I have a question about Sandy Berger, please help.

[sistersofmercy]

A friend of mine, who can be way in the RW field on talking points about politics etc, stated that Sandy Berger was caught red-handed stealing documents from the White House. Supposedly said documents had something to do with counter-terrorism or lack thereof. Is this just another RW smear? Can someone please give me proof? As much as I try to reason with this person he just pouts off RW talking points from the stupid radio commentaries he listens to. Michael Savage is his favorite. Our discussion was centered around PT911 which I didn't watch and the debate started when I stated why I had no intentions of watching it. I had read enough to know it was inaccurate and wasn't going to waste my time on the "blame Clinton, poor lil ol' all-hat-no-cattle junior got dealt a helpless bad hand" propoganda. I don't get it, this person is extremely bright but I think he is brainwashed from the talk radio he listens to. Please help with the Sandy Berger thing. Peace.

PS also could someone provide a link to the Eric Schwartz song, Clinton Got A Blowjob? Thanks. Sisters.

[NYCGirl]

1. Here's information from Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001

[sistersofmercy]

9. Wow thanks for the link.

I've read about half and it is as suspected another RW smear he heard from Michael Savage. I keep telling him to stop listening to that RW wing baloney, he insisted MS is not RW wing but just speaks the truth about Repubs and Democrats. Unbelievable. Thanks for the link.

[sgxnk]

18. ridiculous link

because the link was written BEFORE the case was adjudicated

since the above link was written, he PLEAD guilty.

did you read what he ACTUALLY admitted to ?

in his plea?

i thought not

[sistersofmercy]

23. Please refer to the link below on his plea agreement

Copies and his hand-written notes not originals, placed in pocket not stuffed down pants.

[sgxnk]

24. here's what was written on his guilty plea

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm

he admitted he KNOWINGLY commited a crime

so, the oversight thing is silly

[sistersofmercy]

28. Oh I'm not disputing that

I'm far too much of a skeptic to think he inadvertently took them. But i don't think he would have been stupid enough to stuff it in his pants. It's easier and draws less attention to place the papers in a pocket or folder. What is not clear to me is whether it was 5 copies of the same document from the archives or 5 copies he made of the archives documents. The plea agreement states he returned 2 copies and he also returned his hand-written notes but he shredded 3 copies. Oh well.

[BrotherBuzz]

2. Swiped from the National Archives vault

[librechik]

5. he copied his own notes which were archived, and took the copies

leaving the originals intact in the archives. He meant, he said, to refresh his memory before testimony to Congress.

How can you steal your own notes?

That talking point is a boondoggle. Nothing there. Besides, he fessed up and was punished. That's more than the Dauphin will ever do.

[BrotherBuzz]

6. His notes, his ideas, but our property (and classified)

I did not know about his copying his own notes and leaving the originals intact, I thought he lifted the real stuff. Understood that it was dealt with, and water under the bridge, but the trolls from the right seem to be fond of water under the bridge.

[librechik]

41. nope, that was made very clear in the investigation--copies, not originals

but of course the RW loves to distort that point and pretend it was a huge security breach, when in fact nothing was taken OUT of the public record, and Berger was not revealing secret info to anyone who shouldn't have it.

[Igel]

30. He took multiple copies of

something that had been handed out at a meeting. The same something, only one of which would have had his (contemporaneous) notes on it.

The copies were part of the archives; had he wanted to make handwritten copies of his notes and take that copy home, that wouldn't have been the same kind of problem.

There's still suspicion about what the participants of the meeting wrote on the handout; since he destroyed them, we'll have to rely on his memory. Other copies of the handout were still present, so we know what the original said. Perhaps he intended to eventually remove all copies? Perhaps he wanted to remove the copies bearing notes made by selected officials? Perhaps he was going a bit batty?

He did fess up, though I think it was plea-bargained to avoid a brouhaha. Dunno. But the notes in the margins of the copies were the only copies of those notes extant.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. Wait a minute

The prosecutors said that what he took were copies.

If he had taken, say, Janet Reno's copy of a memo presented to her at a briefing, along with her notes in the margins, would that not have been an original?

My understanding is that the archives retained all the originals, and that no information has been lost.

Why Berger would shred three of the copies and return only two is an interesting question. If he destroyed contemporaneous accounts of the meeting, he deserves significant punishment. If his intent was to destroy copies of classified materials (knowing that the originals were safe) because he didn't want them disseminated, that's something else.

[Igel]

67. Copies can be originals.

They were copies of a document. The markings were original. But the documents were copies. Hence the massiveness of the brouhaha: it wasn't just taking classified materials, it was taking potentially unique copies (there's that word again) of classified materials.

Very imprecise, this language business.

