Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Somehow the thought of berger sneaking stuff out in his trousers is not as "entertaining" as Fawn Hall doing it in her lingere. As she would say "sometimes you have to go above the law".

Sandy was probably repeating that as he stuffed stuff into his pants.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 08:27 AM

It seems that Clinton cronies are never held accountable for their actions, even under a Republican administration.

Clinton officials aren't held accountable for "neolibertarian" fantasies of their guilt. But why should they be? The White House is already in trouble for partisan manipulation of justice, so understandably they don't want to take it to the Clinton-hating extreme.

Posted by at May 17, 2007 08:29 AM

Rand - Can I change my vote on banning Robert? I mean, when the man can be rebutted with a child's playground rule what's the point? Two wrongs don't make a right, Robert...and no tap-backs

And I love the concept of Berger surrendering his license over a neolibertarian fantasy. What is he, French?

Posted by Gunga at May 17, 2007 08:39 AM

You can, but I wouldn't do it on that basis. The second comment was (appropriately, because it's so foolish) anonymous.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 08:50 AM

"Clinton officials aren't held accountable for "neolibertarian" fantasies of their guilt. But why should they be? "

Because they should be held accountible for real crimes not straw crimes.

Rand needs to ban anonymous posting. I have yet to read one anonymous post on this site that was worth the electrons to view it. Without question, they are simplistic and obviously the prodcut of individuals with a grossly sub-normal I.Q.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 17, 2007 08:51 AM

Heh!

Using Sandy Berger's case to distract from the Abu Gonzales melt-down is weak tea and burnt toast.

Good luck with that . . .

Posted by Bill White at May 17, 2007 08:53 AM

Posted by Gunga at May 17, 2007 08:39 AM

the point is not that "two wrong make a right" it was that both were equally stupid, but Halls was more "entertaining"...

theft of the documents in either case stopped "NOTHING". The ones Fawn took were easily recoverable, same with the ones Berger took. There is no "great conspiracy" about what Berger (or Hall) took, or were trying to cover up etc.

The mystery is why people in that position "panic" and think that their act, will change the larger picture or even the small picture.

I am sure that someone thinks that Berger tried to cover up something that will rock history. In reality it like Hall was just a panic move by a person who wasnt thinking straight...

I just find the thought of Fawn stuffing things into her "lingere" entertaining. The movie version of it is funny.

this is a non story...just a sad ending to a man who was pretty smart.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 09:07 AM

Posted by Bill White at May 17, 2007 08:53 AM

nothing can distract from the "leaks" sprining up at Justice. The last months of this administration are going to imitate the last scenes as the Titanic goes under.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 09:09 AM

Using Sandy Berger's case to distract from the Abu Gonzales melt-down is weak tea and burnt toast.

Huh?

On what basis do you make this (latest) asinine comment, Bill?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 09:11 AM

theft of the documents in either case stopped "NOTHING". The ones Fawn took were easily recoverable, same with the ones Berger took.

We don't know that. He admitted to destroying them. Why did he do that, Robert?

Of course you don't find it suspicious. A Clintonista did it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 09:13 AM

We don't know that. He admitted to destroying them. Why did he do that, Robert?

Of course you don't find it suspicious. A Clintonista did it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 09:13 AM

I dont find it suspicious because ALL the documents he took have copies. It is well known "what" he took. He apparantly did not understand how classification works and that almost no classified documents are "single sheet".

Worse, these were very LOW level classified documnets. It wasnt like they were at the level of "High state secrets".

Are there some "Clinton" things that are you know "suspicious". Yeah. Hillary making 100K in the futures market. Now there is something that sort of boggles the mind. But it is NOT something unique to her. There are other things in that Administration (as in all of them) that are "suspicious" yes...but hardly events to shatter the foundation of The Republic.

To think that they are one has to believe that well "this administration" is in on the plot. Doesnt that seem odd?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 09:22 AM

Do neolibertarians dream of electric bleep?

