WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department over allegations that he took secret documents from the National Archives while reviewing Clinton administration records for the 9/11 commission.

Sources said that among the documents Berger took were drafts of a Clinton administration "after-action" report on efforts to thwart the so-called "millennium plot," a suspected al Qaeda attack planned around the New Year's holiday in 1999.

Berger was national security adviser during President Clinton's second term.

In a statement issued late Monday, Berger said the removal of those papers was unintentional.

Law enforcement sources said archive staff told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.

That latter allegation drew sharp responses from two of Berger's associates.

"That is absurd," said Joe Lockhart, President Clinton's former press secretary, who is advising Berger. "And anyone who says that is interested in something other than the truth."

Former White House lawyer Lanny Davis challenged any unnamed official who makes such an accusation to come forward publicly.

"I suggest that person is lying," he said. "And if that person has the guts, let's see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks."

The investigation has been under way since October, and its disclosure the week before the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts -- and just days before the 9/11 commission is due to release its report -- led some Democrats to question whether the news was leaked for political reasons.

"I do think the timing is very curious, given this has been under way now for this long," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. "Somebody leaked it, obviously, with intent, I think, to do damage to Mr. Berger, and I think that's unfortunate."

But an administration source told CNN that any suggestion the Justice Department leaked the investigation on purpose now is "simply not true."

Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, the Republican speaker of the House, said he was "profoundly troubled" by the probe and suggested Berger was trying to conceal damaging information from the 9/11 commission.

"What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets? Did these documents detail simple negligence, or did they contain something more sinister?" Hastert asked a statement.

One Berger associate said Berger acknowledges placing his handwritten notes into his pants pockets, and perhaps into his jacket as well.

National Archives' policy requires that if someone reviews classified documents and wants to take out handwritten notes, those notes must first be cleared by archivists.

Berger said Monday that he returned everything he had after the National Archives told him documents were missing, "except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded."

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," he said in a written statement.

Berger was designated as the official from the Clinton administration who would review documents relevant to 9/11 commission inquiries. He also was a witness at commission hearings and reviewed records to prepare for his personal testimony.

Ending role in Kerry campaign
Berger had served as an informal adviser to the campaign of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, but his lawyer announced Tuesday that he would no longer do so.

Kerry spokesman David Wade said the candidate was unaware of the probe, and Wade said the campaign would have no comment on the investigation.

A government source said some of the documents at issue were classified as "code word" materials -- the highest level of secrecy in the U.S. government, held more closely than nuclear secrets.

The source said the 9/11 commission was briefed on the Berger investigation, but the White House was never informed of the matter.

Archives officials told investigators that at least one draft of the millennium plot after-action report is still missing.

9/11 panel: Probe won't affect report
But Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the 9/11 commission, said commissioners have no reason to believe the Berger investigation will affect "the substance or integrity" of its final report, due to be released Thursday.

The 10-member bipartisan panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was established to investigate the events before, during and immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Felzenberg said the panel "believes it had access to all materials needed to do our report," and was "reasonably certain" it saw all versions of the missing after-action memo.

Associates said Berger knew there were copies of the documents and that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, the after-action report's author, was cooperating with the commission inquiry. They questioned what motive Berger would have had to take and destroy documents.

Two sources associated with the investigation said Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, made a detailed statement of Berger's view of the facts at issue several months ago and has offered to talk to the Justice Department about a resolution to the probe.

Breuer has renewed his offer to talk several times since, one of the Berger associates said, but said prosecutors have refused to enter into such discussions.

In the case of the classified documents removed from the archives, the associate said Berger was reviewing thousands of documents and trying to "power read" as much as possible -- placing some in a pile to be forwarded to the 9/11 commission and others in a "nonresponsive" file to be returned, because he did not believe they were relevant to the commission's requests.

Berger has told associates and his attorneys he deliberately set aside drafts of the millennium plot after-action report because it was a longer document and "he knew he needed to take some time on it," according to one adviser.

In Berger's account, after hours of reading documents, he inadvertently took the documents he had set aside to read later along with other materials and a leather portfolio he had carried into the screening room."


interesting isnt it?

Bush/Cheney '04

vice president redrepublican Esq., CFO, and Co Founding Father

this post has proudly been deemdr acism free by the Honorable Coalition of Bushupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, Redrepublican, Jookly, RepublicanChick, and TruthfullySpeaking adn their endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

the thing that should also be considered is not only what he took out, but he put BACK IN. he could have altered those documents that he took.

Apparently, some of the libs here forgot that at the time Berger stole those documents, he was John Kerry's foreign policy advisor, so any mistakes or bad calls he made would have tarnished Kerry.

