Thursday, January 25, 2007

"Let Jack Bauer do it!!!"

.



Seems that when Sandy Berger made a deal to avoid jail time he agreed to take a polygraph test if the Justice department decided it was needed. The Washington Times reports that 18 House Republicans are now urging the Justice Department to hold Sandy-boy to his agreement…

Just a few weeks back it was reported that Sandy admitted that when he removed documents about the Clinton-9/11 response to terrorism he hid them under a trailer outside of the archives building. These are the documents that he took by “Mistake” and unfortunately some were destroyed when he was routinely cutting paper just for fun…

This guy is a joke and he should have had the book thrown at him…

He hid terrorism related intelligence documents in his pants and removed them from the archives only to destroy them before he testified about Clintons actions and\or lack of actions related to fighting terrorism.

We need to hook this thief up to the machine and see what he really knows and what he is hiding.

I SAY WE LET JACK BAUER DO IT !!!








Working on list now of questions to ask Sandy-boy once he is hooked up to the machine…



http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070124-121614-2703r.htm

17 comments:

zen said...

Please be clear and accurate in what you parrot....too much to ask?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050909-122225-2387r.htm

Prosecutors said at the time Mr. Berger knew the rules for handling the documents and had taken only copies. They said the originals remained in the government's possession.

(same source as you used, so it must not fall under the bad mainstream media)

RightsideVA said...

Seems more updated info out there since that date of your Ref...

Your source dated 9 Sept 2005
------------------------------
BERGER FINED FOR TAKING PAPERS
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 9, 2005

zen said...

So then show me a source that shows the prosecutor in the case claimed, or an investigation has found, that something other than copies were taken.

RightsideVA said...

From the Washington Times article 21 Dec 2006:

"The government charged that Mr. Berger "knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places," including his office in the District.
Mr. Berger initially claimed he took the documents as the result of an "honest mistake," but later admitted that he placed the classified records in his pants and jacket and put other classified documents in a leather portfolio."

No mention of if the documents were originals or "Copies", (Would there be a copy machine accessible when viewing documents like these?) but yet you want to defend this piece of crap?

Why do you think he took the documents by "Mistake"?

JohnMaxfield said...

http://johnathanmaxfield.blogspot.com/2007/01/bill-clinton-authorized-sandy-bergers.html#links

zen said...

Where did I defend anyone? I didn't.
I only suggested that you accurately portray the incident. And did so by using the same source as you, as to avoid your claiming some sort of media bias.

Steve Harkonnen said...

Berger should be punished for what he did. You don't go to the archives and steal classified documents or attempt to conceal them in any way. Putting his political backing to the side, even if Berger were a Republican I'd be calling for him to be punished and the first step should have been to permanently revoke his clearance.

zen said...

I fully agree that he was completely wrong, and should pay the consequences. But let's not make up facts. The facts are that he took copies. In all likelyhood to "study up" for hearings, not to spill secrets.

RightsideVA said...

The first article that mentions "Copies" is from 2 years ago and I would default to the latest story dated last week. If Sandy-boy had taken only "Copies" would not he and his lawyer be crying foul at every opportunity?

If only stealing "Copies" then why would he have to destroy them? The originals would then be in the archives...

Sandy boy is a joke and a thief.
Period

zen said...

The more recent story does not contridict the statements from the prosecutor in the case that claimed only copies were removed. You are reading something into the story that is not there. That my friend is called "Spin" or at least "selective ignorance." That was a detail the WT deemed important to put into the first story, but why did they not included it in the later story? Has the prosecutor said something different since then? If so, then why not publish that?
Don't think that right-friendly news media do not spin.

Copies of sensitive material are still sensitive material. Of course he was wrong for removing them, but at least he had the presence of mind to destroy them when he was finished, so that the only version's exist in the archives where they belong.

