true. As with most things, as it turns out there was much less to what Clinton said happened than what actually happened...

Meanwhile, did Berger "get caught shoving classified documents down his pants?" Because what I read in the newspaper is that he voluntarily returned notes on documents, notes that he'd put in his pockets. A bit different.

Nice one quoting from Steno Sue. But even she places her ridiculous administration CYA quotes in context.

Let me quote at a bit greater length from the first half of her article:

When it is released this week, a report by the presidential commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will include the newly declassified document and a previously declassified PDB dated Aug. 6, 2001. It will also contain details of what Philip D. Zelikow, the commission's executive director, described yesterday as an "energetic response" to the hijack threat information by the Clinton administration, including its efforts to determine whether the plot reports were true.

The 1998 document is "the most important PDB about hijacking published before 9/11," Zelikow said.

Hmm, sounds to me like even Condi's former deputy thinks highly of the Clinton team's work. How about the Bush Administration's PDBs? Oh, like the one from GWB's vacation down time that they fought tooth and nail to keep hidden?

The Aug. 6, 2001, PDB prepared for President Bush mentioned 1998 intelligence concerning a plot by bin Laden "to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheik' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists."

The 2001 PDB said intelligence officials "have not been able to corroborate" the plot reports from 1998.

Whoops.

Now here's the part you refer to.

Though the CIA and other government agencies were clearly aware of the hijack threat, and though the Federal Aviation Administration distributed a circular referring to it in the summer of 2001, a White House official said yesterday that the Bush national security team was not apprised by the outgoing Clinton administration about the intelligence report on a suspected hijack plot to free Rahman.

"There is no record or recollection of the new White House team having been briefed on that threat information," said an administration official, who said the 2001 memo, based on information provided by the CIA, "is the first record of the new White House having that information."

Oh, nevermind, there was no outgoing briefing! We know that, because an administration official told us so!

Of course, former administration officials sing a different tune--officials such as, say, Richard Clarke ... and look. lo, the very next words of the piece:

Richard A. Clarke, who was the White House counterterrorism chief under Clinton and for a few months under Bush, testified before the commission that the Bush national security team was not sufficiently concerned about the threat information before the Sept. 11 attacks. He has cited the 2001 PDB as proof that the Bush team had reason to be concerned about hijack threats. But in her testimony Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, played down the importance of the hijack reference in that memo, saying it was based on "old reporting."

The details of that reporting and what the government did about the intelligence will be explored publicly for the first time in the commission's report.

And it's not going to be a pretty picture, where the Bush administration's performance is concerned. I'm truly sorry about your wife's trauma, yours, mine, America's, and the world's. But burying our heads in the sand, and VERY selectively reading even the most notoriously Bush-friendly reporters, is not going to make things better, and in fact may well make things worse.

From Reuters:

Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney, said: ``I've been told that the investigation is ongoing; that the government is appreciative that we've been fully cooperative.''

Breuer said the probe began several months ago and Berger has not been charged with anything.

``We've been trying to work with the government on this. And you know, we've been told ... he's only a subject (of the investigation) no more, they're just looking into this thing. And then today, a couple of days before the 9/11 commission report comes out, the whole thing gets leaked.''

A Justice Department official refused to comment.

You provide the answers to your post with the quote:

"The 1998 document is 'the most important PDB about hijacking published before 9/11,' Zelikow said."

You claimed that the Clinton team briefed the incoming Bush administration, a point which was neatly refuted within the article...and further refuted in the portion you chose to quote.

If "the most important PDB about hijacking" wasn't mentioned during the incoming briefing, then it is mystifying how anyone could (short of out of pure partisan blindness) believe that the Clinton team did what they claimed to have done. Either the Clinton team lied about the briefing they gave or they were incredibly negligent by leaving out this vital information...Take your pick, but neither reflects well upon the Clinton team...

Attempting to play "gotcha" by pointing out that the 1998 PDB was referenced in August only buttresses my point that the outgoing Clinton team failed to do its job...I may be wrong in my calendar reading, but the outgoing Clinton team had vacated the premises by late January...They seemed to have dropped the ball there...which was exactly my point...

As far as citing Richard Clarke as an authoritative source for anything, you're kidding right? I could give you cite after cite about his complete lack of credibility, but I'll just give you one from the non-partisan RollCall:

House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that former White House anti-terror czar Richard Clarke, the author of a new book critical of President Bush's handling of the al Qaeda threat before Sept. 11, 2001, may have lied in testimony to his committee, and said he plans to explore whether Congressional action on the matter is warranted.

