From Ronald Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and Author of The Rule of Law in America.writing at Real Clear Politics:
On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation’s most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.
Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration’s handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.
— Whereas perjury and obstruction, which could just as plausibly be tied to a faulty memory (which, for the record, doesn’t fit into one’s shoe, or into one’s pants), is ticketed with a 30-month sentence, in a case in which no one was convicted of the crime originally under investigation, after a kangaroo show trial put into motion by the faux outrage of a pair of bureaucratic liars hoping to gin up some media misdirection to take the heat off of them for their unconscionable attempts to swing a presidential election.
What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?
Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.
Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.
Where is the outrage from the left over this, I wonder?
For months and months now we’ve been hearing that the Libby trial was about the dangers of the “powerful” covering up their secrets—that Plame’s “outing” could actually jeopardize national security, and other self-righteous, hyperbolic, and patently absurd justifications for pushing forward in the hope of grabbing a Republican scalp.
Meanwhile, right here in front of us, we have a case where Sandy Berger, a former National Security Advisor, has voluntarily surrendered his law license rather than come clean about what documents he destroyed, why he destroyed them, and who he was trying to protect in doing so.
When I begin to hear the same people who’ve been braying for Libby’s blood take similar aim at Berger—and by all rights, their animus should be even more concentrated, given Berger’s position and power, and given the nature of his crime, which involved the pilfering and destruction of classified documents—I’ll take their defenses of the Libby show trial more seriously.
Because now, there is no reason to believe there was anything innocent about Berger’s actions—as Cass makes quite clear:
President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration’s handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives’ employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging – he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.
Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material – not manhandling it.
Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger’s conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn’t intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far.
We don’t know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes – and whose notes – may have been on them. Berger’s lawyer asserted that the 9/11 Commission had copies of all the material Berger stole and destroyed. But if that is so, why would Berger risk so much to destroy it and be so keen today on avoiding any real inquiry into what he did?Berger had access to Archives documents that could be critical to understanding what information the Clinton Administration had, what options it considered, and what decisions it took on these sensitive subjects. In addition to primary documents, Berger had access to copies, and the only plausible reason for taking five copies of a single memo is that some had original notes on them from key officials, maybe from Berger or President Clinton.
For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.
The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration’s failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda’s later attacks?
When Fox News’ Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton’s Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.
Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don’t know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill’s third term?
Whatever it was, it’s likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation’s history and perhaps also help us decide what course – and what Chief Executive – will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.
Sure. Just not as big a scandal as the memory battle between Libby and Russert, et al.
Which, frankly, is the most damning indictment of the press—and the contemporary “liberal” Democrat—to come down a pike absolutely larded with such indictments.
Concludes Cass:
Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it’s important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.
Because, in truth, it could affect us all.
The optimist in me would like to think that so.
But having watched in astonishment, over the last half-decade, as recent history is massaged, finessed, spun, and airbrushed before my very eyes, I have no confidence that “truth” is what many political activists are after.
It has become all about power—and whatever narrative helps those seeking it obtain it is the narrative that will be adopted, certified as authentic, and passed on as “historical.”
Manufactured consent, I believe that’s called. A naked emperor that is clothed by way of a collective phantasm.
It’s like the left learned to play politics by getting stoned and pretending the Ouija board pointer was actually moving on its own.
****
related: The “Sandy Berger’s Lament” Poem
I think you should write a book on this manufactured consent idea of yours. It might make a splash.
That was supposed to be ironic…
Trying not to get flamed here.
TW: in trouble78
Hey, I bet Burger would sing like a canary if he were, you know, inadvertently tilted upside down and if someone accidentally poured water into his nostrils. Not that I would ever advocate such a thing.
But having watched in astonishment, over the last half-decade, as recent history is massaged, finessed, spun, and airbrushed before my very eyes, I have no confidence that “truth†is what many political activists are after.
Were they ever? Ok, maybe that’s a bit too cynical. If such mendacity were par for the course throughout US history, none of us would find it so gobsmackingly vile, just tedious and transparent.
But it’s positively totalitarian, isn’t it? Whenever the will to power trumps truth, and whenever such obvious lies get accepted by the masses (too tired to dig deeper, too tired to fight those who buy ink by the barrel, or too complicit in the lie themselves), the gulag isn’t far behind.
The Berger case does provide a worthwhile comparison, doesn’t it? I mean, this guy destroyed to a now-unknowable degree the documentary history of the Clinton Administration’s antiterror efforts, acknowledged making false statements on two different occasions, and will serve no time.