Posted by D Anghelone at May 17, 2007 09:24 AM

Well, if he thought the documents unique then his actions were...uhh...suspicious.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 17, 2007 09:30 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 09:13 AM

why did Berger do it? Why did Nowak drive lots number of miles to "confront" Shipman? How did she think that was going to end? Why did Bill Clinton not stand up and say "Yeap bonking MOnica, sorry wont happen again."?

Why do people act irrationally in situations that they perceive to be injurious to themselves when the actions only make them worse and solve nothing?

The best explanation that I have been able to find is a complete lack of self discipline in dealing with the problem. Nowak is a similar situation as berger or hall...they all were in a position where the "walls were tumbling down" in the real world, and something completly impractical in reality took on a life of its own in their "new world".

It is a belief that the "action" alone will solve the problem (offending document is gone) and that the action has no consequences. The end of rational thinking when one does not think through the consequences of an action.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 09:36 AM

Back to Gunga's point, why exactly does it matter what did or did not happen decades before. The fact is that Sandy Berger knowingly removed classified documents from a controlled sensitive area, without authorization, and then destroyed them. Most people with clearances know that if they ever did that, they wouldn't be worried about handing over their license to practice law. They would be wondering what federal penitentiary they will complete their life in.

Why is Sandy Berger getting a pass on this crime?

Posted by Leland at May 17, 2007 09:41 AM

Why is Sandy Berger getting a pass on this crime?

Posted by Leland at May 17, 2007 09:41 AM

What would you consider appropriate punishment?

Berger's security clearance is toast and will be forever, his law license is gone, his reputation in politics is shot.

what would you add to this? Ollie NOrth has a TV show and he did exactly the same thing.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 09:52 AM

It is well known "what" he took

It is not well known whether there might have been unique notes in the margins. Again, there's no non-suspicious reason for his behavior. And as is pointed out, anyone else who deliberately destroyed classified documents would be doing time in Club Fed, but he just got a wrist slap. It's reasonable to wonder why.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 09:53 AM

I agree that Berger has not been punished in a way consistent with the crime and how others are punished for the same crime. I was especially offended when I heard that Bill Clinton's reaction to it was to essentially laugh it off and describe it as silly behavior that just happened to be in character for Berger. (Full disclosure: I am right-leaning politically and I dislike the Clintons--I'd like to think I'd be just as offended if a Bush crony illegally made off with classified documents.)

I think Robert's observations about "panic" behavior are very interesting. I'd say that we are all prone to do that sort of thing--"Oh No! I've got to fix this any way I can! ...Oops." I'll say this is why having personal principles and personal integrity is important. A highly principled person would say "Oh no! This paper is damaging to the reputation of my good friend and boss! And it's misleading and will be taken out of context. I have to get rid of it. But (1) it's classified and (2) the law is are that it doesn't leave the archive. My adherence to the law is more important than my personal loyalty to my friend." Thus principle protects from error, even or especially in cases of panic. Of course, it's not always that simple. Sometimes the law can be unjust or unjustly applied, so "follow the law" can't be a universal principle trumping all others.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at May 17, 2007 10:49 AM

Didn't I say, "No tap-backs?"

Removing/altering/destroying historic documents from the National Archives is more than just "sad" Robert. It's a Felony. Exactly where is the Noblesse oblige clause in the US Constitution?

I really don't recall Ollie North stealing original historical documents from the National Archives. I guess you're forgetting that North was prosecuted and convicted. What does North's subsequent success have to do with Mr. Berger's crime? You may resent it. I can't explain it...he gets on my nerves...but what in the world does it have to do with not prosecuting Berger? I mean, if you follow the loose thread of your logic, it would be a boon for Berger if he were to be prosecuted. So what? Is this a country of laws or not?

Do you know what they call it when the President of the United States fires 8 US Attorneys? "Too little, too late."

Posted by Gunga at May 17, 2007 11:12 AM

I mean, if you follow the loose thread of your logic,

Logic? From Robert?

He doesn't need no stinkin' logic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 11:16 AM

It is not well known whether there might have been unique notes in the margins.
Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 09:53 AM

Doubtfull. Unless while sitting reading them he wrote "I confuse" and then got worried and tried to sneak them out.