Clarke's "testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book," Goss said. "He's either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It's one or the other."

What's next as far as credible sources? Does Joe Wilson have anything to say on the subject perhaps?

You claimed that the Clinton team briefed the incoming Bush administration, a point which was neatly refuted within the article

Refuted? How? By a blind quote from the administration? What does that prove? I'll admit that it's "neat," as in, a nine-year-old might buy it as meaningful.

And then you quote Porter Goss to supposedly refute Clarke. Please. Goss has so little credibility, he can't even be put up for DCI, the Republican Senate wouldn't confirm him. Nothing but a water-carrier for the administration. Is that all that you are as well?

The commission report will be serious reading. The hot air and blind quotes you are desperately parroting are not. Like I said, I'm afraid you're in denial.

You failed to respond substantively to the points I made about the 1998 PDB briefing not being passed on by the Clinton team...I know the DNC talking points are to call Ms. Schmidt's credibility into question rather respond to the substance, but you can do better than that can't you? Distraction never works in an actual debate..."Steno Sue" and "Water-Carrier" comments are beneath you, or is it just the best you have to offer this discussion?

With regard to Richard Clarke, even the DNC has sidelined him because of his credibility issues...is it your plan to be the last one standing to vouch for him?

When even those with the greatest interest in convincing the gullible to believe what he says are running away from him because he's become radioactive, you know he's got serious credibility problems...

I can fill this comment page with specific instances of his problems with the truth, but somehow I suspect that you know all of this already....

I'm in denial? I can appreciate your concern for my state of mind. but that's not a window you're looking through...it's a mirror...

I did respond to your claims about the 1998 PDB not being passed on. I pointed out that the evidence you submit for those claims is that an administration official said so, and I averred that this doesn't count to me as evidence, given that the conduct of said officials is exactly what is in question.

Clarke has been smeared all over Washington, but he has a great deal of credibility as far as I'm concerned. If he's not out there spinning for the DNC on talk shows, that says less about what the DNC thinks of his credibility than it does about the care he is taking to maintain his own integrity, having once made his statement.

Schmidt herself goes to Clarke again as a source in her article of this AM, which I'm afraid throws more cold water on hopes of a Sandy Berger mini-scandal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62776-2004Jul19.html

Missing documents are pretty definitively copies of widely-distributed memos and drafts. General sense is, again, that they support argument of Clinton administration assiduousness where terror was concerned.

Could the Clinton administration have done more? Absolutely. Its members are the first to admit it. Sad that the Bush administration, rather than ever say, "yes, sorry, we fell short, we take responsibility," feels the need to endlessly spin and parse and, yes, lie about what happened on its watch.

It was theatrical, but Clarke's apology to the 9/11 widows really said it all. I'm sorry if you and your wife weren't able to take any solace in a public servant caring enough about his vocation to admit it when he failed you. I'm also sorry that you can't see that public servants who admit their failings and strive to do better become in the end far more accomplished than public servants who blame others, and take resort in just hoping that God being on their side means everything will work out fine.

....he didn't return 'em all, now did he?

Must be a plot.

do about it.

Didn't Al Gore put a select committee together to address the issue of airline/airport security? And after a payoff to the DNC, didn't he make the commitment open ended?

In case you are wondering, the answer is yes.

testimony where if the Bush Admin had followed Clarke's direction to the letter, it wouldn't have stopped 9-11.

Of course this was after Clarke lied, how his meeting with Principles stopped the Millenium attack.

You appear to miss the implications of the Clinton Admin's "wall".

I think you may have jumped to a premature conclusion about the nature and content of the missing documents.

Mark R. Levin on Jamie Gorelick and the Millennium Bomber on National Review Online: "In other words, the 'wall of separation' constructed by Jamie Gorelick made it virtually impossible for U.S. authorities to stop Ahmed Rassam, the 'Millenium Bomber,' by design or intention. It was left to blind luck. The NSC's Millennium After Action Review � which, based on Attorney General Ashcroft's testimony, must be devastating in its analysis of not only this event but of the Gorelick policy � remains classified. And, most significantly, it's likely the Review's criticisms and warnings were either ignored or rejected by the Clinton Justice Department.

Given all the past intelligence information that has been made public by the 9/11 Commission � including the August 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief, which had never before been released � there appears to be no legitimate basis for the 9/11 Commission keeping the Review under lock and key. It's time to release it."

