Politics – Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"He added: "If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible."
The Clinton campaign declined to comment."
This woman has lost her mind.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
daviant701973
inplacenews.
iambosanitas
itisoysustas
imental
iarthritis
imarathon
iacupuncture
inatural
Amy28713
BJTJ
starsearchcasting
KobraJeedai
Formidable
ZiegfeldGirl
MidnightPrism
JackofallChems
dondukdun
rappin4tay
Shannonyork
V.O.R.
werebu
JessicaLaurie
Mintyfunk
saltyveruca
lizaveta
y_soitenly
vettenut
NoSpinDave
StillUnashamed
joeblowe
Dan and Jennifer
Hullios
BoBo in Texas
HannibalBarca
bonnieweelass
capecoralM
DonDavis
ssamantha00
tonks21
starshinediva
monkey6988
MichaelRhodente
Helixbuilder
tiredofwhiners
tennisbetsite
usefulvoter
ig13
nishugoyal
crackfiend
204)
OMG, you have got to be kidding me! Is she for real?
"Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry's presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton's campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton's admirers. "It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger's serious misdeeds," said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University.
Adler told The Examiner that it is "simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor."
If the Hsu fits . . .
LOL ;-)
The outrage from the media is deafening on this story, isn't it?
Can you imagine what a stink would be raised by the NY Times if a Republican candidate hired one of the Watergate burglars?
This should dispel any notions that Hillary is ethical and truthful.
Good point. It's business as usual for the Clintonistas, and their media lackeys.
More Crooks advising Crooks. Go Figure!
It is kind of like sudden infant death syndrome except that a .45 caliber is involved.
On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.
The Clinton's still need good people willing to do stuff like this if they are to become President again.
Amazingly, this thread was killed before I even got finished work today. How could such an important story about Clinton corruption and associated flunkies be pushed off of the homepage so quickly?? Oh, wait, sorry...wrong site...dems good here no matter what...
LOL
http://pic.gwafi.com http://games.gwafi.com http://myweb.gwafi.com
Sounds vaguely like the paranoia I most commonly associate with the twoof movement.
The Burglar is back? It figures.
The evidence is continually mounting, America. How much more do you need to understand?
Hillary Clinton for President - Wrong Person, Wrong Time, Wrong Job.
Wrong person at any time in any position of trust.
True. True, indeed.
The last thing we need is this scourge in the Oval Office.
and its amazing that liberals have the audacity to say the media is controlled by conservatives. What a joke.
Holy hsit.
AlphaGnosis;
...and you say MY puns are bad...
Perhaps you have caught paronomasia...
What is The Shreder going to do?
A. Keep his mouth shut.
B. Keep his mouth shut
C. Keep his mouth shut
D. Pick out the best shredder for top secret documents
Hillary to Sandy Burglar: Is that a secret document or are you just happy to see me?
this guy cut a deal with the Justice Department and gave up his license to practice law and now he's back. One really needs to ask what were the Clinton's so afraid of that he was sent to the National Archives to remove and destroy classified documents pertaining to 9/11.
Yep.
some possibilities and they all lead up to the downing of Flight 800 and 9/11.......links below
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5254_0_4_0_C/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/117618...
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5191_0_6_0_C/
Good links, pc25! Excellent question! Especially the flight 800 puzzle. Let's see, how do you spell stonewall?
Let's see, how do you spell stonewall?
Easy, the White House.
As bad as the Dems or cl its are so is shrub and the WH
As bad as you think things are, they could be much worse. Do you understand why Clinton, Kerry, and Kennedy are able to raise so much money. Its not their charm, it is their desire to hand the US to the IMF ,World Bank, World Court, and United Nations on a golden platter.
While shrub & cheney hand the USA to hallibortion, conoco-philips, blackwater and many others.
At least the dems never amounted a debt like this admin did in 6 years, or sold out as much to China as this admin.
I hope Hillary will buy Sandy cargo pants, they might come in handy for the old boy.
lol
FUNNY!!!!!!!!
Good one Red!!!
Way to comment on the story.
Seems like a silly decision by Hillary....especially since a lot of her base consists of people who are sick of so called "criminals" of the current administration. So either shes going to lose a lot of votes, or pick up a lot of hypocrites. Either way its bad for her.
Hey cheeky, you made the same exact post on another thread. I answered you over there.
Trying to censor the discussion again David?
Tell us, did you get so upset with this involvement in the current bushie regime?