Incidentally, Berger's referring to his taking of the documents from the National Archives as sloppy really goes to show how stupid they think people are. Sloppy is spilling your coffee on them. Maybe, sloppy is absent-mindedly tossing some in your briefcase as you go to leave. But stuffing documents in your underwear isn't "sloppy"; it's a cover-up.

oh i just love this. it was CLINTONS FAULT CLINTONS FAULT CLINTONS FAULT CLINTONS FAULT CLINTONS FAULT.
and some people wonder why i think liberals are bad? sheesh.



SEARCH FOR OSAMA
Berger blocked 4 plans to get bin Laden
9-11 commission report shows handwritten responses on documents

Posted: July 23, 2004
2:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger blocked four separate plans of action against the al-Qaida terrorist network from 1998 to 2000, according to the newly released 9-11 commission report.

The report cites a 1998 meeting in which then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden, notes the New York Sun.

"In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured," the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, CIA memo. "He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted."

Berger, who served in the Clinton administration, is facing a Justice Department investigation for allegedly smuggling secret files out of the National Archives prior to the 9-11 commission hearings.

After news of the probe broke Monday, Berger stepped down from his informal position as security adviser to Democratic Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

The 9-11 commission report presents three other opportunities given to Berger to take action against bin Laden:


June 1999: The potential target was an al-Qaida terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. But the commission cites Berger's handwritten notes on the meeting paper, which referred to "the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties." The Berger notes said, "if he responds, we're blamed."

Dec. 4, 1999: National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. According to the commission, however, in the "margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, 'no.'"

August 2000: Berger was presented with a plan to attack bin Laden based on aerial surveillance from a "Predator" drone. "In the memo’s margin," the commission said, "Berger wrote that before considering action, 'I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.'"
The New York paper, in an editorial asks why Berger made these critical decisions rather than the president. The commission report notes the decisions "were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the president's impeachment."

The Sun opines, had Berger "been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today."

8. United States v. Roger Cressey. As Chief of Staff for the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (PCIPB) in the Office of Homeland Security, Cressey was responsible for the establishment and management of the board, including matters of personnel, budget, and administration. Beginning in December 2001 and continuing through July 2002, Cressey recommended and participated in the proposed procurement of a support contract for the board in the amount of approximately $600,000.00. The PCIPB and the Office of Administration in the Executive Office of the President initially designed the procurement as a sole source contract to be awarded to a particular company (Company). Later the proposed procurement was revised and handled as a competitively bid contract. In May 2002, Cressey informed the Company of the Government’s decision to procure the contract through a competitive bid.



Not later than July 9, 2002 , Cressey began negotiating for employment with the Company. On July 16, he asked the Acting General Counsel for the Office of Administration for assistance in moving forward for approving the implementation of the procurement for the PCIPB support contract. On July 18 he visited the offices of the Company and interviewed with them for potential employment. On July 19 he contacted the Office of the White House Counsel in order to recuse himself from all matters related to the Company. On July 23 he received an offer of employment from the Company. On July 24 he was provided with a recusal memorandum which he executed immediately. He accepted the Company’s offer of employment on August 1, 2002 .



In September 2002, following a competitive bid and evaluation process, the PCIPB support contract was awarded to the Company. Upon learning of conflict of interest concerns by the White House Counsel’s Office, Cressey informed the White House Counsel’s Office that the Company had withdrawn its job offer and he would not begin employment with the Company. The White House Counsel’s Office referred the matter to the Department of Justice.



The Government maintained that Cressey’s conduct was a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 208, participating personally and substantially in a particular matter in which, to the official’s knowledge, an organization with which he is negotiating for prospective employment has a financial interest.



DOJ entered into a settlement agreement with Cressey. He paid a civil penalty of $5,000.00.



The Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice handled the prosecution. "


i find it kind of interesting how many criminals were in teh clinton admin. clinton
being the biggest crook of all.

actually i do believe that one did get out of control but i still believe there may be more involved.

quote:

---

during his presidency he could have given the order moron.

---

Oh I'm sorry that totally redeems what you said earlier, seeing as the Clinton still has authority over his cabinet and this supposed order to one of his cabinet member is still valid after being out of office for 2 years and 10 months (October was when Berger supposedly did this). ****ing tool.

quote:

---

iand i am allowed to say what i think went through. i dont know if its right but am voicing what i think happened.

---

Where did I ever say you weren't allowed to say what you think, I was simply pointing out problem in your thinking and saying it is way too early and not enough is know to start speculating. That is not saying you don't have the right to say it but rather there is no basis for saying it.

quote:

---

Christ, get a life.

