Sandy Berger As We Suspected

Annie

Annie

Not So Junior Member
Gee, wonder if he'll be with Hillary or Obama?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061220/D8M4R7DO0.html

Report Says Berger Hid Archive Documents


Dec 20, 5:05 PM (ET)

By LARRY MARGASAK

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday.

The report was issued more than a year after Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removal of the documents.

Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he said it was possible he threw them in his office trash.

The report said that when Archives employees first suspected that Berger - who had been President Clinton's national security adviser - was removing classified documents from the Archives in the fall of 2003, they failed to notify any law enforcement agency.

Berger, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents, was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

The report said that when Berger was reviewing the classified documents in the Archives building a few blocks from the Capitol, employees saw him bending down and fiddling with something white, which could have been paper, around his ankle.

However, Archives employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said.

Brachfeld reported that on one visit, Berger took a break to go outside without an escort.

"In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... .

"Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)."

Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

Berger, with the authorization of former President Clinton, was reviewing National Security Council documents on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, Sudan, and related presidential correspondence. The review was to facilitate Berger's impending testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Click to expand...
 
MtnBiker said:
Imagine the media shit storm if Condi had done this.
Click to expand...

It's really unbelievable that he got such a light punishment, though the magistrate did up the $$$ fine. Of course, DOJ was for the lower amount, plea. They all take care of each other.
 
uscitizen said:
Now perhaps, 1 year ago the media would have been hands off.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, the media has never been fond of her. A year ago it was all about her excercise regime and shopping, while leading GW buy the you know whats.
 
Perhaps you are right. But then consider too that she is a minority female, the press does not want to appear to be picking on her.
Look at all the stink the "demon eyes" retouched photo made :)
 
uscitizen said:
Perhaps you are right. But then consider too that she is a minority female, the press does not want to appear to be picking on her.
Look at all the stink the "demon eyes" retouched photo made :)
Click to expand...

I think that had more to do, once again, by the MSM industry using photoshop so badly.

Being GOP trumps race. No holds barred.
 
Runyon said:
It's really unbelievable that he got such a light punishment, though the magistrate did up the $$$ fine. Of course, DOJ was for the lower amount, plea. They all take care of each other.
Click to expand...
If I had done this when I was in the Navy, I'd still be in Leavenworth...
 
Remember our elected /appointed representatives are not subject to the same laws that we that pay their salary are.
 
uscitizen said:
Remember our elected /appointed representatives are not subject to the same laws that we that pay their salary are.
Click to expand...

Not the same types of punishments, which was the point. The only 'legal' difference in the law though, has to do with arrest while in legislative session.
 
uscitizen said:
Nope, congress is exempt from sexual harassment laws, and many other laws.
Click to expand...

You've got a point with that. My bad. You know, something should be done about that, sorta like earmarks. Seems it might be something liberal and conservative citizens could actually agree on?
 
yeah I liked it (NOT) When KY passes its smoking in the workplace laws.
The state leglislature offices are exempt form the smoking ban in all state office buildings....
 
Well the whole 'legislating smoking' is curtailing our rights and increasingly so. Being here near Chicago, where the alderman feel free to outlaw foie gras and
working on regulating trans fats we are treated to stories regulary:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0612210135dec21,1,4415901.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Let 'em eat foie gras, they declare
Almost 4 months after ban, a number of restaurants appear to be dishing up the delicacy with impunity
Advertisement


By Josh Noel
Tribune staff reporter

December 21, 2006

When the letter came from City Hall threatening punishment if he continued to serve foie gras at his North Side restaurant, Doug Sohn framed the warning and set it beside his cash register.

And he kept serving the fattened duck liver without a care.

"We displayed it proudly," said Sohn, owner of Hot Doug's, a gourmet sausage eatery where the daily special can include smoked pheasant topped with foie gras chunks. "My customers and myself enjoy foie gras."

Almost four months after an ordinance went into effect that forbids serving the rich delicacy, many chefs and restaurateurs are shrugging, if not thumbing their noses, at a law that has led to charges of an overly invasive City Council.

Several restaurants are so brazen, they list foie gras on their online menus....

...Ald. Joe Moore (49th), sponsor of the ban, took no exception to the fact that foie gras investigation is among the lower priorities for the Public Health Department, or that it is not more active with enforcement.

But he was dismayed to know restaurants are flouting the ordinance.

"It evinces a certain degree of arrogance on the parts of these establishments, but I hope the city will act accordingly," Moore said.

Sohn is among a handful of restaurateurs who say they have no plans to remove the delicacy from their menus. Some owners have tiptoed around the ban by serving the dish under alternate or code names ("I'll have the special lobster" will supposedly score foie gras at one restaurant), but renegades say they'll do what they must to fight City Hall.

"A part of me says sure, I'd take it on," Sohn said. "Another part says why bother? I spend enough time and energy running the restaurant."

As he did before the ban, David Richards, owner of Sweets & Savories, has two foie gras dishes on the menu, which are two of his most expensive: a Kobe beef burger topped with foie gras pate and seared foie gras accompanied by pumpkin flan.

At first, he said, restaurant owners worried their access to foie gras would be limited, and they crafted plots to keep their supply flowing--like getting it mailed to a suburban address for weekly covert pickups. Such cunning turned out not to be necessary, he said. Richards still gets foie gras from the same distributor he always did, and no one seems to care that it is still on his menu.

"We look at it as a choice," he said. "We live in a free-market society and if people are truly offended they won't buy it. If they don't buy it, I won't buy it."

Instead, he said, his foie gras sales have climbed, making him even less inclined to heed the law. But just in case, he has talked with a couple of attorneys who double as loyal customers that told him they are ready to fight any citation on his behalf.

"One guy told me to just get the ticket and fight the constitutionality," Richards said. "But it has settled into a don't ask-don't tell scenario. I see it frequently on menus, and I don't even think about it."

...
Click to expand...
 
Fattened duck liver ? Yech....
Most all these for your own good laws are not for our own good. They are for the finiancial benefit of insurance companies and such.
 
uscitizen said:
Fattened duck liver ? Yech....
Most all these for your own good laws are not for our own good. They are for the finiancial benefit of insurance companies and such.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it leads to citizens breaking the laws. They learned nothing from prohibition, but if you know most Chicago alderman, well let's just say they are not the most intelligent bunch. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top