Abramoff Offered to Aid Sudan, Envoy Says
The former lobbyist sought millions to help the sanctioned nation clean up its image, the country's ambassador and an ex-associate say.
By Tom Hamburger and Ken Silverstein
Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON รข;; Two eyewitnesses say that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff proposed to sell his services to the much-criticized government of Sudan to help improve its abysmal reputation in the United States, especially among Christian evangelicals who were campaigning against human rights violations in the troubled African nation....
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fuj/latimes1...
That's it divert attention by criticizing the reporter. Why don't you just come out and say you approve of a potential President of hiring a lieing thief for an advisor? Fits right in with her modus operandi.
How about a current President hiring a couple of liars, gonzo, rummy, cheney, shrub but thats doesn't bother you as they are repugs?
USA had better start trying to work together rather than keep fighting over which politician is worse than the other, they all stink.
alpha,
I see one question that wasn't answered directly - if Berger was guilty of stealing documents from the archives, why wasn't he prosecuted completely? The article alludes to this by insinuation:
"The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they "would never know what, if any, original documents were missing."
I would think that the findings by a House Committee would have the weight to insure a stronger punishment. Not to discount Adler's expertise, but his raising this issue as he's a contributor to National Review and a member of the Federalist Society tints his outrage with partisanship. Any answers?
To answer your first question, I'm not sure that a House Committee can override the Justice Department after the fact.
The second question as far as Adler's concerned, if there's any partisanship, it's towards Clinton. After all, he's an admirer:
"This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton's admirers. "It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger's serious misdeeds," said law professor Jonathan Adler, who nonetheless called Clinton "the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field."
He added: "If Clinton becomes the nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. Continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible."
And of course, who cares what Adler thinks or what side he's on? What he says is true, regardless of your politics. Sandy Berger is a criminal and that's a fact.
alpha,
I don't believe Adler's an admirer of Clinton, rather he's only voicing his and many conservatives opinion of her lead in her candidacy for the Democratic party. It was the story's point, made by Adler, of Berger's nefariousness, which never came up at his trial in the original accusations. It's Adler's conjecture that Berger's more guilty than the original charges brought by the DOJ. This accusation has been around the block and suggested many time by anti-Democratic Party groups and individuals.
I'm not here to defend Berger, but there needs to be more than insinuation to convict him any further than he's already been. Yet, if you have proof that what Adler says is true, it's your patriotic duty to put it out in the open.
David,
Did this come out during the trial? Please provide links.
All I understand is that he was tried for taking copies which is what he was charged with.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.s...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A...
Wikipedia has this note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convi...
And this from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html
He didn't take copies. He took originals from the National archives before the 9/11 commission investigated.
From your link:
When initially questioned by reporters, Berger claimed that the removal of the top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing the copies and cutting three up with scissors. Archive staff stated they witnessed Berger, on more than one occasion, stuffing into his pants and into his jacket papers he was illegally removing. One witness saw Berger stuffing into his socks papers from the archives. [13] Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ investigators and returned to the archives.
schillinfl1,
Correct, but why has Adler alleged the documents were more than copies? Wouldn't the National Archives have protested, upon further evidence coming out of the House Committee, that the misdemeanor Berger was convicted on should now be a felony, especially in light of the seriousness of destroying or stealing original documents?
It seems that the accusations and innuendos that Adler's promoting are not backed by fact, but rather, from third party rhetoric. Adler may be right but, as the old lady in the Wendy's connection once said, "Where's the beef?" If Adler's not able to provide proof then why is he touting this line? Could he be an anti-Clinton political operative? I ask because Adler's background is jurisprudence and he should know better; he's not a politician per se.
A slight correction to schillinfl1.
The documents he took were originally copies passed to several men. These men then made notes on their copy. This is the reference to the word copy. At the point that notes were made on them they became original documents. The notes are what he was hiding. These were admissions to what the writer knew.
Right as far as it goes...but the NeoConArtists have had more than a few years in power to pursue...why are y'all screaming NOW???
When someone cops a plea, as Berger did, there is no trial, and consequently no public record. It's all very convenient.
oscar,
Not necessarily true. It was a trial for misdemeanor AND everyone that followed the issue knew the outcome so it is public record. It doesn't matter if he coped a plea or not; it's an adjudication.
No entry of evidence. No testimony by witnesses.
Some public record! Just the outcome, not the details. What you know you got from the media, not the "record."
there was no trial
there was no trial ....he cut a deal with the Justice Department, and gave up his license to practice law