Sandy Berger pleads guilty

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:21 pm

That's the part I'm referring to, Vaulos - what other reason could there be for destroying 3 copies and handing 2 back?

Dd

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:50 pm

How were they verified as destroyed? I mean, he already lied once about it.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:22 pm

If they thought Berger took the other three and disclosed information with that level of security clearance, they wouldn't let him walk with a $10,000 fine. Sorry.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:53 pm

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out how a guy gets to destroy 3 unreplacable copies of a top secret document and only gets fined $10k.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:28 am

They were copies of the originals which are still in the archive. The only think I can think of is either he or someone else noted something on the copies and therefore could not return them to the archive.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:14 pm

Seriously though.. how were they verified as destroyed? Was it only his word?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:18 pm

Dunno. But apparently the Justice Department isn't too concerned.

The whole thing was likely trumped up to be far more than it was - nothing more than a dodge to distract from the 9/11 report.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:36 pm

What was there to dodge in the 9/11 report?

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:13 pm

Beek is taking a potshot. What he means to say is that the only possible reason for investgating Berger was becuase of a nefarious plot by Republicans to draw attention away from the 9/11 report (nevermind the fact that he did it and lied about it)

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:17 pm

Speaking of taking potshots...

The 9/11 report was sharply critical of Bush. The timing of the Berger leak was very suspicious.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:22 pm

Check the paranoia. Although it is the liberal mindset to worry more about "timing" of an investigation rather than "did he do it or not".

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:22 pm

I would not have characterized the 9/11 report as "sharply" critical of Bush.

It spread blame fairly equally.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:25 pm

There are a lot of questions.

Did he do it or not?

How serious was the infraction?

Is the seriousness being hyped or downplayed?

Was it being exploited for political purposes?

See, Embar, the reason it is progressively harder to have any respect for you is that you think that noting one aspect means denial of other aspects - particularly those you're trying to emphasize to the exclusion of others.

The fact that Berger's walking with a $10K fine despite the prosecution being Bush's Justice Department tells me the whole thing was a tempest in a teacup.

Of course, timing becomes important to the righties when it's what a Democrat is doing - how many times did we hear about Clinton's strikes at Osama bin Laden being distractions from Monica?

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:28 pm

Beek...

He plead guilty. He admitted he did it.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:34 pm

Yes, true. That one's been more or less answered.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:47 pm

I think it had a lot less to do with the 9/11 report.....and a lot more to do with:

"The criminal investigation came to light last July, and prompted Berger's resignation as a senior foreign policy adviser to 2004 Democratic nominee John F. Kerry."

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:48 pm

Did he do it or not?

Yes

How serious was the infraction?

Any time secret documents are removed from the archives it is a security risk

Is the seriousness being hyped or downplayed?

That would be a question for the media. The scale of seriousness is in who saw the information, what the information was, and what potential damage it may cause to our national security.

Was it being exploited for political purposes?

Anyone can point a finger and say "AH HA! Gotcha with your hand in the cookie jar Berger!". That does not diminish the fact that a crime has been committed and a breach of national security has occurred. Either side would attempt to use it as a political tool unfortunately.

The fact that Berger's walking with a $10K fine despite the prosecution being Bush's Justice Department tells me the whole thing was a tempest in a teacup.

The opposite could be said as well.......it is possible that there was a certain amount of leniency granted based on Berger's prior service and a fear from the administration that they would be perceived as coming down hard on Berger for partisan reasons.

Of course, timing becomes important to the righties when it's what a Democrat is doing - how many times did we hear about Clinton's strikes at Osama bin Laden being distractions from Monica?

As to the timing.........there is no evidence other than coincidence to link either the Berger investigation or the strikes into Afgahnistan to a motive of political distraction.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:13 pm

And the fact that the Berger thing was -leaked-, Jecks...

Jeff Gannon's presence in the Press Room was a breach of national security... I don't see the righties here caring.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:17 pm

C'mon Beek... the tinfoil hat is a little too tight, even for you.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:21 pm

I'm just going to smile, Embar, and suggest you weren't up on current events when the story broke:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5463586/

And then wait for the next time you go on insanely about public vs. private schools.