I sure hope Glenn Reynolds is right when he says the explanation for the Justice Department’s amazingly light proposed punishment for Sandy Berger is that the former National Security Adviser is secretly feeding them information. The Washington Times has a darker explanation:
We can only speculate as to why the Department of Justice would agree to such lenient terms for the offense. Perhaps career employees or holdovers with ties to Democrats are responsible. Perhaps the Bush administration went soft. Whatever the reason, we can be reasonably sure it wasn’t done for reasons of national security, justice or truth.
Well, truth may be involved, but I would be rather suspicious of Berger who has already admitted to lying about “inadvertently” removing annotated copies of terrorism-related “after action” memos from the National Archive and destroying them. What was Berger trying to hide? If all this comes down to partisan politics in the end, it is particularly repellent behavior. The lives of our families and friends are obviously in jeopardy in terrorist attacks such as the millennium one in these memos. If anything should be beyond party politics, it is the preservation of material related to such events. And if the need to win an election can turn intelligent people like Berger into pathetic and fearful automatons willing to do anything for electoral victory or to preserve the reputations of their allies, we are all in trouble. An example must be set in his case.
I saw this discussed on the panel on Brit Hume yesterday and Bill Sammon of the Washington Times was the only one on the panel who seemed to think it was a big deal.
The rest of them seemed to think that Berger screwed up and got caught and so he decided to destroy some of the stuff so as not to look like he had so much. They claimed there was nothing in the documents that the 9/11 Commission did not already know.
I was amazed. This is a big deal. The guy took and then destroyed classified documents and he made it worse by lying about it. Is he working with the Bushies? I dunno, but it seems to me a lot of people are being really cavalier about this.
Since the sentence was announced, I have been wondering whether Berger has something that the Bush folks want concealed. That something would come out at a trial, so in my mind’s eye I imagine Berger and the Justice Department prosecutors playing a game of chicken in the plea negotiations. They knew they couldn’t let him off with nothing, but they gave him the lightest sentence imaginable. I think Berger is keeping quiet about something that hurts the incumbant.
Roger, there are some aspects of Berger’s case that I don’t recall being discussed by bloggers:
1. The actual sentencing is scheduled for early July, and is under no constraint from the plea bargain, which at least raises the possibility that the judge intends to critically assess Berger’s testimony, and may be influenced by considerations of public perception.
2. Berger is (I think) still claiming he “took the documents for study” or at least made claims to that effect in his response to the judge’s questions, or in his public statements afterward.
Something to consider:
a. If Berger is claiming he took the documents for study, that is in effect asserting that he did not intend to destroy them.
b. Since he has lied to the public and to Federal investigators, and since he subsequently did destroy some of the documents (as he admits), is there reason to believe he is lying to the judge in his plea testimony, concerning his intentions and motives (that is, to “study” the documents)?
c. If the judge arrives at the conclusion that Berger lied (under oath I assume) in his plea, could the judge in fact send him up the river despite the “bargain”, and in fact send him there for much longer?
I find all of these explanations implausible. The idea that Berger removed the documents inadvertently is implausible, since he put them in his pants and socks. The inadvertence defense is beyond laughable. Therefore, the idea that he destroyed them simply to avoid embarrassment (having discovered his “inadvertent” removal of them) is also implausible. This is all beyond question now, because Berger has now admitted stealing and destroying them intentionally. Therefore the question is not whether he was guilty (and he also lied about what he did, by the way,) but why did he get such a generous plea bargain? I can think of only two reasons.
First, Justice didn’t have a good enough case to convict. Possible, but I think unlikely given the absolutely preposterous defense of inadvertence.
Second, as Glenn Reynolds speculates, Berger is cooperating in an investigation. But into what? He stole the documents, presumably for what he thought was a good reason. Probably in order to destroy content (margin notes) unique to the copies he stole, since other copies of the principal text survive. He did that presumably to hide what those notes said. So what is he now cooperating on? An investigation into the very matters he broke the law to conceal? Very unlikely.
I think we are looking at a case of “don’t go after the big boys, no matter which party they are in.” It smells bad to me.
It’s a kurfuffle. And, that a Clinton cohort would obey orders like this is not at all surprising.
That Sandy thinks in 3 years Hillary will be back and ressurect him? On what basis does he think this? The Clinton’s are loyal to people who jump on swords for them?
There’s more benefit in the republicans acting nice. And, not as deranged at the democrats. Who have been trying since their 9/11 commission “investigation” to Impeach Bush. Can’t. He’s done nothing wrong.
On the other hand, aren’t the memo copies in question coming off an original written by Richard Clarke?
Remember how Richard Clarke tried to blame Bush for not stopping 9/11 before it happened? But he was slammed by Condi. And, then it came out Condi didn’t keep him on; promote him, on in any way associate the Bush White House with this jerk.
Now, however, I have a better question: Who threw Sandy from the train? Who threw him into on-coming traffic? Who knew about the original memo? Why none other than Richard Clarke.
Clarke, Wilson and Plame are operatives with their own speed-dials to the MSM. So Clarke didn’t care who got hurt. He just wanted everyone to know he really, really did alert the Clinton White House about Osama. (But Clinton was being impeached. And, to ease his days, it may be possible that Sandy sat in Clinton’s chair. In the oval office; as these memos flew around?)
