Looks like Mr. ‘Is that a file folder in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?’ Berger has had his sentencing post-poned:
Sentencing for former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who pleaded guilty in April to stealing and destroying top secret terrorism documents from the National Archives, has been delayed, NewsMax.com has learned…
After Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman allowed Berger to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, he requested what some consider an extraordinarily light sentence given the gravity of the crime – a $10,000 fine, a three-year suspension of Berger’s security clearance and no jail time.
The recommendation for leniency was in stark contrast with the comments of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who suggested after the document theft story broke that Berger could be headed to jail.
“We take issues of classified information very, very seriously,” Comey told reporters, before adding, “All felonies in the federal system bring with them the promise of jail time, that’s all I can say about that.”
Not sure why it was postponed, as the story provides no details.
Hmmmm, multiple choice test. Will the most popular Kossack/Atriette response to this post be:
A) It’s not as bad as what Rove did
B) they were copies, not originals
C) Ann Coulter’s a whore
D) YOUR LINK IS FROM NEWSMAX, GET A REAL SOURCE
The correct answer is E: All of the above (BUSH LIED!!!)
If the left-wing wet dream comes true, I figure only Sandy-pants will be Karl Rove’s prison bride.
Its rather ammusing that the last several days the comments here have featured numerous excuses and denials for Rove. Why should the left be any different than the right?
Hypocracy is the philosophy of partisans. Deflection is the supreme tactic.
Just as you predict the left will say “It’s not as bad as what Rove did”, I will wager that Berger will be the latest GOP talking-point excuse regarding Rove.
Is there anyone who thinks that, perhaps, they are both guilty and one crime does not excuse another, regardless of the scope?
“We take issues of classified information very, very seriously,”
“We” does not inclue the President or the White House, obviously.
I don’t think what Berger did was as bad (or malicious) as what Rove did, nor would it actually have any further ramifications, but classified is classified. He should have known better and examples need to be made.
I’m with you Marcus. throw the book at ’em both.
What Berger did was worse than Watergate. He outta get the G. Gordon Liddy suite in Leavenworth.
Yes, with the caveat that it might be wise to wait until Rove is actually charged with a crime and then convicted before we start measuring him for his striped outfit. Agreed?
You’re the predictable one, Jeff. Not hard to guess who you indict and who you defend. For those that would persecute one while defending the other, pause and reflect on your value systems. The fact that this administration has allowed this to fester and will (may) only act as a result of independent investigation findings tells all you need to know about how they value political concerns over bolstering/maintaining intelligence capability. Why is this particular brand of politics acceptable? Aren’t we better than this?
IMO, irrespective of degree and intent, both engaged in felonious behavior and deserve their to-be-determined punishments.
You ask too much, Defense Guy.
As I noted on one of those long threads yesterday, the real question re: Rove is “Who told him?” As it happens, my FOX/GOP Secret Decoder/Incoming Talking Points Ring flashed Code Red last night, so I tuned in to the rebroadcast of Hume’s show. Where, wonder of wonders, Birnbaum of the WaPo asked the exact same question. Hume, unsurprisingly, stated that “According to Rove’s camp, he got it from a reporter”.
If that is true, her cover was blown already, and no crime was committed. If Rove got her name from classified sources, then more than one crime was committed. I don’t pretend to know which of these statements is true. I like to call that “intellectual honesty”. Both sides could use more.
Off topic, but I’m tired of all-Rove, all-the-time. Not so much here as over at Kos. I don’t like the Bush administration and I like seeing bad things happen to them. But I like a little variety. On the other hand, who am I to complain about what shows up on other people’s blogs?
You guys crack me up. Berger attempted to CHANGE HISTORY and DELETE FACTS FROM THE RECORD. That’s major.
Revealing (inadvertantly or not) a minor bureaucrat has no comparison…or please show me the permanent damage to Plame?
Eh? Got a link for that. Pretty sure I read a conclusion to the contrary from one investigation or another.
Aaron, I’m with Doug. Everything I’ve ever read about Berger is that he was removing marked copies. He knew they were copies, not originals, and I don’t believe anything was actually ever missing (I might be wrong about that). Those reasons were why I was always curious what the hell he was even doing? Was this stuff was so compelling he needed to take it home to read in bed?
Anyway, that being the case, Berger never did any harm. It’s why he is likely to be shown leniency. I DON’T THINK THAT’S RIGHT, HOWEVER! Berger is the fucking former NSA. He knows the regulations, and there is no excuse for his behavior. At the very least, he has shown he should NEVER have clearance again, not just a suspension.
Aaron, Aaron, Aaron…do you even attempt to collect and interpret facts? Don’t you think you deserve the best representation possible? If so, then a little introspection is in order, and sometimes you must call your own guys on misconduct.
“Hmmmm, multiple choice test. Will the most popular Kossack/Atriette response to this post be:
D) YOUR LINK IS FROM NEWSMAX, GET A REAL SOURCE”
Interestingly, the right decries the liberal media but cites the liberal media as authority joyfully and without any sense of self-awareness whenever it suits its purpose. Even in the Wilson-Plame-Rove affair, the right has been linking to a Susan Schmidt article of 10 July 04 in the Washingon Post as a proof of point, of course, failing to notice that the point they are supporting is erroneously described in the article and that a correction/retraction has been published.
On the other hand, you will never find a lefty linking to NEWSMAX except to argue with it or laugh at it. So, yes,
your link is from Newsmax, get a real source.
The finest example is what I call the “Darrell Three-step”–the one that proves that “Hell, Plame wasn’t even undercover anyway.” The choreography is something like this:
Darrell unimpeachably says she wasn’t undercover because he read it in Powerline.
Powerline unimpeachably says she wasn’t undercover because an unnamed source told them that in an e-mail.
The e-mail unimpeachably says she wasn’t undercover, because in a paraphrase, not a direct quote, Andrea Mitchell is purported to have said that.
Meanwhile, one of the six reporters identified as having received information about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame after Wilson’s op-ed is, wait for it…..
Andrea Mitchell. [Goes to state of the mind of the witness, your honor, if, that is, she was really a witness.]
And I didn’t learn that at Newsmax, it was in the liberal media.
Everything I’ve ever read about Berger is that he was removing marked copies. He knew they were copies, not originals
“Documents are classied because of the infomation they contain. Therefore, copies of classified documents are equally as classified as the originals,” says the former holder of a high-level security clearance.
This is not a difficult concept.
The relevancy to their being copies is in relation to the above (moronic) statement–which doesn’t make it OK as the commenter mentioned.
Please try to keep up, it’s not a difficult concept.
Wrong. The comment didn’t think that lifting copies were as serious as lifting orignals and was doubtful that harm was done for that reason.
Is it legal? Obviously not. Did it do any harm (the point of the commenter quoted) who knows? We may not find out whether (or not) harm was done until down the road, which makes the question of whether harm was done or not an irrelevant one. That’s why the unauthorized removal of classified material is illegal.
Now, if you have some additional knowledge to add to that, be John’s guest.
The relevancy to their being copies is in relation to the above (moronic) statement—which doesn’t make it OK as the commenter mentioned.
My understanding is that they were *marked-up* copies, and the mark-ups were what Berger was trying to remove from the historical record.
Marginalia of this sort is obviously potentially very embarassing to the scrivener. One can well imagine that John Roberts wishes he could shred, Berger-style, his old handwritten notes that are now being trumpeted by the press.