The NRO article quoted above was from April of this year. The AP article on the Berger investigation says the investigation started "earlier this year". I wonder when Berger made his trip to the library? If the issue of the Millennium AAR was already being raised, then it lends more credibility to the reasonable suspicion that Berger's confiscatory trip was aimed at removing the report, and that other things (like hand-written notes, etc.) were largely smoke, designed to obscure the real target. Note that everything else has (apparently) been returned or found by FBI searchers. However, the multiple (!) copies of the NSC's Millennium After Action Review have yet to surface.

I heard ABC News' radio headlines at 8 this morning. Emphasis on the word "inadvertent" and a reference to Berger advisors questioning the timing of this release. Now there's the real news! Not the theft of "highly classified" (per AP) information, but the unfortunate (for Berger and his associates) timing of the news story revealing his perfidy.  I have news for the apologists out there - a major investigation has been going on for months on serious charges against a highly visible public figure. The charges have been admitted. The investigation now appears to be focused on where the documents are, not about whether he did the deed. It's about time the public found out. How many investigation stories in the past couple of years have actually preceded the investigation? How many investigations never materialized after front page accusations. Here is a months old investigation and a culprit who has confessed, and his advisors don't think its fair that it's not secret?

I wonder when Kerry found out? Is he surprised this morning? Or was he aware of this investigation? And if he was aware, what does that say about him? Neither the Kerry campan website, nor his Senate website, have any mention of the investigation. Berger is identified all over the news media as Kerry's Chief Foreign Policy Advisor. Of course, Joe Wilson's Restore Honesty website: still carries the announcement "Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.", and that news has been out for awhile. So maybe the Kerry campaign is not that sensitive to substantiated accusations against its people of lying, theft and national security violations.

A conspiracy!  And I'm sure that idiot, drooling chimp Bush is the mastermind behind it too.  Probably was the actual thief that stole the classified documents, paid off the witnesses personally, and doctored the books to implicate poor Berger.  God what a moron that President is!  All before his weekly golf game too.

"Now watch this drive."

(/sarcasm /tin-foil-hat-mode) :->

On a serious note Tac,  both you and I were Military officers.  You HAD to have a minimum of a Secret Clearance - and probably higher.  Can you ever see ANY instance where you could illegaly remove classified documents, lose them and then be cleared by saying that you were CARELESS, that they MIGHT have been throw in the trash, and that it was a mistake?!?!

They'd put you away - and in short order too.

turning back what he took only after being caught

This from the link above:

The FBI searches of Berger's home and office occurred after National Archives employees told agents they believed they witnessed Berger place documents in his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers and that some documents were then noticed missing, officials said.

Looks like Berger did the usual petty theft perp excuse when confronted in the parking lot with DVD's stuffed down his pants. "Oh! Now how did they get there? I really meant to pay for them. See? I have the money right here. Can't I just return them and you let me go?"

But Clintonistas shouldn't worry too much. The usual suspects will figure out how to blame this on AshKKKroft real soon. Just give them a little time to coordinate the memes.

act like dumbasses

Walk into any courthouse in this country. You're allowed to view original courtfiles, but you will notice you do it in a viewing room, under the occassional supervision of personnel and with a notice or two posted that you are allowed to view the documents, flag those you want copied but you are not allowed to remove original documents. Guess how much slack you'd get cut for stuffing original court documents down your pants and trying to leave the building?

Berger says he put the documents in his pants. But eyewitnesses say he wasn't wearing pants.

Curious, that.

Any one working with classified info knows a "need to know" is always more important then clearance. Did this guy have a proper Need to know to view the documents he was looking at.

I'd also be cashiered if I perjured myself.

Which is to say, the rules don't appear to apply to this crowd.

...when Clinton officials promised "full cooperation" and then did everything they could to obstruct.  Berger "voluntarily" returned the documents only after being caught and only before being ordered to return them.

I don't know anyting about the proper handling of classified documents, but let's see how far common sense can take me.

1. The former NSA must have been intimate with the rules. If not, I must conclude that he was grossly incompetent. But then again, it appears that incompetence is rife within our intelligence and national security functions.
   
2. He knew the rules and ignored them. One does not inadvertently stuff papers into one's pockets. Nor do cocuments find their way accidentally into a portfolio. He took the stuff on purpose.
   
3. This blantant disregard for the rules argues that he's done it before. This represents a serious breach of security.
   

What the hell else got carried out over the years?

I'll leave it to the experts to assess the relative importance of the information that Mr. Berger pilfered, and I'll leave it to the judicial system to assess his criminality, but I can't see any innocent explanation.

I just read a news report that Sandy stuffed the documents in his jacket, pants and socks.  