When archieved documents at various levels are copied and thanks to "machines" the entire page is copied. so the orignal notes would have been copied along with them or to be unique would have had to be added AFTER they were archieved.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 11:21 AM

really don't recall Ollie North stealing original historical documents from the National Archives.

Posted by Gunga at May 17, 2007 11:12 AM

No even worse. He "mishandled" documents that were still active. IE he inappropriatly handled active documents that had a classification level. That is why he can no longer hold any type of security clearance.

"Do you know what they call it when the President of the United States fires 8 US Attorneys? "Too little, too late." "

I call it the proper role of a chief executive. They all serve at his pleasure.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 11:23 AM

Posted by Gunga at May 17, 2007 11:12 AM

I dont know why Mr. Berger was not prosecuted. YOu will have to ask the REPUBLICAN attorney General. Mr. Gonzo probably would recall that he was at the meeting where that was discuessed, but he might not.

A guess as to why Mr. Berger was not prosecuted is that the level of punishment already handed out met the crime at the level of document that he was surveying.

But for a definative answer you will have to ask The Sitting Republican Attorney General. Maybe he is in on the conspiracy!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 11:25 AM

Sometimes the law can be unjust or unjustly applied, so "follow the law" can't be a universal principle trumping all others.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at May 17, 2007 10:49 AM

Fawn said about the same thing about her and Col. North. Her line was (at a Senate hearing) "sometimes you have to go above the law".

Amazing how that works.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 11:29 AM

But for a definative answer you will have to ask The Sitting Republican Attorney General. Maybe he is in on the conspiracy!

It seems unlikely. He's already admitted to not knowing what is going on in his own department.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 11:31 AM

Sometimes the law can be unjust or unjustly applied, so "follow the law" can't be a universal principle trumping all others.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at May 17, 2007 10:49 AM

I would add this. There are people who say "Scooter shouldnt have lied" but it was evil that the prosecuter carried on with the case and made it so he had to lie.

I dont find that argument convincing, Fawn Hall's, whatever position Berger is taking, convincing at all. Clinton's behavior before the judge was "bad". It cost him his law license. Mark Furhaman's behavior in front of the petit jury in the OJ case was bad. It cost him his badge.

Berger lost his security clearance, he can never hold one again, which means he can never work in any administration again, he has lost his law license, he has lost his reputation...and he was worried that the documents would make him look bad?

I dont get it.

Why did LIbby lie?

I dont get it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 11:33 AM

Berger lost his security clearance, he can never hold one again

Stop flaunting your ignorance. His clearance was suspended for only three years (i.e., just in time to get a job in a Democrat administration in 2008).

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 11:41 AM

Simply amazing:

Way to catch a clue Robert!!! Now you are making Rand's (and pretty much everyone else's) argument. We would like answers from the Republican Attorney General. That's the jist of the thread. I'm happy it only took 10 rebuttal comments for you to figure that out.

Berger's security clearance is toast and will be forever
Not true, Berger gets his security clearance back. He's not getting in back because of a Democrat Administration, but because that is his entire punishment levied by a Republican Administration. At the minimum, it should really be gone for good (as it would be for anyone else committing such a violation).

his law license is gone
He gave it up. In his own word: "While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession." That's called retiring.

his reputation in politics is shot.
I don't agree. But so what if it is? The punishment for violating national security usually is losing your career plus some time in jail. Again, Sandy gets his clearance back next year and can go back to his consulting gig in time for the next Democrat candidacy (maybe Robert means his reputation is shot because only a Democrat will hire him?-ed).

Posted by Leland at May 17, 2007 12:22 PM

The difference, Robert, is that Oliver North was acting to protect the United States of America. Berger was only protecting his political party.

He did the things in real life that you do in your fantasy life -- and you smear him for it.

I'm glad you've stopped pretending to be a Reagan Republican. Not that anyone believed you, anyway.

(As for the innuendoes about Fawn Hall, we haven't heard any boasting about "Roo" lately. Did your imaginary girlfriend dump you? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at May 17, 2007 12:26 PM

YOu will have to ask the REPUBLICAN attorney General.

Brilliant! Why don't I just hop on over to Justice and do that? ...or I could just sort of consider the whole thing a rhetorical point and go on with my life...

