President Clinton's former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who resigned Tuesday as an unofficial adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, is in trouble. Berger is the subject (though not a target) of a Justice Department criminal investigation for his admitted removal of highly classified documents from the National Archives in preparation for his testimony in March before the commission looking into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
In a statement, Berger said he "inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives" and when informed they were missing, he immediately returned everything he had "except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded." That's a lot of inadvertence and accidentalness for such a former high-ranking official.
Imagine the reaction if the current national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, had done such a thing and made a similar excuse. Democrats and The New York Times would be calling not only for her head but demanding she be sent to prison for breaking the law. "Accidentally" and "inadvertently" would not absolve her in their minds.
That Berger felt a need to slip some of the classified documents in his jacket and stuff others in his pants may say something about his true motive. If Berger was behaving lawfully, why would he not follow lawful procedures, including asking permission to remove notes he took from the classified documents, which included drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium observance? Archive officials and Berger's lawyer say those documents are still missing. Officials said other missing documents identified U.S. airports and seaports vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The FBI searched Berger's home and office.
In testimony before the 9/11 commission March 24, Berger said the Clinton administration made combating terrorism an "early priority." He also claimed that the administration did all it could to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and that "getting him and his lieutenants became our priority." Might those purloined documents have told a different story? Is it a convenience that they are missing, like those "missing" documents from Hillary Clinton's Rose Law Firm that suddenly materialized inside the White House after they had been "inadvertently misplaced" and were unavailable to the inquiring eyes of the Independent Counsel and the grand jury?
Great Moments in Human Rights: Mandated “Emotional Support” Animals in College Dorms | Daniel J. Mitchell