1.  Jacket is pretty reasonable, people put stuff in their jacket pockets all the time.
   
2.  Now pants could just mean pants pocket.  This also may be reasonable.  
   
3.  Socks?? There is nothing reasonable about this!!  You stick something in your socks and you are wilfully and knowingly trying to conceal something.  

Just like the fact that Clinton's number one priority in office was opposing terrorism.

There's something to this, but I doubt it. It's always possible to put the worst possible construction on something like what Berger did. That's why it was so stupid of him. "Appearance of impropriety" and all that.

Man who holds a very high level clearance:

1. Removes multiple copies of "highly classified" documents from a secure facility
   
   
2. In order to get them out of the building, he conceals some of them in his clothing
   
   
3. Repeats this behavior on subsequent visit(s)
   

"Breuer said the Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day, Breuer said."

4. Staff observes him doing so and reports the suspected offense, and also informs his former boss' legal advisor

Officials said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey.

5. At some time subsequent to this, he "voluntarily" returns some of the classified material. Other material is found in a search of his home and office
   
   
6. After months of investigation, several copies of a "highly classified" report, which has been rumored to be critical of his former boss, are still missing. We are told he may have "inadvertently" destroyed them.

"Appearance of impropriety"? I would say that it definitely appears that he acted improperly. It also appears that he acted in a felonious manner. Had Berger been a lower level government employee, the investigation would have been accomplished while he languished in a cell. The "inadvertent" plea would not travel any distance at all for us mere mortals.

quotes are from the lead story on Foxnews.com

"Upon hearing the news about Berger, did anyone else think of the "Three Kings" scene when they find the map?"

Ugh...

Wouldn't that be the "ass-map"?  

If you take a look through the Executive Order I linked above, it basically exempts certain individuals from the "need to know" criteria. While I do not know under what part of the US Code Berger was appointed by Pres. Clinton, I suspect strongly that as the NSA, his appointment falls under the part that allows him free access. Hence, my earlier comment for those paranoid conspiracy buffs (like me) as to why Berger got the nod to filter the records.

Didn't take JFK long to see the light. At least not after things saw the light of day. Berger Steps Down From Kerry Campaign

Liberal democrats are pointing out the timing as if leaking this story was more of a crime than what Berger allegedly did. Is releasing information to the media about an ongoing criminal investigation illegal?

What agency produced the classified documents?

If people are truly Shocked! Shocked! about this, why on earth does leak-meister John Ashcroft still have a job?

The notion that classified documents are never taken home by people with access just to get some work done is laughable.

And these documents are not operationally critical stuff like 'our spy so-and-so in Afghanistan' says X.  It's 'after-action reports,' which can't possibly be so important. After all, the terrorists know better than we do what hit them!

In short, while this reflects poorly on Berger, it  shouldn't be overblown.

That this is sarcasm.

Fox reported it as if Berger and his lawyer said it.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks[....]

Not sure that's true. I've not found the transcript of Berger's statement anywhere yet, but this CNN article implies that the "in his socks" comment was from someone on the archive staff, rather than Berger himself. A former White House lawyer and friend of Berger's challenged the "socks" statement, saying it was a lie.

Since the tipster was apparently anonymous, there's no way to judge credibility of this rumor. Unless of course you can find a transcript to show Berger and/or his lawyer actually said it. If you do, please post a link.

Berger is a crook.  How can anyone plausibly say he took documents inadvertently but stuffed them in his socks?

to those who are whirling like dervishes to find excuses for Berger's oopsey.

Try explaining to the store manager of your local Albertsons, Krogers, Safeway, et al "Sir, I just don't know how that potroast got down my pants. Can of tuna in my socks? Merely inadvertent, I assure you!"

Once again, Fox shows its true colors by making up details like this.  Not that this should suprise anyone.

Here's what stinks to high heaven: a prefabricated leak from an anonymous staff member who claims to have seen Berger stuff documents in his socks and didn't do anything about it at the time.  Why, when Berger allegedly started acting shifty in that reading room and making a scene about padding his clothes with top secret documents, did nobody say anything?  It sounds pretty made-up to me.  And lo & behold: no cameras to prove Berger's innocence or guilt, so it's just one person's word vs. another's.  Hmm.  Guess its up to the spinmeisters to figure out what happened.