...and what anyone here thinks is appropriate punishment has exactly NOTHING to do with the practice of law in this country. Personally, I'd like to see him fight the charges like a man...there is some probability that he would win...or he could just do what he seems to be doing and slink off into obscurity like a stinking cur. What I don't like is the Noblesse oblige the current administration affords to the previous one.

Why did LIbby lie?

I think we all know that the answer to that is: So that you would have another tangential rabbit hole to duck down when once again you were shown to be far too Robert for your own good.

Posted by Gunga at May 17, 2007 01:17 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 11:41 AM

nope

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 01:39 PM

The difference, Robert, is that Oliver North was acting to protect the United States of America.
Posted by Edward Wright at May 17, 2007 12:26 PM

Sorry Ed. no. In a nation of laws people do not get to decide when they are acting in your grand soundings "to protect the United STates of America" all on their own.

A nation of laws means that people follow the law. And only by following the law, is The United States of America protected. The rule of law being more important then anything else.

If you think that people on their own get to decide when to violate the law "to protect The United States of America" then you do not understand basic civics and Constitutional theory...Or put it another way, you understand it about as well as Ollie North, Scooter LIbby, Sandy Berger, Chuck Colson, Haldeman, Erlichman, Richard the Crook, the list goes and on.

My guess is however that your theories are that things and people whose policies you agree with can violate the law, the rest, well be caught and tried.

Ah Situation ethics.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 01:44 PM

Posted by Leland at May 17, 2007 12:22 PM

Berger will never hold a security clearance again. Read very carefully the requirements for it, and with this action today, he elminates it forever. That was the purpose of the action.

Thanks for playing.

ON to the AG. I think Gonzo would have two responses to you 1) he doesnt care what you want ...he really doesnt, unlike most he understands that "this is it" for Berger. He probably agreed to the deal and 2) there are other problems, like how many misstatements have been made by him and his staff to The Congress..and the American people.

Gonzo maybe hoping that this sets a pattern whereby when he is in some legal jeopardy all he has to do is "give up his law license". The (to be kind) "misstatements" to Congress seem to be well growing.

THAT should trouble you.

Berger is yesterdays news on a non event...that is actually somewhat funny. AS as funny as Scooter.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 01:48 PM

I think we all know that the answer to that is:

Posted by Gunga at May 17, 2007 01:17 PM

what reason do you think he had? It is kind of like Alberto lying to Congress I cant quite figure out why?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 01:49 PM

Read very carefully the requirements for it, and with this action today, he elminates it forever.

Bullshit.

One does not need a law license to have a security clearance. That's all he gave up. He can still get his clearance back after the three-year suspension.

That was the purpose of the action.

No. The purpose of the action was to avoid answering any more questions. Why do you think he wanted to avoid answering any more questions, Robert?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 01:53 PM

Reading this thread is like watching a soccer match where one side keeps making own goals.

Posted by Jonathan at May 17, 2007 02:49 PM

Reading this thread is like watching a soccer match where one side keeps making own goals.

Sadly, that could be said of almost any post in which Mr. Oler participates. Which is why I probably should ban him. Again, signal: zero, to first order, noise: semi-infinite. And about half the posts in it are his.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 02:57 PM

Berger is yesterdays news on a non event...that is actually somewhat funny.

Written by the same intellectual that brought into the discussion Fawn Hall.

Posted by Leland at May 17, 2007 04:43 PM

One does not need a law license to have a security clearance. That's all he gave up. He can still get his clearance back after the three-year suspension.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 01:53 PM

Yes, yes, and no in order to your statements. There was a reason that Mr. Berger was required to give up his law license adn it had nothing to do with him practicing law.

He will never hold a security clearance again.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 05:15 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 01:53 PM

there is one exception which could get Mr. Berger back his security clearance. The President of The United States order is. In terms of security..."He dah man" (or "She dah woman") Otherwise my statement is correct.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 05:17 PM

Why do you think he wanted to avoid answering any more questions, Robert?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 01:53 PM

It wasnt so much "not answering any more questions". Mr. Berger knew where this was going. He was going to lose. He avoided going for a couple of reasons. One he didnt fact the news coverage, two he didnt face the embarrasement. He had no jeopardy before them other then his law license. Dont you understand that? Or what do you think that this group is? The inquisition.

