The Inspector General's report on Berger's "incident" at the archives indicates that his theft was willful. Some of the documents had never been catalogued, or copied.
Since the 9-11 Commission Report assumed that they had all the information, and now it appears that at least some of the information has been destroyed, does that bother you? Remember, Colson ( Nixon/Watergate) served time in Federal Penitenary for merely LOOKING at 2 confidential files. Berger stole and destoyed Classified documents. Is this justice?
Since Berger was poorly proscecuted and already penalized--a fine and loss of clearance for a while, he cannot be charged as that would be double jepordy. ( Shouldn't someone who destroys Classified documents lose his clearance for life at the very least?) However, his plea aggrement included a provision for future testimony and lie dectector test. Wouldn't it be prudent to attempt to discover the truth?

What did he steal and destroy, and Why?

His motive would seem to be to alter the historical record to protect either himself, or his old boss, Bill C. What other possible motive could there be?

So again I ask, What did he destroy, and why?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I'm sure he was only acting in the National interest.

__________________
2009 VW TDI Jetta Sportwagon 172k miles (rear-ended harder than Elton John on 8/4/13. Total loss)

1991 Volvo 240 142k miles (T-boned by a stop sign runner. Total loss)

18 minutes of tape....

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

A few of the news reports I saw back around the time of the incident said that there were duplicate copies of the documents he took. If those news reports are correct, then he didn't alter the historical record at all.

I think the guy spent so much time at the highest bureaucratic levels that he lost touch with reality. Who knows what he was thinking? He's clearly a knucklehead.

These news reports were incorrect. That was the information that the 9-11 Commission had, too. They also assumed they had all the data.

The Inspector General's report just out this week found that not all the documents had been cataloged and copied so there is no telling what he did.

I realize that everyone views the world thru their political viewpoint. Many people want to defend President Clinton and ignore this, but wouldn't fairness dictate a thorough investigatioon?
Unless of course. you don't care because you want the truth obscurred.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think President Nixon paid a price for that.
I must also point out that those tapes were not Classified material. The stuff Berger stole/destroyed was Classuified.

Wouldnt fairness dioctate equal treatment?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

That's amazing.Not everyone. If one is willing to put forth some effort, I think it is possible to be objective about most things.Fairness and respect for the rule of law both dictate a thorough investigation. This sounds like a very serious matter to me. I have a hard time seeing why he should not be prosecuted.

The documents were classified "Top Secret."

At trial, I think Burger elocuted. Not sure if the trial was open or in camera. If I remember correctly, he said that he needed those particular documents so that he could refer to them as he thought (incorrectly) that the 9/11 Commission had access to all of the documents and that he needed to have them when he returned for testimony. That's just from memory.

If the documents were not cataloged that is a clear violation of the law.

Returning to the classification, that disturbs me. I do not think that every damned piece of paper in the White House should get a security classification. The public should have access to deliberative papers at some point. Every damned administration since roosevelt has used that process to hide things from the people. Some things need hiding, most don't.

B

That's exactly what Ollie thought....there's that shredding noise again...

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

He's a crook, obviously - saying he didn't know it was wrong is not quite a defense. I wish they'd prosecute.

__________________
- Brian


1989 500SEL Euro
1966 250SE Cabriolet
1958 BMW Isetta 600

I don't think he claimed ignorance. He said he knew it was illegal and had a lapse of judgment, IIRC. To me, that reason is far, far worse than being ignorant.

But like I said, this is all from memory. I'm guessing that a concerted Google search would provide definitive answers.

B

PS In his defense (logical, not legal) classifying his notes "Top Secret" was the problem. I bet he knew that was a dumb classification -- on par with cryptography and nuclear weapons design. So given the predisposition that the classification process is hopelessly flawed, it is easy to imagine rationalizing removing the docs from the facility. Not saying it is justified, but I believe it is understandable--not either treasonous nor insane.