---

I'll let this one speak for itself, seeing as it has so much relevance to the topic at hand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rissa421:
ummmm...yea I'm not going to take the time to read all of your posts because that would take forever thanks to a huge article. But I would like to say that Berger took copies of the documents, and its not like these documents were huge secrets, after all, they WERE in the archives.

---

they were classified docs and should have never left that room. they were copies they werent the origingals which is why the admin should declassify them. the one i posted was an editorial. he claims they arent big secrets so if theyre not, then he wouldnt care if they were declassified. but he and the liberals would mind if it even came under consideration.

ummmm...yea I'm not going to take the time to read all of your posts because that would take forever thanks to a huge article. But I would like to say that Berger took copies of the documents, and its not like these documents were huge secrets, after all, they WERE in the archives.

if the bush administration did leak the information, the New York Times pointed out that that isnt illegal or unusual.
i dont think the admin did because there was nothing in the report to draw attention away from. there was nothing in there that bashed on bush. someone else did.

[This message was edited by redrepublican on July 22, 2004 at 02:42 PM.]

From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: July 21, 2004
People who worked with him in the Clinton White House have reportedly said former national security adviser Sandy Berger always had to rely on staff members to prevent him from losing track of papers and appointments. If Berger was the proverbial absent-minded professor, then simple - if not innocent - carelessness might explain why he walked out of the National Archives carrying highly classified documents. But in this situation, "might explain" isn't good enough; the FBI needs to clear up this mystery. In fact, it is odd that the agency hasn't done so already.


Berger went to a special reading room at the archives last summer and fall to prepare for an appearance before the commission investigating the 9-11 terrorist attacks. This week, Berger admitted having left the room carrying documents that should have stayed where they were. Among them were copies of an "after-action" report on the so-called millennium plot, which included a failed effort by al-Qaida to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in late 1999.

Berger insists that he is guilty only of "an honest mistake, which I deeply regret." Perhaps not surprisingly, Republicans take a darker view, with some suggesting that Berger was trying to protect himself and former President Clinton by hiding key documents. One GOP leader - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas - went so far as to say Berger may have caused "a national security crisis." Democrats shot back that Republicans leaked the story to divert attention from the Bush White House and from criticism contained in the 9-11 commission's report, some details of which emerged on Wednesday in advance of the report's public release today.

Please.

Berger may be so disorganized that he can't find his toothbrush in the morning; at the same time, the notion that he would be so absent-minded as to blithely walk off with super-secret documents in his briefcase and pants pockets is more than a little far-fetched. Although Berger denies the allegation, it is possible that he deliberately took the documents so he could make a more convincing case to the commission.

All of these questions are for the FBI and other investigative agencies to sort out. The inspector general of the National Archives began his probe in October and turned the matter over to the FBI in January. This does not seem to be a hugely complex case. Why hasn't the FBI drawn some conclusions?

Even if Berger was only careless, he is guilty of a serious blunder; if he deliberately took the documents for a more sinister purpose, then obviously he is guilty of more than a mere blunder. Either way, the truth needs to be discovered and disclosed. Soon.



Bush/Cheney '04

Vice President redrepublican Esq., CFO Co Founding Father

this post has proudly been deemed racism free by teh Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, Redrepublican, Jookly, RepublicanChick, and TruthfullySpeaking adn thier endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

"The keyword is SPECULATE. How about you let the process go through before you speculate. Hell the guy hasn't even been charged with anything yet.
As for Clinton giving a "direct order," that seems plausible seeing as Clinton still holds office and still has authority over his cabinet. "


during his presidency he could have given the order moron. iand i am allowed to say what i think went through. i dont know if its right but am voicing what i think happened. Christ, get a life.


Bush/Cheney '04

Vice President redrepublican Esq., CFO Co Founding Father

this post has proudly been deemed racism free by teh Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, Redrepublican, Jookly, RepublicanChick, and TruthfullySpeaking adn thier endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

quote:

---

its kind of funy that although this investigation has been going on for MONTHS, not one in the media has said anything about it

---

That’s because the Justice Department didn't realese AKA "leaked" any information about it ****tard, how about you read your own article. Look its fine if you want to try and discuss this issue but don't go and try to change the subject to media bias, STICK TO THE ****ING SUBJECT.

quote:

---

i specualte that he did this on behalf of the clinton admin., i might en\ven venture to say that clinton might have given a direct order. the investigation has gone on for months is more of teh admin involved? I might also specualte that those docs put the admin in a bad light and that they showed that clinton HAD NO PLAN to stop terrorism. its kind of funy that although this investigation has been going on for MONTHS, not one in the media has said anything about it. tell me is that biased?
the papers he took were actually drafts written by richard clarke and dealt with how the admin dealt with al qaeda wich they didnt.
what possible reason did he have for sticking them down his pants, in his shirt, or even in his socks? he was not allowed to take them. they were classified docs. they should have never left that room. they must have put the admin in a bad light sop he wanted them out of there.
some people will say that berger's criminal investigation might sink kerry. i highly doubt that. berger would have to have murdered five thousand people before they would hve somthing in the news about it.

