Regarding the Berger pilfer, an interview with Wolf Blitzer and Berger’s lawyer:
BLITZER: All right. The notes are one thing. Much more serious is the classified document. This is a highly sensitive document. I don’t know what — if it’s code word or top secret or a compartmental, secure — whatever the classification is, he knew he should not take that document out of that room.
BREUER: Well, let’s talk about that document. That’s a document that Dick Clarke authored because Sandy Berger asked him to do it.
BLITZER: Dick Clarke was the White House counterterrorism czar, if you will.
BREUER: Exactly. And at the time of the millennium in 2000, if you remember, there were lots of threats about terrorism. And the White House and the United States addressed those concerns. And most people look at the time of January 1, 2000 as a time that we can be proud of. We thwarted terrorist cells. Berger was the national security adviser and he was very proud of what they did. But he didn’t just rest on his laurels. He said to Clarke, “I want you to take a hard look. Tell us what we did right and tell us what we didn’t do right.” And to Clarke’s credit, he did it. To Berger’s credit he asked him to do it.
Now with respect to what this document is about, it is widely known. Its existence is widely known. It’s written about in books and in magazines.
BLITZER: So why did he have to take it out of that room?
BREUER: That he did it inadvertently.
BLITZER: What is inadvertently?
BREUER: Let me tell you what happened.
BLITZER: Sandy Berger doesn’t do things inadvertently.
It appears that the Democrat spin machine is losing its wheels- all the usual suspects are here. Sandy Berger pilfering highly classified after-action reports authored by Richard Clarke. How interesting. Is there a Joe Wilson in the congregation?
Ralph Gizzip
It’s even more suprising to see Wolf and CNN nailing his balls to the wall.
Slartibartfast
Look: you don’t “inadvertently” remove a classified document. The colored cover pages and large classification stamps are there to keep just such inadvertency from occurring.
I halfway expect the next ploy to be that Berger is colorblind, and uncorrectably farsighted.
Dean
Slarti:
Nah. Breuer’s comments are going to lead to:
Since Berger wrote it/asked for it/had read it, what’s so bad about him taking a copy? He didn’t realize that the rules didn’t apply to HIM for THIS document.
HH
Dem talking points:
“Inadvertent,” “timing,” “sloppy”… lather, rinse, repeat until interview is over.
shark
Fine, inadvertant, careless, sloppy whatever. Keep using that Dems, because THAT IS WHAT KERRY IS SURROUNDING THEMSELVES WITH.
You burn him either way.
bendover
Did anyone see the picture over at Drudge? Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil + Sandy (priceless)
Kimmitt
Um, Berger’s no longer associated with Kerry; unlike Republicans, Dems actually dismiss people when they screw up.
At any rate, I’m still confused on the point of whether Berger absconded with original documents (very very bad) or copies (sloppy and extremely confusing).
Flagwaver
Kimmitt,
“Um, Berger’s no longer associated with Kerry; unlike Republicans, Dems actually dismiss people when they screw up.”
You’re joking, right???? This has been known since October – known to Berger, known to Gergen, known (I’ll bet you dollars to donuts) to Terry McAwful and his bleating band of moonbats, and Berger QUITS when he’s “outed” and this is proof that the Dems fire people who “screw up”????
And Robert “KKK” Byrd is still in the Senate, in a position of relative power in the Dem party, as are his apologists, and Wilson and Richard Clarke, both PROVEN liars, are still the darlings of the Dems, and . . .
Oh, what’s the use? Dems are reliably colorblind to their own misdeeds, but NEVER miss an ALLEGED misdeed by a Republican.
Can’t you just face facts, Kimmitt? Your party is the party of amorality. ANYTHING is OK, the most dishonest acts and statements are acceptable, as long as it’s done in alleged support of a purportedly laudable goal (like quotas in pursuit of racial “equality”), while NOTHING is OK, and factually honest and morally correct statements and actions are “evil” if done in pursuit of a goal that the Dems don’t like. I always thought Ted Kennedy’s falling down act was due to his overconsumption of ethanol; instead, it’s just his head spinning from trying to keep track of the internal inconsistencies and moral equivalence. Sheesh!
Steve Malynn
Kimmit,
Whether Berger took copies or originals he violated the security of numerous (5) versions of a draft report, of which all versions were as classified as classified gets.