How can anyone have enough eyes, if the people you bring to Washington, if they’re not Monica. And, camp followers. And, the usual mix of Clinton hires … how did Richard Clarke set off this firecracker?
Kerfuffle, none the same.
Besides, I think it was wrong to send Martha to prison. I just blame that on a black, female judge; and a New York jury full of venom against a really successful woman. She was judged by a panel of her peers? Nah.
Not that I mind seeing Sandy Scissorhands cartoons. And, Bill Clinton’s “big shrug.” Right up there with “he didn’t have sex with that woman.” And, it’s just a matter of what “is” IS.
At least Sandy’s not dead in Arkansas, from Arkancide. It could’a been worse.
And, how can it hurt you now? Knowing the Sandy thinks the dems are witless enough to use Hillary to advance back to the White House. (Not.) And/or ANY DEMOCRAT is gonna save his goose.
Now that’s scary! The party that name-changed itself to Progressives. Are really, really REGRESSIVES, if you asked me.
I’ll take the dark view, thanks. Berger is getting a pass. And it’s absolute bullshit.
The Washington Post reports that the Justice Department said there was no evidence that former national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger was trying to conceal information when he illegally took copies of classified terrorism documents out of the National Archives in 2003.
Okay, I’ll buy that. But what, pray tell, is the fact that he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business (link) evidence of? Unathorized and inappropriate use of a sharp object? And if Department lawyers concluded that Berger took the documents for personal convenience — to prepare testimony — and not with the intent of destroying evidence or thwarting the Sept. 11 panel’s inquiry as to whether the Clinton administration did enough to confront a rising terrorist threat, perhaps they would explain why he needed five copies of the same document.
I’d like to believe and have faith in this JD, I really would. But they have to give me more than this. Sadly, I think it’s more likely that the current administration wants something concealed than Sandy Berger’s singing like a canary. About what??
What information could Berger have that could possibly be useful? He’s no security expert; he’s a freaking trade attorney!!! His appointment as National Security Advisor showed how totally unserious the Clinton administration was on adequately filling the position. This agreement, if followed, will be a disgrace.
Berger was offered a reduced plea because, tho DOJ had the evidence to hold out for more, it was decided that copping to a misdemeanor was a sufficient penalty. Berger is a spent force and ruined as a dissenting force on foreign policy issues for at least a couple years, and, the Administration avoids a media event at 3rd and Constitution Avenues, NW with a 12 person jury
of liberal District residents.
The Administration is not big on media trials especially against former Clintonistas. Its energy level is directed at terrorists. Image is important: it does not want to appear as a bunch of vindictive neocons with horns. Deals are cut now, plea entered, move on to more serious stuff. Rational, understandable and best for the long term.
“What was Berger trying to hide?”
Since Berger only had copies, not the originals, he wasn’t trying to hide anything.
Evidently the previous poster has not be following the story. The documents Berger took had copies, but also hand written responses to the text from members of the previous administration. Those annotations were one-of-a-kind.
Evidently the previous poster has not be following the story.
Not to mention overlooking the simple fact that Berger shredded some of the documents with scissors in his office after, ahem, removing them. This is not the behaviour of an innocent man with nothing to hide.
Berger was able to cop to the misdemeanor because he removed “copies” of a document, not the “original”.
If a “copy” has handwritten notes that are unique to it, does it not then become an “original”?
Even copies are serialized for strict control. There would be no reason to have more than one copy unless there were unique annotations on specific serialized copies. People with any brains (and a security clearance) don’t screw around with classified data unless they are up to something. Its a career ender.
JK -
“Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost.”
(2nd WaPo link)
Why would he shred the copies though? There must have been something original about these “copies” to make him do such a thing.
Steve J.,
You’re tremendously misinformed.
The level of classification of a given document is the same whether it is an “original” or a “copy”.
And the use of the word “copy” is misleading as well, as it implies identical iterations of an original.
Bill Clinton’s copy.
Sandy Berger’s copy.
Warren Christopher’s copy.
It was the handwritten notes in the margins of these copies that were the reason he committed what, by the letter of the law, are multiple felonies to remove and destroy them.
You get the idea.
At least I hope you do.
Steve J., why go to any length at all to defend Berger? He did something that was at best criminally stupid, something which would have gotten a file clerk thrown in a high security federal prison. He’s not worth defending.
Hell, if you want to get really Machiavellian, maybe the Bushies are letting him off in the hopes the Dems bring him on to “help” the Democratic contender in ’08. (You might ask yourself “how could Rove believe the Democrats could be that dumb”, but then remember this is the party that nominated Kerry last time around….)
YANNI:”It was the handwritten notes in the margins of these copies that were the reason he committed what, by the letter of the law, are multiple felonies to remove and destroy them.”
There is no evidence for this claim.
YANNI: “It was the handwritten notes in the margins of these copies that were the reason he committed what, by the letter of the law, are multiple felonies to remove and destroy them.”
SteveJ: “There is no evidence for this claim.”
Then please provide a plausible explanation why he destroyed three(I think) distinct copies of notes for the same meeting?
And OCD doesn’t count.
Re-read- an earlier poster says five copies.
Of notes for the same meeting.
YANNI -
Berger’s Plea (WSJ ONLINE)
The Justice Department shows admirable restraint.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521
Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
So we called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. “There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals,” said Mr. Hillman. “There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission.”