Those Who Are Complicit In The Sandy Berger Thefts


A new article in today’s WaPo highlights those who are complicit in the theft of documents from the National Archives by Sandy Berger.  The National Archives was complicit by allowing Berger to break the rules:

Nancy Kegan Smith, who directs the Archives’ presidential documents staff and let Berger view the documents in her office in violation of secrecy rules. Smith said "she would never know what if any original documents were missing," Brachfeld reported in an internal memo.

She also let a week go by without informing other authorities about the theft:

Brachfeld (ed. Inspector General of the National Archives) has similarly expressed frustration that Smith and others who suspected Berger of wrongdoing chose not to inform him of their suspicions until more than a week after Berger’s last visit to the Archives. "If I had been notified, I would have put cameras in the room. I would have caught him leaving with documents on him. . . . We could have had FBI agents around the facility. . . . He would have been arrested," Brachfeld said.

Brachfeld warned people that Berger may have in fact taken more then the 5 copies he admitted to, he may have taken originals which were never copied:

Brachfeld said he was worried that during four visits in 2002 and 2003, Berger had the opportunity to remove more than the five documents he admitted taking. Brachfeld wanted the Justice Department to notify officials of the 9/11 Commission that Berger’s actions — in combination with a bungled Archives response — might have obstructed the commission’s review of Clinton’s terrorism policies.

The Justice Department spurned the advice, and some of Brachfeld’s colleagues at the Archives greeted his warnings with accusations of disloyalty. But more than three years later, as Brachfeld and House lawmakers have pushed new details about Berger’s actions onto the public record — such as Berger’s use of a construction site near the Archives to temporarily hide some of the classified documents — Brachfeld’s contentions have attracted fresh support.

The above paragraph highlights the Justice Departments complicity in this whole affair.  Ignoring warnings given that originals were taken and destroyed.  Brushing everything under the carpet.

What was in those documents?  Nobody knows, and we probably will never know.  But looking at the case from the outside we can all surmise that the documents may well have affected the outcome of the 9/11 Commission’s conclusions. 

And then we have the dismissal of this story by our MSM.  Sure, the WaPo writes an article so we should all be happy right?  But they relegate it to the backpages, A13 to be exact, while Libby is front and center.  A perjury trial or the theft of original classified documents from our archives that relate to 9/11….which one is more important?

Well, according to Berger’s attorney, it’s all trivial:

"It never ceases to amaze me how the most trivial things can be politicized. It is the height of unfairness . . . for this poor guy, who clearly made a mistake," Breuer said.


Other’s Blogging:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wow. Look at Mr. Skeptical.
Able to cut through the BS and find out (what he thinks is) the truth.

Waiting with baited breath for his follow-up piece about how Cheney met with oil execs in 2001 to divvy-up the Iraqi oil fields.

Keep fighting the good fight, Curt.

Waiting with baited breath for his follow-up piece about how Cheney met with oil execs in 2001 to divvy-up the Iraqi oil fields.

Tinhat time fellas…snagged us a big one too.

And here I thought all that cheap gas was because of all the new oil wells we are digging….silly me.


I’m waiting with baited breath for Robert’s follow up off-topic response.

Just in case any of the “both sides do it” crowd show up:

Isn’t it amazing that Scooter Libby is on trial for his life for not accurately recalling a conversation he had or didn’t have about events that were not even a crime and yet Sandy Berger gets off with stealing and destroying some of the nation’s most secret national security documents perhaps directly relevant to how we came to be attacked on September 11th?

Anyone needing even more proof that Republicans are held to a much, MUCH higher standard of conduct need look no further.

I remember that trial about the guy who lied under oath – no, I don’t guess I do, since Clinton was never tried for it and was only disallowed to practice law for a while. Anyway, I don’t see why you guys are upset, since Berger was just protecting Hillary, or was it Bill? Then again, maybe he was just protecting the Chinese – or maybe just those dealing with the Chinese (Sorry, I forgot I had already mentioned Bill and Hillary), or maybe someone else.

No matter, since there is a guy on trial for possibly letting out the supposed secret that a lady who recommended her husband for a high-level (well-paid) assignment in Africa was on the payroll of the people who vetted that trip. I heard her husbands story about the trip was not very truthful – what happened at his trial?