The versions he finger-f***** (USMC jargon) are now missing. All of the information on the 75 or so pages must be presumed to be compromised, as must the final report itself. The final report is the focus of much contention (millenium plot afteraction) between the current and past Administrations, so every draft version is valuable.
The crime carries a 10 year penalty. If I had scr**** the pooch like this when my Top Secret clearance was active (mine was deactivated when after my last stint of active duty, as I have no need to know or access when I’m not in uniform), I would be in Leavenworth today.
I’m not, so I guess that means two things:
1. I’m smarter than Clinton’s NSA; and 2. I’m around to bust your chops.
[insert smilicon]
willyb
According to today
Rick
Suffice it to say, despite Berger’s mouthpiece’s pleadings, and the contortions of assorted Kool-Aid chuggers here and else in bloggerland, there is no innocent explanation for this act.
I doubt it was treason (mustn’t question patriotism, no matter how much you wonder), merely dishonorable, in the party tradition.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
Man, you guys must have been pissed about the Plame burning. Oh, wait.
Seriously, my response is still one of total bafflement. What the hell is going on?
Slartibartfast
It’s irrelevant whether he absconded with originals or copies, Kimmitt. Irrelevant to a crime being committed, that is. What might be telling is if he absconded with ALL copies of a document, but I’ve got nothing on that.
As for the Plame burning, the big difference here is that we know who the culprit is. If you know who burned Plame, please share.
Kimmitt
That makes no sense at all; why would you only get upset at breaches in security if you were certain of the culprits? It seems to me that an anonymous breach of security would call for a swift and thorough investigation and frustration and anger at any President or bureaucracy that failed to order such a thing.
I mean, if the President and bureaucracy were a Democrat, of course. No Republican is capable of doing such a thing, which means that an investigation is unnecessary — or, if it does take place, should do so only to placate critics and will find no one.
Personally, I think Sandy Berger burned Valerie Plame and he was taking documents which would have proved this. All the pieces fit.
willyb
Kimmitt,
Valerie Plame’s “outing” is an open investigation with no one admitting that they committed a crime; whereas, Berger has admitted he committed a CRIME and is saying that it was inadvertent, or, perhaps more accurately, serially inadvertent. You know, it depends on what the definition of “is” is.
Democrats are out there spinning this as Republican musdslinging about very little, that was timed for poltical effect. It’s only about sex, the vast right wing conspiracy, hatemongers, the timing is questionable, etc., etc. I’m sure not all Democrats approve of how this is being handled, but apparently the one’s paying attention do.
Slartibartfast
“why would you only get upset at breaches in security if you were certain of the culprits?”
Check your premises and get back to me when you’ve figured it out. If your last couple of sentences are any guide, I don’t expect you to figure it out.
Kimmitt
“I’m sure not all Democrats approve of how this is being handled, but apparently the one’s paying attention do.”
I’m certainly glad that Berger quit Kerry’s campaign before he got fired, but it’s extremely amusing to me to watch the right-wing Fandago over a case in which charges have not even been filed — and some facts which were given to us earlier (the socks thing) appear to have been fabrications.
The guy screwed up, and now he isn’t going to work in government anymore. It will probably be nearly impossible to prove criminal wrongdoing.
willyb
“It will probably be nearly impossible to prove criminal wrongdoing. ”
I’m no lawyer, but I understand that removing documents from the Archives is a crime. He admitted to removing documents on more than one occasion, and in some cases the same document on more than one occassion. What does it take to prove criminal wrongdoing?
Slartibartfast
I think the meat of the matter is less in whether there’s a case, but more how harshly it ought to be prosecuted. And that will be determined by the investigation, although why it’s taken so long to investigate a case where the perpetrator, the crime scene and the crime are fairly well understood. Perhaps it’s a matter of determining intent.
Slartibartfast
Charges were never filed against John Deutch, either. That Clinton bothered to pardon him in spite of that is indicative of how these things can take a while to get to the charges-being-filed stage.
willyb
Slartibartfast,
Intent?? I take it you are buying in to the “I did it inadvertently” line … you know, the dog ate my homework.
His motive is what I would like to know about. But given his story about how he came to commit a crime inadvertently on several occasions, I’m not sure we can trust his explanation of his motive.
Slartibartfast
No, intent as in: was he just deliberately skirting the rules, or was he passing information along to someone else?
