Why The Berger -Clinton Cover Up Matters

[Tigermike 3,052]

June 04, 2007

Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters

By Ronald A. Cass

On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.

What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?

Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.

Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.

Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the "learned professions" fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.

That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.

*******

President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.

Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material - not manhandling it.

Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn't intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far.

*******

We don't know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes - and whose notes - may have been on them. Berger's lawyer asserted that the 9/11 Commission had copies of all the material Berger stole and destroyed. But if that is so, why would Berger risk so much to destroy it and be so keen today on avoiding any real inquiry into what he did?

Berger had access to Archives documents that could be critical to understanding what information the Clinton Administration had, what options it considered, and what decisions it took on these sensitive subjects. In addition to primary documents, Berger had access to copies, and the only plausible reason for taking five copies of a single memo is that some had original notes on them from key officials, maybe from Berger or President Clinton.

For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.

The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration's failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda's later attacks?

When Fox News' Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton's Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.

Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don't know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill's third term?

Whatever it was, it's likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation's history and perhaps also help us decide what course - and what Chief Executive - will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.

The only person who knows what information was lost is Sandy Berger. And he isn't talking.

*******

What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.

Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.

Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.

The story doesn't interest the Democrats in Congress, who prefer spending time investigating why eight political-level appointees were fired - a misstep by the Bush Justice Department that provides more promising political fodder than one that might point back to the Clintons.

The Sandy Berger story doesn't interest the mainstream news media, probably for the same reason. The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . .

Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.

Because, in truth, it could affect us all.

link

[TexasTiger 13,003]

June 04, 2007

Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters

By Ronald A. Cass

On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.

What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?

Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.

Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.

Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the "learned professions" fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.

That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.

*******

President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.

Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material - not manhandling it.

Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn't intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far.

*******

We don't know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes - and whose notes - may have been on them. Berger's lawyer asserted that the 9/11 Commission had copies of all the material Berger stole and destroyed. But if that is so, why would Berger risk so much to destroy it and be so keen today on avoiding any real inquiry into what he did?

Berger had access to Archives documents that could be critical to understanding what information the Clinton Administration had, what options it considered, and what decisions it took on these sensitive subjects. In addition to primary documents, Berger had access to copies, and the only plausible reason for taking five copies of a single memo is that some had original notes on them from key officials, maybe from Berger or President Clinton.

For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.

The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration's failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda's later attacks?

When Fox News' Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton's Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.

Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don't know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill's third term?

Whatever it was, it's likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation's history and perhaps also help us decide what course - and what Chief Executive - will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.

The only person who knows what information was lost is Sandy Berger. And he isn't talking.

*******

What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.

Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.

Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.

The story doesn't interest the Democrats in Congress, who prefer spending time investigating why eight political-level appointees were fired - a misstep by the Bush Justice Department that provides more promising political fodder than one that might point back to the Clintons.

The Sandy Berger story doesn't interest the mainstream news media, probably for the same reason. The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . .

Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.

Because, in truth, it could affect us all.

link

What a bunch of black helicopter garbage. Berger surrendered his license because he knew he would lose it anyway, as well he should. That's not mysterious or tellling.

I have no idea what the man was thinking, or if he was even thinking. But this article has a lot of holes.

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.

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar31.html

He did acknowledge shredding the documents, and the National Archives, not just his lawyer, say he only had copies. If BUSH's Justice Dept. thought there was something more to this, they would not have accepted the plea. His motives aren't clear, but the impact is not in doubt. The Government knew what was there before and knows what is there now. Nothing was lost.

[Tigermike 3,052]

And Slick Willie and Hildabeast are happy.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

And Slick Willie and Hildabeast are happy.

Yeah, I'm sure they're thrilled about Berger making an absolute fool out of himself.

[DKW 86 7,440]

It was only copies. I only had a Secret clearance and I know that all he ever got his paws on were copies. What it does prove is this: He may have been sssooo stoopid that he THOUGHT he had the originals. So, if he tells us what he was TRYING to do, we could simply look back and see what he was looking at. Aside from the archives burning down, everything is still there, ready for some reporter to find it out.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Berger skates on a felony, but Libby is sentenced in a witchhunt.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Berger skates on a felony, but Libby is sentenced in a witchhunt.

A Bush appointed prosecutor tries the case, and a Bush appointed Judge sentences him. And the Republicans whine that perjury and obtruction of justice are no big deal.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

All I'm saying is if I walk out of the office today with classified documents shoved down my drawers, I'm heading to a multi-year all inclusive vacation at Fort Leavenworth. Why isn't he held to the same standard?

"Scooter" outs a not covert/covert CIA agent. He gets hammered.

Do you not see a difference in the two?

[DKW 86 7,440]

All I'm saying is if I walk out of the office today with classified documents shoved down my drawers, I'm heading to a multi-year all inclusive vacation at Fort Leavenworth. Why isn't he held to the same standard?

