# Any thoughts on Sandy the Burgler?



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I can't for the life of me figure out how this guy can get his clearance again in 3 years.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Better question is why didn't he get prison time to start with.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I agree, it's unbelievable, $10,000 fine and away we go.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

fill me in on this one I don't know what you are talking about?

TC


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton's top national security aide, pleaded guilty Friday to taking classified documents from the National Archives and cutting them up with scissors.

Rather than the "honest mistake" he described last summer, Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration.

"Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.

The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.

However, under a plea agreement that Robinson must accept, Berger would serve no jail time but instead pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. Security clearance allows access to classified government materials.

Sentencing was set for July 8.

The court appearance was the culmination of a bizarre episode in which the man who once had access to the government's most sensitive intelligence was accused of sneaking documents out of the Archives, which houses the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other cherished and top-secret documents.

The Bush administration disclosed the investigation in July, just days before the September 11 commission issued its final report. Democrats claimed the White House was using Berger to deflect attention from the harsh findings, with their potential for damaging President Bush's re-election prospects.

After news of the probe surfaced, Berger acknowledged he left the National Archives on two occasions in 2003 with copies of documents about the government's anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents.

He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the September 11 attacks. He called the episode "an honest mistake" and denied criminal wrongdoing.

Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said that Berger 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 two of the five copies of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration.

The Associated Press first reported in July that the Justice Department was investigating Berger. The disclosure prompted Berger to step down as an adviser to the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Clinton was among Democrats who questioned the timing of the disclosure of the Berger probe, three days before the release of the September 11 report. The commission, reporting three months before the 2004 presidential election, detailed failures of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Leaders of the September 11 commission said they were able to get every key document needed to complete their report


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would think that destroying classified documents endangers the United States. Shouldn't this be considered about the same as espionage or treason? He risked the security of this nation for what? His political gain or to hide the poor judgment of Bill Clinton?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> I would think that destroying classified documents endangers the United States. Shouldn't this be considered about the same as espionage or treason? He risked the security of this nation for what? His political gain or to hide the poor judgment of Bill Clinton?


Are you really that blind? Have you chosen to ignore the dozens of incidents where national security was risked by blunders of this administration? Certainly this guy should do time for his crime, as should many people under this president.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Somebody has got to come up with a picture of this guy stuffin documents into his shorts and socks. Pleease


----------

