Why did Martha Stewart go to jail for lying to investigators?
Berger now admits he did exactly the same thing. But he'll get
off with a fine and an admission of "his mistakes".
SANDY BERGER UPDATE:
Instapundit.com
Really, a rather sordid story of deliberate misconduct that deserves close attention:
<<<
The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil. . . .
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.
>>>
So Berger stole, and destroyed, classified documents as part of a politically motivated coverup. Let's just be clear about that. Criminal penalties, aside, the man's career in public life should be over, and he certainly should never have access to classified documents again. Unfortunately, the penalty he'll actually receive looks rather light -- certainly lighter than most folks who stole and destroyed classified documents would undergo. That makes it all the more important that the details of his misbehavior get plenty of attention, and that they're remembered long-term. (Via Expertise).
UPDATE: A reader emails:
<<<
Why did Martha Stewart go to jail for lying to investigators?
Berger now admits he did exactly the same thing. But he'll get off with a fine and an admission of "his mistakes".
Can one honestly say Martha's lies were more damaging than Bergers? I don't think so.
>>>
There are differences, I guess, but the big one is that Berger's one of the insiders. Still, Jim Geraghty is right to ask: "Just what do you have to do to get your clearance pulled permanently?"
He also wonders: "Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism? Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them."
Indeed.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Patrick Hynes emails:
<<<
Berger did not destroy (or even attempt to AFAIK) all of the copies of the Clarke report, so what he was trying to expunge can't be anything Clarke said in the report. Must it not be true that Berger was after the marginal notations made on the report by officials who read the particular copies of the Clarke report Berger shredded? Do we know which officials reviewed the copies Berger destroyed? Can Archives tell us?
>>>
Someone should ask them.
instapundit.com |