Not saying he was, mind you. But there’s a rather different section of code that deals with “inadvertent” compromise, versus deliberate exposure. And rather different consequences.
willyb
Slartibartfast,
Don’t mean to nitpick …
Motive is defined as “something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act.” Intent means “a usually clearly formulated or planned.” Merriam-Webster Online.
“In the popular mind intent and “motive” are not infrequently regarded as one and the same thing. In law there is a clear distinction between them. “Motive” is the moving power which impels to action for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such rewsult.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition (1975).
In other words, Berger is arguing that he had no intent (plan) to commit a crime. Why he kept coming back with no intent to commit a crime would explain his motive.
Flagwaver
Well, Kimmitt, I see you read your Josh Marshall religiously, and absorb your daily dose of Kool-Aid. Valerie Plame????? That’s the best response you’ve got????
First of all, there is a very high likelihood that VP did not meet the requirements for an “undercover agent” subject to the protections of the law in question. Second, I’ve seen no proof adduced that VP was EVER an undercover CIA agent (other than her and her lying husband’s assertions to that effect). Third, we have allegations of a “journalist” that he got the information in question from a “high administration source.” Ummm . . . Richard Clarke (until way TOO recently, he would have qualified). Maybe a Clinton appointee at the CIA or NSA???
I dunno, seems to me there’s a rather LARGE difference between someone ADMITTING that he removed HIGHLY CLASSIFIED documents from the National Archives ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, and . . . OOPS!! . . . “inadvertently” lost or destroyed same, some of which were interim drafts with commentary (and which may very well have painted a less than flattering picture of his philandering ex-boss and his own sorry ass)
yes there’s a difference between that and some unnamed, unknown (and, frankly, possibly mythical) “someone” who ALLEGEDLY “outed” some bint who was ALLEGEDLY an undercover CIA agent (but who had been in the U.S. raising children for approx. four years and was, therefore, unlikely to have been an active field agent in ANY event within the relevant prior five years.
Yeah, I’d have to say that there is a slight difference. But, then, I’m just one of those irrational right wingnuts.
Go buy a clue, wouldya???
willyb
Flagwaver,
On the Valerie Plame “outing,” federal law makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert intelligence officer with the intention of damaging national security. However, if the motive for disclosing the identity was to support a claim of nepotism, that is, to support a claim by an administration official that Joe Wilson got the Niger mission because of his wife, Valerie Plame, then the required motive would be missing.
From the July 20, 2004 WSJ; Page A10, Mr. Wilson’s Defense:
‘Mr. Wilson’s defense, in essence, is that the “Republican-written” Senate Intelligence Committee report is a partisan hatchet job. We could forgive people for being taken in by this, considering the way the Committee’s ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, has been spinning it over the past week. But the fact is that the three most damning conclusions are contained not in Chairman Pat Roberts’s “Additional Views,” but in the main body of the report approved by Mr. Rockefeller and seven other Democrats.
Number one: The winner of last year’s Award for Truth Telling from the Nation magazine foundation didn’t tell the truth when he wrote that his wife, CIA officer Valerie Plame, “had nothing to do with” his selection for the Niger mission. Mr. Wilson is now pretending there is some kind of important distinction between whether she “recommended” or “proposed” him for the trip.
Mr. Wilson had been denying any involvement at all on Ms. Plame’s part, in order to suggest that her identity was disclosed by a still-unknown Administration official out of pure malice. If instead an Administration official cited nepotism truthfully in order to explain the oddity of Mr. Wilson’s selection for the Niger mission, then there was no underlying crime. Motive is crucial under the controlling statute.
The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act was written in the wake of the Philip Agee scandal to protect the CIA from deliberate subversion, not to protect the identities of agents and their spouses who choose to enter into a national political debate. In short, the entire leak probe now looks like a familiar Beltway case of criminalizing political differences. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should fold up his tent.’
Steverino
“At any rate, I’m still confused on the point of whether Berger absconded with original documents (very very bad) or copies (sloppy and extremely confusing).”
As usual, Kimmitt is talking out of his ass again.
As others have pointed out, unauthorized removal and destruction of classified documents is a crime, whether those documents are originals or copies.
There is no conceivable way you can conclude that taking out copies is merely “sloppy and confusing”, especially if you know anything at all about classified material. And Sandy Berger most certainly knew how to handle classified material; his signature attesting to that knowledge is likely on over 100 documents, as part of gaining and maintaining his clearances.