He cannot be proscecuted. He has alrewady stood trial and was "punished".
The plea alowed for lie detector and future testimont. I think that should be enforced. If he refuses the abide by the terms of his plea, maybe he can be prscecuted for that.
I am not as interested in prosecution as a public airing of the matter.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

That would require defense discovery and testimony in open court. Though Berger's notes may or may not have been worthy of classification, I have no doubt that in his position as Nat Sec Adv, he was privy to far, far more than the gov wants revealed in open court.

I don't know that there was or was not a public airing. It wouldn't surprise me if the news media didn't think it was insufficiently newsworthy to report it all in detail.

Bot

From today's WSJ Online
IMO, there is ABSOLUTELY NO GD way this man should ever see any document above "UNCLASSIFIED" EVER AGAIN.


The Berger Files
The case of the purloined archives gets stranger all the time.

Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The more we learn about Sandy Berger's brilliant career as a document thief, the clearer it becomes that there is plenty we still don't know and may never learn. On Tuesday, the House Government Reform Committee released its report on Mr. Berger's pilfering of classified documents from the National Archives.

The committee's 60-page report makes it clear that Mr. Berger knew exactly what he was doing and knew that what he was doing was wrong. According to interviews with National Archives staff, Mr. Berger repeatedly arranged to be left alone with highly classified documents by feigning the need to make personal phone calls, and he used those moments alone with the files to stuff them in his pockets and briefcase.

One incident is particularly suggestive. By his fourth and final visit to review documents and prepare for testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Archives staff had grown suspicious of how Mr. Berger was handling the documents, so they numbered each one he was given in pencil on the back of the document. When one of them--No. 217--was apparently removed from the files by Mr. Berger, the staff reprinted a copy and replaced it for his review. According to the report, Mr. Berger then proceeded to slip the second copy "under his portfolio also." In other words, he stole the same document twice.





This gives the lie to Mr. Berger's story that he was taking the documents for his own convenience, to assist with his preparation for testimony to the commission. If that were the whole story, one copy of document 217 would surely have been sufficient. That document was an email pertaining to a draft of the Millennium After-Action Report on the attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. The episode suggests that Mr. Berger had some other motive for removing No. 217, even if he was ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. But neither his April 2005 plea agreement, nor the Congressional report, nor the report of the Archives' Inspector General shed any light on what that motive might have been.
Another telling revelation concerns Mr. Berger's access to original, uncopied and uninventoried documents from the files of former NSC antiterror official Richard Clarke, among others. At the time Mr. Berger made his misdemeanor plea agreement, we were assured by then-federal prosecutor Noel Hillman that there was no evidence that Mr. Berger destroyed or intended to destroy any original documents. That was, strictly speaking, true. But during three of Mr. Berger's four visits to the Archives in 2002 and 2003, the former National Security Adviser did have access to original documents of which no adequate inventory existed or exists.

This seems relevant, given the concern that Mr. Berger's breaches of national security might have denied evidence to history of the Clinton Administration's approach to al Qaeda and the threat of terrorism. And yet the Justice Department clearly gave the impression that there was no danger that Mr. Berger abridged the historical record. We now know that this was not true. Mr. Berger was in a position to remove documents from Mr. Clarke's files, and thanks to lax security, breaches of protocol and undue deference on the part of Archives staff, we may never know whether Mr. Berger took documents other than the five he's admitted to removing.





It is true that there is no affirmative evidence he did so. But it is equally true that he had opportunity and a demonstrated willingness to breach security in his handling of the documents. As for motive, this remains shrouded in mystery, in part because the documents Mr. Berger has admitted to taking remain highly classified, so the precise nature of his interest is unclear.
Thanks to Justice's and the Archives' leniency, or laxity, or both, Mr. Berger's plea deal expires in 2008--just in time, perhaps, for the next Clinton Administration.

sounds kindof circumstantial to me?

lawyers out there?

is it?

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.