The flaw in this conspiracy theory is this: Berger knew he was being watched, and he's obviously not a complete idiot, or he would have never made it into the position he did.  Parital idiot, sure.  But only a complete idiot -- the kind who can't even shoplift without getting caught -- would do something so suspicious in plain view of others and think he could get away with it.  It just doesn't make sense.  If he'd wanted to sneak documents out of the room, it wouldn't have been hard; slip them up his sleeve, or put little cameras in his glasses, whatever.  I could have gotten those documents out of the room unnoticed, so I'm certain he could have.  The theory that he just stuffed documents in his socks in front of everyone as some way of whisking vital information out of the room just makes absolutely no sense.

That said, any claim that Berger didn't know the rules doesn't make any sense, either.  He's was the friggin' NSA, of course he knew how the documents should be handled.  So which was it?  If he knew what he was doing, he wouldn't have been caught.  So he couldn't have known what he was doing.  Except that he was the NSA, so he had to have known what he was doing.  

The only explaination that I can come up with is that he was (criminally?) careless -- he just didn't think about what he was really doing.  Seeing as he also put these illegal documents in his briefcase, this is the only explaination that makes sense; putting the notes he took in his pockets doesn't really stand out, in this version, because he obviously wasn't trying to hide the fact that he was leaving the room with anything out of the ordinary.  And it's pretty obvious that he didn't put things in his socks -- I'm no defender of the Clintonistas, fer sher, but it sounds like that "anonymous staff source" is just lying through his teeth.

My personal conspiracy theory is that he's a Republican mole, who's been working his way up in the Democratic network for years -- even going so far as to join the Kerry campaign -- so he could do just this kind of stupid thing in the hopes that it would implicate Clinton, Kerry, everyone on the Dem's side, all in the hopes of getting GW re-elected.  Beat that one!  I'm the best conspiracy theorist in the world!!!

The funny, or, rather, sad part is that the people donning the tin-foil hats over this Berger thing did nothing of the kind over the Plame affair, which was arguably a much more grave offense.  I can just imagine the spittle flying over what would have happened if someone in the Clinton White House had outed a CIA operative as a form of political revenge (and someone in the Bush WH did just that, we can all agree; it's just a matter of who, a can of worms the GOP would really like to see left unopened).

But, then, this is a partisan site, so at the very least I'm glad your doing your job this time as skeptic citizens -- if only y'all could do this consistently, in a non-partisan manner.  Though, for what it's worth, you won't find many on the other side defending Berger out of party loyalty.  That's one thing that keeps me on the Left -- when one of ours screws up, he's eaten alive.  The old circular firing squad and all that -- the reason the Democrats keep losing elections.  Alas.  But I'd rather be a party of honest losers than dishonest winners.

That's one thing that keeps me on the Left -- when one of ours screws up, he's eaten alive.

That's a joke, right? I appreciate it, as I didn't get a chance to turn on Letterman.

You surely know the story of senators making the trek to the White House to inform Mr. Nixon he had to go. And I'm sure you heard about the booting of Newt. And the booting of Packwood. And the booting of Trent Lott.

I'm sill waiting for the Democratic calls to punish Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd for his klan membership.

So you're saying that Democrats have more party loyalty that Republicans?  Talk about laughs!

For the record, Byrd goes in the same deep pit as Joe Leiberman and Zell Miller, as far as most young Democrats go.  But I'm talking more about party members than party leaders, here; I certainly acknowledge that the DNC is as corrupt as the day is long, just like the RNC.  It's a well-known phenomenon that liberals hate each other more than they hate conservatives, and that they have been much more fractured than the more "movement"-style conservatives of recent years (the bonds of which are now starting to fray, thanks to Bush).  And there's the whole aversion they have to the "my country, right or wrong" philosophy, which just sounds hideously immoral to the average leftist -- "my party, right or wrong" is considered the same kind of fascist-style tripe.  Basically: to put loyalty above ideology is criminal.  Republicans, on the other hand, tend to treat loyalty like its some kind of sign of strong character, and not the brainless submission that it is.  Not to generalize or anything -- I know there are principled conservatives out there, and I sincerely hope they are the ones that gain control of the GOP by '08 so we can get Kerry out and get some actual responsible governance in place for the first time in 40 years.

Please correct me if I am wrong and where I am wrong but if I and my attorney admited to a federal agencey that I had stolen TOP SECRET documents from a secure government building, copied some and given them to whomever (that I would like to know), destroyed some, and had a search warrant executed on my home to recover others that were stolen and thus,being in contempt of all federal laws regarding the handling of secret documents: where would I be? Why is the "investigation" still on going when Berger's admission of guilt has already been made public? Why have'nt charges been filed? Or will congress have a "hearing" to listen to what?    

I could ask the same about the other comments you've been posting.