Again, don't confuse an honest critique of media, as a judgement on the individual being covered. Simply stated, the prosecutor made statements that have not been contridicted, or that he's since revised. The paper wrote another story and chose not to include this important detail.

RightsideVA said...

"Berger eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

"In November 1997, Berger paid a $23,000 civil penalty to settle conflict of interest allegations stemming from his failure to sell his stock of Amoco Corporation as ordered by the White House. Berger was advised by the White House to sell the stock in early 1994. Berger said he had planned to sell the stock, but then forgot. He denied knowingly participating in decisions in which he had a financial interest. With no evidence Berger intentionally intended to break the law, the U.S. Justice Department determined a civil penalty was adequate for a "non-willful violation" of the conflict of interest law"

The guy has a history of being a putz and look even the wikipedia people did not mention "copies"...

zen said...

Amazingly, you are wrong again. Actually the wiki article does indeed mention "copies" (see below). The source "21" is in fact the same Washington Times article I pointed you to in the first place.

After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.[21] This led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations, stating in part:
“ Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out... 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.'[22]

RightsideVA said...

Found the following article by the Washington Post last week that also does not mention "Copies" the same as the "Times"...
----------------------------------
Document-Theft Probe Is Criticized
Justice Dept., Archives Cited in Report
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; A04
----------------------------------
The interesting thing is how there was little follow-up on Sandy and why he has not been held to his agreement to take a polygraph...
I heard and interesting theory today in that we are dealing with the "Career" part of the Federal government and the people who are not elected and will be there whenever a new "Party" takes control. Different viewpoint from the "administration's" and there is the "Push hard on this and we will push back harder on you somewhere else" understanding between these people...

zen said...

Why are you too proud to admit a mistake? Why do you continue to fight, rather than simply acknowledge you were wrong?

RightsideVA said...

I linked to a Washington Times article that did not mention that an article two years ago claimed that they were "Copies" taken. I also just provided a article by the Washington Post that also did not mention anything about "Copies".

It has been a good debate and I do acknowledge the info about "Copies" in a article from two years ago. I have also allowed you to sidetrack the discussion away from the fact that Sandy is nothing but a cheap thief who worked for a President more worried about his "Image" then the safety and security of the country he reresented. Your defense of the "Copies" aspect of this story and pretty much, not totally, ignoring the fact that Sandy may have destroyed other documents says alot to me. Perhaps that is an example of "Selective Ignorance" as you have claimed I have but I doubt it. You are obviously too smart for that so it must be a tactic to lead the debate away from the true topic.

zen said...

I have no problem with you remarking on your opinion about Berger and the Clinton administration. I am in full, complete agreement that Berger's actions were wrong. Do not profess to know what motivated his actions. Apparently you do, and with extreme certainty.

The problem that I have is your attempt to spin away from the known facts to "prove" your predetermined point. This is something you do repeatedly and often. While at the very same time you constantly rail against bias in media reports, you do the same, very, exact, same thing! That's known as hypocrisy.
And by his bhavior you show a lack of respect for having any debate based upon facts and merit. Why do you feel threatened and choose to operate only in the realm of speculation?

In this case of Berger, we know for a fact what the prosecutor has said. He said that "copies" were taken not originals, and that nothing was out of the 9/11 commision's reach. This was reported, as you note in an article from two years ago.
Now, here is the key to the problem I have with your spin: Finding a more recent article that fails to mention this does not prove that the prosecutor thinks any differently. If it proves anything at all is that the media does NOT have a liberal bias. By leaving this very relevent detail out of subsequent reports (copies only) it gives the very false impression that the matter is unclear. But it is very clear.
As we know, based on the prosecutor's very own words—the guy accusing and trying Berger of the crime—clearly says that they were only copies. The negligence of including this detail, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

How can you argue with that?

Anonymous said...

Hey Rightside, Sandy just hired Lee Hamilton who headed the 9-11 commission to work with him and his investment company! Gee-no conflict of interest. Jim in Stafford