no one else has brought it up...

ok, gotta ask? what in the world would a former NSA find worthy of smuggling out of the archives in his pants? the idea that this was just "sloppy" is laughable. if he were a 7th grader, maybe... not a former top official.

Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said the former Clinton adviser knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. He returned most of the documents, but some still are missing.

The "in his jacket and pants" part is scare words. I believe most rational people would have used the term "pockets". They used that phrase to make it sound like he was stuffing them down the front of his pants, and some even added his socks to the list.

As for why he did it, I've got no idea.

i hadn't even thought he put them anywhere but pockets. the rest is just foolishness. the simple fact of the matter is that he knows better. it couldn't have been an accident. what in the world could have been in those documents that he was willing to risk federal prison?

I'm sure there are plenty of things in classified archive that many a man would risk prison for.

well... yea-ah - that is why they are classified. but in this instance, the former NSA who was involved with the creation of these documents, "accidentally" takes them out in his coat and pants pockets, and other in his leather portfolio, before he has to testify... you have to ask, what the hell in the documents was so damaging?

Yet another stooge rolls over for Clinton. I wonder if all the Clinton stooges are planning a five-year reunion next year.

Stuffing documents in his trousers as scare words? He had a portfolio with him and he put some papers in the portfolio and some in his pockets. Portfolios are to be searched and the documents in them noted by archive staff when the person leaves. By placing "some" of the documents in his pockets, they were not identified by archive staff as being removed. Now, "some" of the documents are missing. Hellloooooo. Anybody home???

If a Bush flunkie did this, the left's collective head would be exploding.

Well, if he had any nefarious purpose, we'd know what was in them by now. He wasn't trying to cover them up - he only took copies, not originals. My best guess is that he bypassed security to make it easier to prepare his presentation. That's crime enough in itself without trying to make up a conspiracy theory.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Well, if he had any nefarious purpose, we'd know what was in them by now. He wasn't trying to cover them up - he only took copies, not originals.

i think the point is that there may have been something in there that he didn't want to see the light of day. and i think he did take some originals, he returned all but one document - which has been described as an early draft of another report that they have the final draft for.

Accident? Sloppiness? I think this article speaks for itself:

Second, although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days. There have been no reports that he took any other documents, which suggests that his choice of papers was quite specific, and not the result of simple carelessness.

Third, it appears that Berger's "inadvertent" actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department. (There was no surveillance camera in the room in which Berger worked with the documents, meaning there is no videotape record of the incidents.)

The documents Berger took — each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages — were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.

It is not clear why Berger would focus solely on the millennium-plot report. But it is clear that the report has been the object of intense discussions during the September 11 investigation.
...

Emphasis added by me.

Now he's saying he lost one/some of them?

No article I've seen said he took originals. They said he took copies of documents, and his original notes. The unreturned documents are copies. While technically his notes are classified until reviewed, I don't think that's what you meant. So the only way he could be covering someting up is if he inadvertently wrote something incriminating in his notes.

Beestie wrote:

Accident? Sloppiness? I think this article speaks for itself:

From that article:

It is not clear how many copies of the report exist. Nor is it clear why Berger was so focused on the document. If he simply wanted a copy, it seems that taking just one would have been sufficient. But it also seems that Berger should have known that he could not round up all the known copies of the document, since there were apparently other copies in other secure places. Whatever the case, the report was ultimately given to the September 11 Commission.

<!-- END ARTICLE BODY -->

Heh, heh, heh. :)

"socks" was not a scare word. CNN via Newsmax via Andrew Sullivan:

Reports CNN's Bob Franken: "Three law enforcement sources talking to CNN's Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena [say] they saw him, or that he had been seen, putting documents in his socks."

Heh, I had access to cable tv yesterday, you'd think Fox and CNN were reporting on completely different stories. I'll assume for now that they are both full of crap. I am starting to remember why the Clinton administration was so annoying.

Daily Howler on the docs in socks.

So, he didn't put "documents" in his socks, he put "something" in his socks.

Well that's worth a page and a half of Fox bashing.

WaPo: Archives staff was suspicious

The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it.

At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

You sure you want to defend this guy?

Sources have told The Washington Post, and other news organizations, that Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing. Through attorneys and spokesmen, Berger has denied doing that.

WaPo in bed with Fox too?

I find the fact the librarians devised a coding system and tracked what he was looking at almost more worrying.

Undertoad wrote:

You sure you want to defend this guy?

Depends on what you mean by defend. He did break the law. The WaPo article isn't clear on whether the missing documents are originals, but the fact that they were marked implies that they weren't. Other articles have said that they were copies. All I'm saying is that you can't do a coverup by taking copies of documents. He broke the law, he's being investigated, he'll pay a penalty.

WaPo in bed with Fox too?

I never mentioned Fox, just the Washington Times.

The WaPo article isn't clear on whether the missing documents are originals, but the fact that they were marked implies that they weren't. Other articles have said that they were copies. All I'm saying is that you can't do a coverup by taking copies of documents.

Unless it's those handwritten markings that he wants to get rid of.

Heh. I can see it now. "Those archive-worker sting operation document codes are offensive! I must destroy the document!"

Clodfobble wrote:

Unless it's those handwritten markings that he wants to get rid of.

Excellent point but already got rid of is more like it. Mission Accomplished. Another stooge falls on his sword for the Clintons.

The handwritten markings were made by the archive employees. Any handwritten notes on the originals were of course included on the copies provided to him, and still remain on the originals in the archive.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Heh. I can see it now. "Those archive-worker sting operation document codes are offensive! I must destroy the document!"

Not those markings - the handwritten notes on the documents authored by Clinton administration officials which, by the way, makes copies "originals."

But, your mind is made up that there is nothing more to this than Berger preferring to read each and every copy of the report in the comfort of his La-Z-Boy so I guess I should stop worrying.

I just can't seem to let go of one thing, tho. If they were all identical copies as you seem to think why would he need more than one? And why would he make several trips to get the others? Why not make one trip and steal one copy? Why take the same risk over and over? Unless, of course, he showed the doc to someone who said, "that's not the right one, I need the one with the note that said blah, blah, blah so go back in there and get it."

Now put down the donkey-colored glasses and the Clinton kool aid and get upset like me :)

Precisely

At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and [size=5]all[/size] four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

Hey that size thing is useful! :)

My mind isn't made up. I'm just telling you what the articles are saying. There's an investigation going on, and more accurate information will come out, but I can only work with what's available right now.

Here's what my reading of the articles is, with some guesses as to reasons: There were multiple drafts of the same memo, some with handwritten notes. He got copies of each draft, perhaps to recreate the thought process that went into the creation of the final memo. One draft he got two copies of - showing that he knew he was getting copies, not originals - perhaps he lost the first copy.

The big question I have is: If they saw him stuffing documents in his socks, wouldn't they have stopped him? That's their job. I'm skeptical about the anonymous eyewitness accounts. You don't need to set up a sting if you have witnesses, and can catch him redhanded.

At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

The question is what "disappeared from the files" means, not how many versions were taken. I suspect it's the reporter's phrase, rather than that of an archive employee. I suspect we'll have to wait for the investigation to know.

The Washington Post article was cowritten by Susan Schmidt

This is some of her earlier work:

"Pfc. Jessica Lynch, rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital, fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S. officials said yesterday.

"Lynch, a 19-year-old supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23, one official said. The ambush took place after a 507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.

"'She was fighting to the death,' the official said. 'She did not want to be taken alive.'"

Take all of her details from anonymous sources with a salt lick.