As for the Plame caper, your analogy falls apart again. (But you should be used to that by now.) We’re at different stages of the investigation in the two matters. Once we have a culprit in the Plame case, I’ll be really pissed at him, whoever he is. But the Berger case has a culprit identified, and the culprit has already admitted to committing several crimes.
Dean
Kimmitt:
Let’s try this:
Imagine that there’s a military document. Let’s call it the Single Integrated Operational Plan—a document that gives a list of all the targets for our nuclear warheads.
Imagine there are ten “copies,” that is, there are ten of these. Would losing one of these be okay? Would it be different from losing the “original,” i.e., the very first one of these?
There was a fellow a few years back who passed along a “copy” of the manual for one of our spy satellites to the Soviets. Do you think the fact that it was a “copy,” rather than the very first one off the press made a difference in *his* prosecution?
Kimmitt
Look, the WSJ called for the declassification of the documents in question so everyone could see what was taken — it’s obvious that these were relatively routine documents. The reason why it would be worse if it were the only original would be that such an act would imply an intent to deceive the 9/11 Commission and any future workers in the area. That appears not to be the case.
But, again, I’m amazed by the reaction to this from people who attempted to claim that burning a CIA agent was no big deal. It’s pretty clear that the explosion of outrage here is exclusively due to the partisan affiliation of the man in question.
Slartibartfast
First, the WSJ is not the proper agency to call for declassification. Second, a redacted version of the documents could be declassified, but that wasn’t what Berger took. A document with the sensitive bits redacted could certainly clue us in to the nature of what was taken, without actually declassifying the contents.
Again, the WSJ is your source for the documents being unimportant? Please.
Dean
Sure, Slarti. After all, all conservatives are racists, the GOP is anti-poor, and the WSJ is part of the VRWC, so it knows, as part of teh warmongering right, what is and is not declassifiable.
Flagwaver
Kimmitt,
I guess you decided you didn’t want to address the substance of your allegations. Let me be more direct:
1. Give me your EVIDENCE that Valerie Plame was EVER an undercover operative for the CIA.
2. Give me your evidence that VP had served in that capacity within five years of the date of the “leak”
3. Give me your evidence that the “senior administration official” who “leaked” this information was in fact a Bush appointee, as opposed to, for example, a Clinton holdover.
4. Give me your evidence that the “leak” in any way endangered VP. Include your evidence to show that VP was, at the time of the leak, still engaged by (and likely to be used in that capacity by) the CIA as a deep cover agent.
5. Finally, give me your evidence that the intent of the party “leaking” the information was to endanger VP’s life (a requirement of the statute).
When you’ve given me your 411 on all this, I’ll consider treating your Sandy Berger analogy seriously. Until then, it’s just a REALLY bad joke, straight off of Josh Marshall’s and Oliver Willis’ moonbat websites. (And, yes, I seriously consider Marshall and Willis to be moonbats. ANYONE still seriously defending Joe Wilson or Sandy Berger could be naught else.)
Kimmitt
1-3: The fact that a grand jury is not hearing testimony as to whether nor not it took place, but who did it. Soon we’ll have the whole story (thank goodness), but it’s not like I’m some random schmoe perpetuating a conspiracy theory here; Patrick Fitzgerald is a serious sort of person who would not waste his time otherwise.
4-5: For this to be relevant, you would have to prove that the documents which Mr. Berger put the lives of US personnel at risk before you went apesh*t on him. Of course, this is not true, so what you have just done is to provide strong support for my thesis — that the selective outrage is due to partisan affiliation, rather than the actions in question.
Dean
Flagwaver:
#4 is not relevant. Whether her life was endangered may make a difference in the degree of cupidity and stupidity, but it is irrelevant to whether what was done was legal.
Kimmitt:
That being said, Flagwaver’s #5 point is key: The law says that you must prove intent.
Which is done in the case of Berger. Taking the notes out IN FULL KNOWLEDGE that that was illegal is gross negligence. Taking items from the National Archives REPEATEDLY is evidence of gross negligence.
And taking items that are Top Secret Codeword is WORSE than blowing VP, b/c you are, by definition, jeopardizing “sources and methods,” which potentially means multiple lives, very hush-hush programs, or both.
Slartibartfast
By “is”, Kimmitt evidently means “was, six months ago”. Got anything more recent, Kimmitt?
Kimmitt
This may be useful to you.