Where's the Berger thread?

[kott]

Surely there's a logical explanation, response, excuse, retort, reply, denial, and tangent in this issue somewhere...... or is it just expected nowadays?

[LK1]

Let me be the first "leftie" to state that this just don't smell right and I don't believe that you just accidentally put classified papers in your jacket pocket.

[KirkVining]

So far the accusations against Berger have been from "anonymous sources". I didn't know til yesterday this has been going on for 7 months.

There just isn't enough meat there on the story yet. The guy hasn't been charged with anything. How many news stories can you do about a guy who isn't in office who stuffed important papers in his socks, if that is indeed what he did?

At this point I would guess he was removing embarassing information about himself. He seems to have been seeking documents where he made notes in the liner - one that probably said "note to self: look into this guy bin Laden". Like Bush's cronies who committed the felony exposing the CIA agent, Berger has probably done more damage attempting an after the fact crime than what ever it is he did originally.

Given the Ashcroft circus when he went after one of the commission members on trumped up BS, this is all probably just part of the same game. Cheney and Ashcroft seem to have been delegated by Bush to raise as many questions as possible that go to the credibility of the 911 report. This is probably part of the strategy. I am sure they knew 7 months ago the FBI was investigating this guy, and filed it under "Use two days before 911 Report Release".

[KyGuy]

From today's WSJ. Yes, it's a right wing screed.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Berger on the 'Wall'
The election debate behind the documents-in-pants caper.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

We'll grant that visions of a former National Security Adviser stuffing classified documents down his trousers or socks makes for good copy. But count us more interested in learning what's in the documents themselves than in where on his person Sandy Berger may have put them when he was sneaking them out of the National Archives.

For the evidence suggests that the missing material cuts to the heart of the choice offered in this election: Whether America treats terrorism as a problem of law enforcement or an act of war.

Mr. Berger admits to having deliberately taken handwritten notes he'd made out of the Archives reading room. On the more serious charges involving the removal (and subsequent discarding) of highly classified documents--including drafts of a key, after-action memo Mr. Berger had himself ordered on the U.S. response to al Qaeda threats in the run-up to the Millennium--he maintains he did so "inadvertently."

There's only one way to clear away the political smoke: Release all the drafts of the review Mr. Berger took from the room.

If it's all as innocent as Mr. Berger's friends are saying, there's no reason not to make them public. But there are good reasons for questioning Mr. Berger's dog-ate-my-homework explanation. To begin with, he was not simply preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He was the point man for the Clinton Administration, reviewing and selecting the documents to be turned over to the Commission.

Written by Richard Clarke for the NSC, the key document was called the Millennium After-Action Review because it dealt with al Qaeda attacks timed for the eve of the Millennium celebrations. In his own 9/11 testimony, Mr. Berger described these al Qaeda plans as "the most serious threat spike of our time in government." He went on to say that they provoked "sustained attention and rigorous actions" from the Administration that ended up saving lives.

But Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has the advantage of having read the document in question, had a different take. In his own 9/11 testimony in April, Mr. Ashcroft recommended that the Commission "study carefully" the after-action memo. He described it as laying out vulnerabilities and calling for aggressive remedies of the type he and the Bush Administration have been criticized for. Mr. Ashcroft further noted that when he took office, this "highly classified review" was "not among" the items he was briefed on during the transition.

Maybe that is because of the potential for embarrassment at the mentality the memo reveals. Mr. Ashcroft testified that the Justice Department's "surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses." The most glaring, of course, were the restrictions on the sharing of critical information between intelligence and law enforcement--even within the FBI itself. This was the infamous "wall of separation" that Clinton Deputy AG Jamie Gorelick instructed the FBI director should "go beyond what is legally required."

From today's vantage we can see the consequences. Ahmed Ressam was one of the would-be Millennium bombers whom the French had identified to U.S. intelligence agencies as an al Qaeda operative planning to attack America. But the "wall of separation" meant that when an alert U.S. customs officer stopped Ressam as he tried to enter the country from Vancouver, the Justice Department had no idea who he was. This helps illuminate the claim made in the missing memo, according to Mr. Ashcroft's testimony, that our success in stopping these 1999 attacks was a result of sheer "luck."

Assuming Mr. Ashcroft's characterizations under oath are true, it would explain why Mr. Berger's "inadvertent" actions seemed to zero in on the various drafts of this review. Sources tell us that Archives staff noticed documents missing after one of Mr. Berger's visits. After gently raising the issue with him, they were shocked to have him return other documents they hadn't even noticed missing. The result was that the next time Mr. Berger went to the Archives, the documents he was given were all marked.

Mr. Berger attributes the disappearance of this classified information to the kind of "sloppiness" that comes from reviewing "thousands of pages of documents." But it strikes us as amazing that mere sloppiness could account for how Mr. Berger seized on the same memo during two different visits.

We're not interested in rehashing what the Clinton Administration or even Mr. Berger did or didn't do vis-a-vis the al Qaeda threat pre-9/11. Nor are we much interested about Mr. Berger's troubles with the law. What does interest us is what this memo might tell us about how America should respond to terror.
Given Mr. Berger's role (until he resigned yesterday) as a Kerry adviser, surely this is something worth debating. And if the missing memos say what Mr. Ashcroft has hinted they do, we can well understand why Mr. Berger would want to keep them in his trousers during a crucial election year.

[KirkVining]

The entire WSJ editorial page IS a right wing screed.