I wish I could quiz the drive-bys about why they think it is that Berger’s not going to do time, but of course the very handy (and not inaccurate) answer is that the Gonzales DOJ didn’t put him there. Those idiots won’t even exercise their rights to administer him a polygraph under his plea agreement.
TW: while19. Yes, an interesting juxtaposition.
Not to be a complete techno-fool, but I can’t get the perma links to work.
Both the “comments” and the “11:37 AM” timestamp take me to the comments.
Same problem with the next post about infinity, but not the previous post. Groan.
It’s not you, Tom. It’s ExpressionEngine. Or something in the way EE plays with Jeff’s server. I have EE and I’m mystified by this.
Anyway, I’d suggest quoting at length and going ahead and linking to the timestamp—sooner or later the post will catch up and be here with the rest of us.
This thing stinks to high heaven. Berger’s consultancy works in large part with the Chinese. His use of a letter drop to park the documents is straight out of John Le Carre. Together with the CIA’s reluctance to prosecute Montaperto about the big intel leak to China and their similar reluctance to go after the Clintons for giving away America’s defense secrets makes me wonder if a large part of the current CIA and US intelligence establishment is actually in the hands of the Chinese and/or Russians. Berger is either a spy–or a tool of one.
Anyway, I’d suggest quoting at length and going ahead and linking to the timestampâ€â€sooner or later the post will catch up and be here with the rest of us.
So it is, thanks.
Thank you, Jeff. My ire boileth over.
This whole system is broken. It is no longer driven by the will of the people…..the REAL people.
This, to me, is the single biggest threat to our country. More than Iran, or N Korea or even China.
Something has to be done. I’m tired of wasting my time voting for people who are afraid of the truth. Where is the party for Americans?
Heet and Timmy are actively agitating in the the Libby thread.
And yet here, they’re no where to be found.
Curious.
Last half-decade? Where the hell were you during the Clinton years?
I’m so sick of Clintonistas obfuscating and outright lying and the media covering for them I think I might barf.
Barf
I hate our media, they are an advocacy unit and only selectively disseminate news so that the befuddled masses know how to think.
Laughing becuase they know that their boy Sandy accomplished his mission.
Laughing because they know that something that they feared to see be made public will now never see the light of day.
Laughing becuase they know that he’ll only get a slap on the wrist.
Laughing because they know that they have once more dodged responsibility for their actions or inaction.
Laughing because they know that the media will give them a pass, as usual.
But that Libby bastard, string him up by his heels and beat him till he howls!
My only wonder at this point in time, is that maybe he got off so lightly because he also destroyed or conveniently buried information that might be equally damning to the present administration. Information which might inconveniently resurface should their boy Sandy get into a real bind.
Just idle speculation.
First the Berger case, a tragedy.
Then the Libby case, a farce.
He claims the documents were destroyed. We cannot know that. He claims he was the only person who had them. We cannot know that.
Fer crissake, he stuffed them under a trailer at a nearby construction site, then went back inside for more. If you don’t think “dead drop” when you hear that, you haven’t read enough spy novels.
The frothing ‘tards that are so hell-bent on sending Libby to a PMITA Federal Prison seem conspicuous in their absence from this thread.
And they accuse us of being partisan?
“actively agitating”? You wish. More like “bored silly with reading rightwing talking points that have been trashed in court and in fact”.
There is no discussion here, fellas.
And yet you keep coming back to post the same stupid left-wing talking points.
So, what’s your opinion of the Berger case?
Wait, Heet decided not to comment on the substance here?
I’m astounded.
There is no substance to comment on. Berger is irrelevant to the Plame case, even with paranoid belief of a conspiracy to manipulate the “truth”.
But what’s your opinion of Berger’s treatment on its own?
heet is a fuckstick of the highest order. To clowns like heet, Berger is a hero, not someone to be reviled. My support of this administration started its decline when they failed to go after Berger.
Berger is stealing classified documents, lying about it to the Archives employee on duty, and dead-dropping it at a construction site across the street to power.
Squared.
Let me fix that for you. It should read:
But what’s your opinion of Berger’s treatment on its own, you tiresome fool?
No need to thank me. Just being a good neighbor.
…heet is a fuckstick…
Squared.
Given all of the exponents possible, squared hardly seems adequate.
