Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (8336)	3/31/2005 8:53:35 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

SANDY BERGER: GUILTY By Michelle Malkin March 31, 2005 06:53 PM Sandy "Honestly, I had no idea how those papers got into my socks, jacket pocket, and portfolio" Berger will plead guilty to misdemeanor theft of classified documents. My, what serendipitous timing. Just saying. * Update: An unhinged reader says Berger didn't put the pilfered documents in his socks. <<< Sandy Berger did not put papers in his socks. He put them in his pockets. Have you ever inadvertently put things in your pocket before? You are a liar. Rot in hell. xoxo Terrence T. McDonald mediamatters.org >>> Oooo-kay. I stand corrected. Not his socks. Just his pants. Knowingly. And his jacket pocket. Knowingly. And his portfolio. "Inadvertently." And to answer Mr. Unhinged's question: I have never stuffed classified documents illegally into any of my pockets or bags "inadvertently" or otherwise and made them disappear. Those little wrapped soap bars from a hotel room? Yes, guilty. Top-secret memos. Ummmm, no. Update II: Jason Smith at Generation Why reminds us that Bill Clinton laughed when the news of Berger's sticky fingers first broke. denverpost.com Flashback II: A perfect response to Mr. Unhinged Reader from Gerard Van der Leun...Yes, Down My Pants. Oh, Like You Haven't? americandigest.org * Flashbacks: Sandy Berg(l)er? michellemalkin.com Berger and a side order of lies michellemalkin.com Ace of Spades spoof: Mystical Artifacts Removed From Top-Secret Government Warehouse ace.mu.nu michellemalkin.com foxnews.com cnn.com cbsnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8336)	3/31/2005 11:33:24 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Berger Pleads Guilty Scared Monkeys By Red on Main Sandy Berger pleads guilty to taking of materials from the National Archives. <<< He called the episode “an honest mistake,” and denied criminal wrongdoing. 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. >>> Really it was an honest mistake because as Berger’s attorney said, “Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents.” One can knowingly make an honest mistake? I guess it can when you know what is is. scaredmonkeys.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8336)	3/31/2005 11:53:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pop Quiz Rantingprofs By Cori Dauber What little detail is missing from this CNN story on Sandy Berger's guilty plea on the "documents down the pants" case from last year? (It was missing from NBC's report just now, too.) I didn't notice ABC mention the plea, but it's on their web site, where they have an AP report, and the detail is missing there, too. You've got to go to Reuters (which also gets the charge right: knowingly taking and keeping classified documents.) What's the detail? Berger isn't just "pleading guilty to a misdemeanor." He's agreeing to give up his clearance. Does it not strike anyone else that that's more than a little bit relevant and more than a little bit significant when we're talking about someone who was the National Security Advisor only five years ago? This is not a small thing, and leaving it out is leaving out information so critical to the reader or viewer in helping them understand how to judge the significance placed on what Berger did in reality (plea bargains aside) that it ends up misleading instead of informing. rantingprofs.com cnn.com abcnews.go.com reuters.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8336)	4/1/2005 12:45:03 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Another Successful Cover-Up Power Line Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger got away with a criminal cover-up today when he pled guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with his theft of sensitive documents from the National Archives. It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day. The idea that this was "an honest mistake," as Berger now claims, is ridiculous. Obviously, he was trying to destroy documents that showed the negligence of the Clinton administration--of which he was a key member--in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Key documents relating to our government's inadequate reaction to the threat of Islamic terrorism prior to Sept. 11 are now gone forever, successfully purged from the historical record by one of Bill Clinton's most loyal servants. This plea bargain appears, on its face, to be a disgrace. If anyone can think of a reason why this is not correct, please let us know. Posted by Hindrocket powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8336)	4/1/2005 1:25:06 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Sandy Berger to Plead Guilty Blogs for Bush With the Plame case finally fizzling out with no "there" there, it is perhaps fitting that a real scandal, which had a real crime involved, gets wrapped up: <<< WASHINGTON Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said Thursday. >>> Still, Berger did essentially get away with what he wanted; his whole purpose was to remove and destroy documents which likely clearly showed the miserable failures of the Clinton Administration to take hold of the growing terrorist threat to the United States. But any time the Democrats come back and talk about "scandals" in the Bush Administration, lets point out that the only Executive branch scandal since January 20th, 2001 was a case involving the previous Executive. UPDATE: Jason has more over at GOP Bloggers. gopbloggers.org Posted by Mark Noonan blogsforbush.