Do you not see a difference in the two?

Damn straight...

[autigeremt 6,666]

Berger skates on a felony, but Libby is sentenced in a witchhunt.

A Bush appointed prosecutor tries the case, and a Bush appointed Judge sentences him. And the Republicans whine that perjury and obtruction of justice are no big deal.

Bush this.....Bush that. Damn, man! Have you ever thought that people are on their own merrit? You are sounding like an Alabama fan more and more each day!

Libby going to jail= Justice

Libby going to jail for 30 years= Overkill, but justice none the less

Berger acting like a fool with a purpose= something fishy

The Clintons are politicians first. They will do anyting to get elected. I firmly believe that they would do most anything to help their own cause. I have to wonder what it is that's so important to give up a mans lifetime for a few documents. Where there's smoke, as the saying goes. Until there's more proof.........nothing can be done, and should'nt.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Clinton knowingly lied under oath. Gets nothing.

Libby MAY have lied or just been stupid. He gets 30 months.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

All I'm saying is if I walk out of the office today with classified documents shoved down my drawers, I'm heading to a multi-year all inclusive vacation at Fort Leavenworth. Why isn't he held to the same standard?

"Scooter" outs a not covert/covert CIA agent. He gets hammered.

Do you not see a difference in the two?

I don't know why the Bush Justice Dept. decided they didn't want to pursue jail time for Berger, but I have to assume that they didn't think the case was necessarily that compelling or they wouldn't have taken the plea. I don't think either one of us really knows what a typical sentence is in these kind of cases, but, frankly, if Berger had had a trial and got jail time I would feel no sympathy for him. He's soley responsible for his actions and he did something that was, at best, damn stupid. It's not like he went to trial and a Clinton judge showed him leniency. The Justice Dept. had to agree on his plea.

You mistate Libby's offense. Any objective person with normal intelligence who followed Libby's case doesn't doubt that he lied repeatedly. It was clear that the jury bore Libby no real animus from their interviews afterward, but it was obvious that he had perjured himself repeatedly and obstructed justice. The prosecutor said he was not able to get to the underlying crime because of the perjury and obstruction. This prosecutor was appointed by Bush as a US Attorney and appointed by the Attorney General as the Special Prosecutor. He's no partisan Dem by a long shot, but he is obviously disgusted with Libby's conduct. The judge who sentenced Libby is no librul-- he is also a Bush appointee who is obviiously disgusted with Libby's conduct.

Each person needs to stand on their own merits. I don't understand the need to deflect from one person's situation by referring to someone else's, but that is what happens here everytime a Republican does something wrong. Why is it so difficult to recognize that Libby should be accountable for what HE DID, aside from what someone else did?

[Tigermike 3,052]

To get back to Berger.

For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.

The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration's failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda's later attacks?

When Fox News' Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton's Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.

Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don't know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill's third term?

Whatever it was, it's likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation's history and perhaps also help us decide what course - and what Chief Executive - will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.

The only person who knows what information was lost is Sandy Berger. And he isn't talking.

*******

What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.

Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well.

Here are a few more thoughts on this article and this situation.

PROTESTING TOO LITTLE AND TOO MUCH

Amen.

The two things I highlighted in that excerpt (and read the entire thing) are the instructive psychological responses made by the people most involved in this deception; and both responses are extremely suggestive that they are desperate to hide something terribly important and that they know and understand how important it is.

One is "protesting too little", i.e., willingly giving up his license to practice law without a fight in order to avoid answering any questions; and the other is "protesting too much" by flying into a rage at a reasonable question. Both are more interested in their own personal legacies than they are in their country's best interests; and their behavior demonstrates that narcissism very clearly.

"Public servants"? What a joke. This country is plagued by narcissists cut from the same cloth as the two discussed above--narcissists who regularly use their position of public trust for personal aggrandizement and the most base self-gratification. This is what our politics became in the age of Clinton and that will forever be his legacy, whether he likes it or not.

I would rather a thousand money-grubbing William Jefferson's who stupidly hide $90,000 in freezers and who unabashedly bribe their way to wealth, but who are just run-of-the-mill thieves and criminals; than any more William Jefferson Clinton's who, with the help of their trusty minions are ready, willing and able to sacrifice their own country on the altar of their super-sized egos.

The former behavior in any public servant is bad enough; but the country cannot survive an entire political party devoted to the proposition that feeling good about themselves is far more important than protecting this country from Islamofascist terrorism.

I just wonder how much of this denial and delusion the American public is willing to tolerate? How long can half the population of this country pretend that there is no real threat to our country and --if there is a threat, then it is because of Bush/Cheney and American imperialism or corporate greed--or both. How long will they willingly to let themselves be conned into accepting the safe and rather comforting belief (at least it is safe and comforting in comparison to the reality) that all the evil in the world is Bush/Cheney/America's fault?

I have more than a professional interest in the answer to those questions.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/