---

The keyword is SPECULATE. How about you let the process go through before you speculate. Hell the guy hasn't even been charged with anything yet.
As for Clinton giving a "direct order," that seems plausible seeing as Clinton still holds office and still has authority over his cabinet.

the ones he stole are copies so why would he take them? because he knew that if this docs so the light of day, he and clinton wouldbe finished. whats the way to get to the bottom of this? thats the question. you ****ING DECLASSIFY THEM. lets let America see what he stole. there is nothing that could possibly hurt the America public to see. which party is better at handling these issues? the democrats.the dems are still asking about the bush's nat'l guard records! republicans need to keep asking and asking until we find out. we need to find out why clinton did even do anything stop terrorism, he didnt even think there was a problem!

Bush/Cheney '04

Vice Presdident Redrepublican Esq., CFO Co FOunding Father


this post has proudly been deemed racism free by teh Honoarable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, Redrepublican, Jookly, RepublicanChick, and TruthfullySpeaking and thier endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

no clinton should have started somthing on terrorism and didnt and thats what berger is trying to cover up. hey look at this. on November 3 2000, before bush was elected an anti leak measure led to some disagreement between clinton's aides. the measure would have imposed harsher penalties for gov't officials or retired gov't officials who leaked info. supposedly a fine and up to three years in prison. guess who opposed the measure? SANDY BERGER!!!!!!!!!!

Bush/Cheney '04

Interim President Vice President redrepublican Esq., CFO Co Founding Father

this post has proudly been deemed racism free by teh Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, Redrepublican, Jookly, RepublicanChick, and TruthfullySpeaking adn thier endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

quote:

---

Not the only, but nearly everything Bush is dealing with is stuff Clinton *SHOULD* have taken care of, but didn't. FYI, it was actually Clinton in 1997 who authorized military action against Iraq.

---

First you say Clinton should have taken care of this stuff and didn't, then you say that in fact he did try to take care of it. And why does everyone talk like Clinton ****ing up can automatically make Bush the right choice? It's not Clinton v. Bush. When you post clear, concise beliefs on why you like Bush I don't mind, I just don't like people acting like Bush being above Clinton would make him the best option.

~Kitty

"Thank God I'm an atheist."

notice you didnt answer or justify his actions?
now its my turn. iceland, this is news. i like to see what others think of the decietful lying and hateful liberals.
i specualte that he did this on behalf of the clinton admin., i might en\ven venture to say that clinton might have given a direct order. the investigation has gone on for months is more of teh admin involved? I might also specualte that those docs put the admin in a bad light and that they showed that clinton HAD NO PLAN to stop terrorism. its kind of funy that although this investigation has been going on for MONTHS, not one in the media has said anything about it. tell me is that biased?
the papers he took were actually drafts written by richard clarke and dealt with how the admin dealt with al qaeda wich they didnt.
what possible reason did he have for sticking them down his pants, in his shirt, or even in his socks? he was not allowed to take them. they were classified docs. they should have never left that room. they must have put the admin in a bad light sop he wanted them out of there.
some people will say that berger's criminal investigation might sink kerry. i highly doubt that. berger would have to have murdered five thousand people before they would hve somthing in the news about it. (exxageration for those wo will jump on me for that.)

Bush/Cheney '04

Interim President Vice President redrepublican Esq., CFO Co Founding Father

this post has proudly been deemed racism free by teh Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, Redrepublican, Jookly, RepublicanChick, and TruthfullySpeaking adn thier endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

Not the only, but nearly everything Bush is dealing with is stuff Clinton *SHOULD* have taken care of, but didn't. FYI, it was actually Clinton in 1997 who authorized military action against Iraq. but, he didn't have the stones to carry out his tough words - he left that to his successor.

STOP POSTING ANNOYINGLY LONG-*** ARTICLES YOU ****ER!!!

You know what's funny? The SECOND I heard "Sandy Bergen of the Clinton administration has come under accusations of..." on the news I immediately thought to myself: "Whatever it is, redrepublican is going to post something complaining about it". I actually did; and that is both funny and scary.