I don't know what bearing whatever the Clinton administration did has on Kerry. He has about as much use for the Clintons as you do.

[KirkVining]

DNC Press Release

MCAULIFFE FILES FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST; Requests All Documents Shared Between the Department of Justice and White House Regarding Investigation of Sandy Berger
Wed Jul 21 2004 13:17:22 ET

Washington, D.C. -In response to the questionable timing of the public release of information regarding the investigation of former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe officially filed a Freedom of Information Act request today for the release of correspondence between the Department of Justice and the White House regarding this investigation.

Below is a copy of McAuliffe's official letter of request.

Melanie Ann Pustay, Deputy Director
Office of Information and Policy
Department of Justice
Suite 570, Flag Building
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

July 21, 2004

Dear Ms. Pustay:

This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §552, and is submitted on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.

According to recent reporting, an investigation into former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger has been going on for at least nine months, since October 2003. Yet, the criminal investigation only came to light three days prior to the release of a report expected to be critical of the Bush administration's lack of focus on the events leading up to the 9-11 attacks. As conservative scholar Norm Ornstein stated, "you can't look at the timing of this with anything but an enormous amount of skepticism." [CNN, 7/20/04]

In light of the seriousness of the possibility that the Bush administration and the Department of Justice have politicized an ongoing investigation, it is imperative that this Freedom of Information request is responded to in an expedited manner.

Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 and the regulations of the Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §16.3, I am requesting copies of the following:

Any and all communications relating or referring to the investigation of Samuel ("Sandy") Berger, between, correspondence (including electronic mail) between, memoranda between, phone records of communications between, meeting notes and/or minutes of meetings between, on the one hand, any official or employee of the US Department of Justice AND, on the other hand, (i) the Executive Office of the President or any unit or office thereof (including but not limited to the Office of the Vice President); (ii) any official, employee, or representative of the Republican National Committee; OR (iii) any official, employee or representative of the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign.

This request covers all documents created during the period from and including October 1, 2003 through and including July 20, 2004.

For your purposes in filling this request, please consider me under the category of "all other organizations," as defined by the Freedom of Information Act. If there are any fees for copying or searching for the records I have requested, please inform me of the cost prior to searching or copying, and only if the total exceeds $100.

If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemption which you believe justifies your refusal to release the information and inform me of your agency's administrative appeal procedures available to me under the law.

Please provide all information on a rolling basis if possible. I appreciate your handling of this request as quickly as possible and I look forward to hearing from you within 20 working days, as the law stipulates.

If you have any questions or need further information concerning the above request, please contact me at the address below or at 202-863-8121.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

Terence R. McAuliffe, Chairman
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

[el presidente]

What would they charge Sandy Berger with? Or, has he already been charged?

Could he do time in a federal prison if convicted or pled guilty?

[KirkVining]

He's not been charged with anything. He has been found guilty by the right wing press, in advance. The whole thing smells and I think it may have some blowback for the Repubs.

If he did what is reported, its a serious crime. 10-20 yrs. Its a biggy.

[KyGuy]

Terry is such a HACK!

Cites a "conservative scholar" as quoted on CNN to provide him cover. Whoa, hold me down here, Terry alleges this FOI request is due to the "seriousness of the possibility that the Bush administration and the Department of Justice have politicized an ongoing investigation."

Really? I'm shocked, shocked at the possibility that either party would politicize anything. My fragile ideals have come crashing down into the snake pit of public discourse as practiced in the 21st Century.

[KirkVining]

Actually, that is not a line politicians usually cross. Interfering in any investigation runs the risk of obstruction charges, and the kind of charges we are seeing in the Plame affair. The repubs are back to doing Watergate style stuff. They could get burned.

[el presidente]

Well, the ball appears to be rolling now....I'll save any pre-judgment in this case and wait to see how it unfolds.

[KirkVining]

That's about where I am at. The places those papers are kept are like Ft. Knox. They must have tape on the guy. If he absentmindedly stuffed something in his pocket, thats one thing. Hiding it in his sock is another. The dems are acting like it is not serious, given the damage control they must be running these days, they must have some inside info that is making them emboldened enough to play the line out a little here.

[KyGuy]

I agree. Let's see what's there in support of both positions - Berger's acts weren't "inadvertent” and the RNC/White House/Cheney leaked the investigation.

I’m guessing it’ll end up somewhere in the middle, but let’s make them show their hands before we split the pot.

As far as the Plame “affair” goes, I’m wagering there’s less than nothing there.

[KirkVining]

Well, at least in the Plame affair we have direct evidence of a crime being committed - Novak printed a CIA agents name plain as day. Here we have a guilty guy without a crime. I noticed CNN and Fox have both moved it to the back pages. The repubs need to go get some more mud to prime the ole smear machine. Rove must have the day off.

[KyGuy]

I don't think Val Gal was/is covered by the statute. I've read it a couple times, but obviously don't know here actual role at Langley. If she wasn't covert in the years leading up to Joe Boy's trip and Novack's story, she's just a federal employee. As I said, let's see what they've got and wade through the spin from both sides and I'm guessing there's less-than-zero here.

Berger, if he took those docs as the STAFF at the Archives (not the RNC/White House/BushCheney) claim, then he's in a tight spot. Again, my guess is that if there was nothing here, it wouldn't take 7 months to figure out. I always respecte Sandy and honor his national service. Something's just pretty odd here.