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8336)	4/1/2005 1:39:21 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Berger Cops To Misdemeanor Captain's Quarters Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's former National Security Advisor, will plead guilty to a single misdemeanor tomorrow for taking a raft of classified documents out of the National Archives just ahead of the 9/11 Commission's investigation: <<< Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said Thursday. ... The former Clinton administration official previously acknowledged he removed from the National Archives 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, 2001, terror attacks. He called the episode "an honest mistake," and denied criminal wrongdoing. >>> Sorry, that explanation simply doesn't fly. As anyone who has ever held a clearance can testify, the security briefings regularly delivered to cleared personnel make absolutely certain that no one misunderstands the consequences of taking classified material out of secured areas. Simply moving documents into another unsecured room can easily get someone fired. Taking them out of the facility altogether not only will definitely get someone fired, but also charged with a crime -- and destroying the material would get anyone but Berger charged with a felony for each missing document. After all, the only evidence we have that the documents no longer exist is Berger's testimony. Who can prove a negative? The people who signed off on this deal probably just want to get Berger off the national stage for good, and see little gain in staging a sensational trial of the former Cabinet officer. Unfortunately, the message that this plea deal sends is that the violation itself was little more than a political faux pas instead of the obstruction of justice and clumsy cover-up that it was. The material missing was unique, with specific handwritten notes that directly related to the work the 9/11 Commission did to reconstruct the history of why we were so vulnerable to al-Qaeda's attacks. That information will never come out, which includes Berger's role in dithering while al-Qaeda gained strength at our expense. The image of Berger stuffing his pants may be humorous, but I assure you that his crimes were anything but. Charging him with a single misdemeanor so that he can collect his wrist-slap and go back to the lecture circuit fails the American public that Berger should have protected all along. (via Michelle Malkin, graphic courtesy of CQ reader Peyton Randolph) michellemalkin.com UPDATE: Rocket Man agrees. powerlineblog.com Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8336)	4/1/2005 5:23:29 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

'It Was Not Inadvertent' Captain's Quarters Today's more detailed report on Sandy Berger's plea deal in the Washington Post underscores the intent of Berger to hide and destroy information that would either embarass or incriminate himself or Bill Clinton before the 9/11 Commission could gain access to it. Far from the "accidental" removal he insisted occurred, Berger now admits to intentionally removing and destroying classified material, a condition of his plea bargain: <<< The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them. He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent." >>> In return, the government will convict Berger of a misdemeanor, fine him $10,000, and merely suspend his national-security clearance for three years. The government apparently feels that Berger could possibly qualify for a renewed clearance after doing this: <<< 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. >>> He should face obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress just for this action alone, both felonies. The Post, meanwhile, insists on calling these "copies". They were not exact copies; each memo started off as a copy of an original draft by Richard Clarke, but the memos had handwritten notes from each recipient as comments, requests for revision, and suggestions for possible action. Each document was unique, and their destruction by Mr. Scissors means that we will never know what some did with Clarke's information. All we know is that it must have reflected badly on Berger, Clinton, or both. Otherwise, why would Berger destroy them? This is a travesty. If a lower-level cleared worker had done a fraction of what Berger did in this case, he would face years in prison. Berger gets off with a fine that any of his well-connected friends will wind up underwriting, a gracious gesture of gratitude for pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. UPDATE: Bill at INDC Journal makes this compelling point: <<< So, let me get this straight: Sandy Berger intentionally destroyed the only copies of top secret documents about this country's knowledge of looming terrorism threats for clearly political purposes, even though a bipartisan Congressional commission was requesting and utilizing all such documents in an effort to make recommendations about how to protect America from another terrorist attack. In my world, that's not a "$10,000 fine ... three-year suspension of his national security clearance" offense, it's approaching treason. Former NSA or not, this man should suffer a permanent revocation of any security clearance, and probably sample the cuisine at a federal prison. >>> That sums it up nicely, I think. Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com