The whole Berger thing is a tragedy. Not only has he covered some unkown misdead in a quest to smooth Hillary’s path back to the White House, but he’s also committed a crime against history. Future generations will never get the complete picture of the 1990s because scholars will never be able to read what was scrawled in the margins of those documents. The left always talks about “the memory hole” – well here is a perfect demonstration.
For that alone he should have been sent to jail.
No conspiracy, heet. Sandy admitted to stealing public documents. A conspiracy would be if, say sombody named Scooter Libby is indicted for revealing the name of a covert CIA operative and then expect his boss to be frog marched out of the White House. Critcal thinking is an asset, heet.
Or would be, if it didn’t get in the way of the narrative, Rusty.
:^þ
In 100 years we will be damned for Burger’s sins.
Quote me.
I dare you.
I love the inelegant sideslip away from actually having to address Berger’s behavior there. “Oh, it’s not germane to the other issue I was waving a flag for despite having circumstantial and ethical similarities, so I don’t have to address! Teehee!”
Aaaand Clinton just lied about his marital infidelities, like millions of other Americans will do for years to come! Granted, I’m sure they’d get accused of perjury too if they actually did it under oath, but hey. If you’re a Clinton or riding their coat-tails, it’s a free pass.
Is it just not okay to criticize disingenuous, slimeball behavior in a former Democratic POTUS and still cleave to the party line? (Rhetorical question, natch. I already know the formulation involving eyes, slivers, and beams for this one, as well as who’s doing the pointing out on either side.) This kind of herdthink continues to be distressing and grotesque.
*address it. PIMF.
My first language isn’t English, it’s bad English.
I honestly ask, why is the right so invested in this case? Seems pedestrisn to me; the guy obstructed justice. Repub or Demo, he’s beholden to the lsw.
sorry, I have confused the “s” key for the “a” key.
Yet another moonbat to wander in. I will type slow, so you can follow, cynn. We are not defending Libby’s actions of lying and obstruction. That is on him. We object to the narrative pushed by the left and the media, we object to the manner in which Fitz has prosecuted this matter. And we object to the lies promulgated by the above referenced parties. Clear ?
He is? Good, then we can arrest and charge him. Berger didn’t just obstruct justice, he lied, destroyed classified material…
At least we can agree on Berger…
The thread you are posting in has to do with Berger, cynn.
Why is the left NOT invested in that case, would be the more appropriate question.
But back to your Libby question: I thought it was a travesty of justice when Martha Stewart was convicted under similar pretenses. So for me, it’s about a miscarriage of justice—conviction for conviction’s sake because you don’t want to admit you’ve wasted the taxpayers’ money chasing after a conspiracy that wasn’t.
Come to think of it, I was a bit touchy over the Duke case, too.
Maybe I just don’t like when innocent people go to jail for faulty memories, or covering up out of fear that they might look guilty in the face of a constant media drumbeat that they’ve committed a crime.
It is entirely possible for us to believe a guy screwed up and did something illegal while still believing his punishment (and the handling thereof) was too severe or errant. This is not like the mindset that apparently requires a reflexive defense of anyone of the same party/ideological strain/etc. who is accused of wrong-doing. It’s much like the fact I think adultery is wrong, but still vociferously disagree with people who would stone an adulterer to death.
Nor should it have much of a bearing on the fact that Berger did something very, very suspicious (and possibly extremely illegal) on its face and is now following a fixed action pattern that is a hallmark of guilt.
OT, I always liked talking about fixed action patterns in biology, since it abbreviates to “FAP”. Hee hee hee. /6 years old
Yeah, I’m a retard moonbat, JD. For what it’s worth, I think all these drooley prosecutions are putrid. Unfortunately, real people are caught up and get their lives jacked. The more slobber, the better.
Okay, you make more sense now, cynn, and I agree with you, for what that’s worth.
OK, so I should post in the S. Berger post about him stuffing papers in his pants. What can I say– a knk’s what it is?
cynn
What Berger were a bank president and the “papers he stuffed in his pants” were bearer bonds from the bank vault worth half a mil?
Worth more than a giggle?
Berger took and destroyed documents…some of which we may never know exactly what was in them…
that is worth FAR more than even a cool few million.
Why is the burgler getting a pass?
I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count.
Cynn’s actually a frequent commenter; one that manages to both disagree and do so civilly. Which in itself is a rarity to be treated with some respect, IMO.
If it weren’t for disagreement, blogs would dry up and blow away, as far as I’m concerned. So please, try not to ruin it for me.