What James Comey Said in Sandy Berger Case in 2004


Writing in conservative site WND, investigative reporter reminds of what then deputy US attorney general James Comey said when talking to reporters regarding the case of one-time Clinton advisor Sandy Berger:

In 2004, Fox News noted Comey told reporters he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.

“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey said in response to a reporter’s question.

He added that the department had prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.

“It’s our lifeblood, those secrets,” Comey continued. “It’s against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations.”

On April 1, 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of intentionally removing documents from the National Archives and destroying some of them. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and two years probation. Also, his national security license was stripped for two years.

Such loyalty in demonstrating he has the Clinton’s back was rewarded. Hillary Clinton’s emails show that Berger is still a valuable advisor:

Messages found stored on Clinton’s private email server show that Berger – a convicted thief of classified documents – had been advising Clinton while she served as secretary of state and had access to emails containing classified information.

For example, in an email dated Sept. 22, 2009, Berger advised Clinton advised how she could leverage information to make Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more cooperative in discussions with the Obama administration over a settlement freeze.

As Scathing Purple Musings observed in an earlier post, water boarding to the English language is frequently applied to save the Clinton’s. Somehow “gross negligence” isn’t what Hillary and her hacks were engaged in. Or maybe as Andrew McCarthy advanced Monday in asserting that Comey had to rewrite federal law to get Clinton off the hook.

Still, its fair to consider the fact that Comey did all he could and, in fact, condemned Clinton by laying out the findings in the manner he did. She lied. And everyone knows, too.

Is Pat Buchanan right this morning in this observation:

What was behind this extraordinary performance?

By urging no prosecution, but providing evidence for a verdict of criminal negligence in handing classified material, Comey was saying:

I am not recommending prosecution, because, to do that, would be to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, and virtually decide the election of 2016. And that is not my decision. That is your decision.

You, the American people, should decide, given all this evidence, if Clinton should be commander-in-chief. You decide if a public figure with a record of such recklessness and duplicity belongs in the Oval Office.

Comey was making the case against Clinton as the custodian of national security secrets with a credibility the GOP cannot match, while refusing to determine her fate by urging an indictment, and instead leaving her future in our hands.

And, ultimately, should not this decision rest with the people, and not the FBI?

If, knowing what we know of the congenital mendacity of Hillary Clinton, the nation chooses her as head of state and commander-in-chief, then that will tell us something about the America of 2016.

And it will tell us something about the supposed superiority of democracy over other forms of government.

 

 

 

About Bob Sikes

A long time ago and a planet far, far away I was an athletic trainer for the New York Mets. I was blessed to be part of the now legendary 1986 World Series Championship. My late father told me that I'd one day be thankful I had that degree in teaching from Florida State University. He was right and I became twice blesses to become a teacher in the late 1990's. After dabbling with writing about the Mets and then politics, I settled on education.
This entry was posted in Clinton, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to What James Comey Said in Sandy Berger Case in 2004

  1. Emerson says:

    “It’s against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations.”
    The key word is intentional. Did she intentionally mishandle CLASSIFIED documents. She certainly mishandled non-classified documents by keeping them on her privater server, but that’s not prosecutable. Comey said “a small number,” which, apparently, turned out to be three. The State Department confirmed that two of those were marked incorrectly, so we’re down to one classified document. An oversight, a mistake, or an INTENTIONAL mishandling? Try proving that one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s