Jail Time?

[SuperScout]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.

The report was issued more than a year after Sandy Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removing the documents. Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration's representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials. [Or, to make sure that the Commission got what Clinton wanted them to get.]

Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said in a statement that the contents of all the documents exist today and were made available to the commission. [How can he make this statement? Not even the NARA has a complete inventory of working notes.]

But Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., outgoing chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said he's not convinced that the Archives can account for all the documents taken by Berger. Davis said working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives. "There is absolutely no way to determine if Berger swiped any of these original documents. Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials," Davis said.

Berger pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years. [If it had been Joe Six-Pack, he would have been sentenced to at least 10 in prison, and fined upwards of $100,000. Berger skated.]

Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that National Archives employees spotted Berger bending down and fiddling with something white around his ankles. The employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said. Later, when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he lied by saying he did not take them, the report said. [So why wasn't this POS also charge with perjury?]

Brachfeld's report included an investigator's notes, taken during an interview with Berger. The notes dramatically described Berger's removal of documents during an Oct. 2, 2003, visit to the Archives. Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets.

"He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said. He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

"He was aware of the risk he was taking," the inspector general's notes said. Berger then returned to the Archives building without fearing the documents would slip out of his pockets or that staff would notice that his pockets were bulging. The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.

In October 2003, the report said, an Archives official called Berger to discuss missing documents from his visit two days earlier. The investigator's notes said, "Mr. Berger panicked because he realized he was caught." The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash." After the trash had been picked up, Berger "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck," the notes said.

Significant portions of the inspector general's report were redacted to protect privacy or national security.

[39mto39g]

He lied, but its not against the law to lie, Except under oath. Lie to a Archives official, is not a big deal, The big deal to me would be that the officials seen the papers in his socks and let him walk out the door.
Taking stuff from a national archives should have a harsher penalty than a fine and community service, But then hitting an officer in DC doesn't even warrant a indictment. Selling Cocaine gets you elected to Mayor.

Ron

[SuperScout]

What I meant to write was 'lying in the course of an official investigation' is also a felony. Buglar Berger should have been indicted on several counts, including that one.

[39mto39g]

SS
Lieing, unless under oath is not against the law, Even in an official investigation'. You can lie to a cop all you want, Just don't do it after you raise your right hand and swear what you say is the Truth. Now if you lie in an investigation that helps a criminal get away you can be charged with aiding and abiding, OR even obstruction, but not lieing.
Sandy Berger, is a peace of crap, that should be in jail. but lieing shouldn't be the crime.
Ron

[Seascamp]

No slam time for Berger, forget that. Within his group of nestlings, this type of behavior is rewarded, not punished. His mission to subvert and make a mockery of the 9/11 Commission hearings was a fine success and no doubt one day there will be a bronze casting of Berger, lumpy socks and all, set within the Capital Mall. :re:

Scamp

[Robert Ryan]

Should have been sent to prison. Only politicans can break the law and not have to answer for it.

[covan]

Ron,

You wrote:
"Lieing, unless under oath is not against the law, Even in an official investigation'. You can lie to a cop all you want, Just don't do it after you raise your right hand and swear what you say is the Truth."

Tell that to Martha Stewart. Most of the charges against her were for lying to the FBI in the course of the investigation not for lying under oath.

[Keith_Hixson]

The crime of lying is also called obstruction of justice.
Perjury isn't the only lying that can be prosecuted.

However, Martha Stewart knowingly committed fraud and that was her big crime: illegal profits from inside stock knowledge.

Keith

[covan]

Keith,

You are correct about the lying/obstruction of justice charges.

Martha was convicted of 2 counts of lying, 1 count of obstruction of justice, and 1 count of conspiracy.

The SEC filed a civil suit on the insider trading issues and Ms. Stewart and the SEC settled with no admission of wrongdoing on her part but agreeing to pay $195,000 and barred from serving on the Board of Directors of any publically-traded company for 5 years.

Back on the subject . . . I agree that Berger should have gone to jail for his theft and destruction of government property. If it were you or I you can be sure we would be spending this Christmas and perhaps a few more at Allenwood.

[39mto39g]

Martha was not convicted of lying. She was convicted of obstruction of Justus(perjury), or lying under oath.
if simple lying were a crime, we'd all be in prison. Lying under oath is called perjury. Lying to a federal official when not under oath is certainly no worse than a federal official lying to you.
An official can tell you he's not a cop and he would never tell police. Thats a lie but he's not under oath so no crime.
When Martha raised her hand and then lied she committed a crime.

Ron