They had no "thumbscrew" as we use to call them in federal law enforcment to put on him. Ie they couldnt say "answer this question and we save your law license". So what was the point in giving answers to any questions? If there was a question he didnt want to answer, all he did was say 5th Amendment.

This isnt Perry Mason Rand where the people on the stand are actors and reading a script and "crack" under intensive cross (or direct). Berger is a smart guy and he knows where this is headed.

That is it. You and some others need to find some sinister thing in it ("Come on SAndy crack You murdered Vince Foster didnt you" ...sorry couldnt resist)

When the way is certian most groups give people a graceful way out. Its like Wolfy at the bank. They are letting him go "softly".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 05:23 PM

Reading this thread is like watching a soccer match where one side keeps making own goals.

Posted by Jonathan at May 17, 2007 02:49 PM

not a soccer fan myself. I would imagine the trick however is for one side to keep making its own goals. If side A makes more goals then side B doesnt Side A win?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 05:24 PM

Written by the same intellectual that brought into the discussion Fawn Hall.

Posted by Leland at May 17, 2007 04:43 PM

they certianly were both stuffing classified documents into their clothes.

The thought of Fawn stuffing them into her bra is something more enjoyble then Sandy putting them into his trousers!

Both are rather comical actually.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 05:26 PM

On Mr. Berger's security clearance. a Bread crumb in the trail of knowledge would be useful I see.

If Mr. Berger were an FAA certified Airline Transport Pilot and/or held a first class medical, the FAA would move to revoke either or both with his action today on the same grounds and for the same reason Mr. Berger will never hold another security clearance, unless annointed by The President of The United States.

It was a back door, and the FAA was moving anyway, but when a suspect we were after surrendered his law license, bang, there went the ATP and that job with a major airline.

Same law.

Take care

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 05:48 PM

I don't find any of Berger's actions suspicious.
I don't know why Rand does either.
Berger's actions are criminal. He plead guilty.

Rand now has a real problem.
Either he can trust that professional prosecutors at the
DoJ, got the best deal they could given the facts they could
develope or Rand has to admit that the DoJ makes political
decisions in who does and does not get prosecuted, and
to what degree they are punished.

Rand currently seems to be in the political prosecution
and punishment phase. This will be a real problem for him

Posted by anonymous at May 17, 2007 05:54 PM

It wasnt [sic] so much "not answering any more questions".

And yet, that's what the article said. Why do you think you're smarter than the people who wrote the article?

Oh. Right.

We know why. You're Robert G. Oler, who knows more than everybody about everything. You're omniscient.

You and some others need to find some sinister thing in it ("Come on SAndy crack You [sic for grammar and punctuation] murdered Vince Foster didnt you" ...sorry couldnt [sic] resist)

Of course you couldn't resist. You're a moron. You make moronic comments.

I don't find any of Berger's actions suspicious.

Of course not, Anomymous Moron. That's why we all know you're a moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 06:46 PM

You wrote: "And yet, that's what the article said. Why do you think you're smarter than the people who wrote the article?"

because I learned a long time ago not to believe everything I have read in the mainstream media or the blogosphere because sometimes with the best of intentions they dont know what they are talking about.

See Rand I have read about countless airplane accidents where "the motor stalled" right before the crash, or every light plane is a "Cessna", and I've read most of the reporting by the MSM on Iraq. I have even heard them reporting that the space shuttle and space station are docking at 17,500 mph!

You are free to be spoon fed by them and gobble up every word that they say. Believe it all.

Me? I will use my knowledge and the knowledge of trusted confidents to examine such statements for lack of precision. Do you think that the space station and shuttle are docking at 17,500 mph?

Take care

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 06:57 PM

We know why. You're Robert G. Oler, who knows more than everybody about everything. You're omniscient.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 17, 2007 06:46 PM

Wow...I should let you do the introduction at my next speech!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 17, 2007 07:02 PM

Post a comment