[Feuerhexe]

69. Tricky tricky and none of the newspaper articles make it clear.

Language is a tricky business, however I did some digging and his plea states that the documents in question were copies of versions of the same document (other copies of said versions were also turned over to the 9-11 commission). In other words 3 of the copies of the versions were destroyed, 2 of the copies of the versions were later returned and another set of copies of the versions were handed over to the commission. Nothing happened to the original potentially unique versions. He also made hand written notes of material and took that home with him (which he later returned). The charge was unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents. I am not sure what destroying originals would be covered under.

At least thems the facts as far as I can discern. I certainly hope that no one is given the opportunity ever to destroy originals or unique versions of originals held by the archive, that would just be plain stupid.

http://unbillablehours.typepad.com/unbillablehours/files/bergerproffer.pdf

[librechik]

43. That was the breach--he wasn't allowed to take notes and

take them with him. So he sneaked.

[KoKo]

52. Exactly they were his own notes...and he should have had a right to copy

them. I wonder why we don't hear of the Repug Aide who broke into Dems Computer in the Senate and stole information. He was an aide to Orrin Hatch and was supposed to be prosecuted, but he finally resigned and is probably making millions as a lobbyist.

[Armstead]

3. It's true -- But it wasnt necessarily nefarious

He did get caught taking out some sensitive security papers that he should not have removed.

He says it was an oversight on his prt, and he was borrowing them to work at home without realizig that it weas illgal to do so.

I'll take him a his word.

But right wngers will assume the worst.

[sgxnk]

8. um, no

he stuffed the items in his pants; that is strong evidence that he was concealing them and knew it was wrong.

this is similar to how the law views shoplifting (and i have viewed it as a cop). there are times when people will walk right out of the store with a can of coke or something in their hand and forget to pay. quite often it is not shoplifting. they merely forgot.

but when they stuff items into their pants - it's CLEARLY shoplifting. because people don't do that with stuff they intend to buy

it was not an oversight, or he wouldn't have stuffed them in his pants

and if a rightwinger had done the exact same thing, i am convinced you would not have the same response

double standards. it's what's for breakfast

it has nothing to do with being right or leftwing. it has to do with looking at things DISpassionately vs. through a partisan lens

you are obviously doing the latter

[Bridget Burke]

12. Apparently DU is not right-wing enough for you.

How long did you take to notice this?

[sgxnk]

16. nothing

it has nothing to do with right or leftwing.

it has to do with viewing ACTS as a partisan (ie a false double standard) or as a rational human being

one can believe in leftwing causes, but not be mired in a smoky partisan lens that causes you to discount criminal activity by leftists, but condemn it when done by rightwingers. if that's your deficiency, so be it

sandy berger was wrong to stuff those items in his pants and try to sneak them out. he was caught. the idea that he stuffed them in his PANTS and walked out them as an "oversight" is laughable political spin

do you HONESTLY believe that? is your cognitive dissonance THAT absurd?

dishonest acts, crimes, etc. are wrong no matter who does them

HONEST rightwingers, for instance, wouldn't claim that watergate was not a crime.

HONEST leftwingers wouldn't claim that lying under oath was not a crime

etc.

do you dispute the facts - that berger stuffed these items INTO his pants and walked out and that this showed a Knowledge that his act was wrong and he was trying to conceal it?

do you?

[Feuerhexe]

40. Sandy Berger is a leftist?

That being said, I agree with the essence of what you are saying. Although, beyond that he broke the law and did something that was clearly illegal, the degree of nefariousness of those deeds seems open to question (meaning his motivation for doing so). The courts interpretation seemed to be that he really did take them to prepare (knowing it was wrong) and then destroyed them because he couldn't or wouldn't sneak them back in. I can imagine more dastardly reasons, but I don't see any proof either way.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. That's A Completely Unfair And Inappropriate Statement.

And if you don't think you'd view this case differently if it had been a neocon who was caught doing it, you would be surely lying to yourself.

[Armstead]

15. Read the Media Matters and use some simple logic

As one who is constantly stuffing notes into my pockets, I can certainly understand how he did that.

And there's a matter of simple logic. What possible reason would he have for taking such a chance to "steal" documentrs or smuggle out his notes?

I'll put it into the category of stupid and absent minded, and maybe a little arrogent. But nohing more than that.

[JHB]

17. Um, no to the "Um, no": He put notes in his pants POCKETS

The Media Matters link above goes over it, and if that's not good enough go to more official sources on the matter.

When leaving he put his handwritten notes into his "jacket and pants" pockets. It didn't take long for the Limbots and Friends to morph that into the shoplifting-type pants-stuffing you note above.

[sgxnk]

20. for pete's sake

the media matters link was written BEFORE he pled guilty

so why not go to a SOURCE document AFTER his plea, not a biased media source reporting on the ALLEGATIONs (that were later proved)

here...

i'll help you;.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm

you can rely on biased media shills, or wait and go to the actual report oN THE PLEA

the friggin media matters link was written BEFORE the facts were even out in the court

MY link was the result OF his guilty plea. where he acknowledged KNOWINGLY committing a crime

hth

[JHB]

26. Alright. Mea culpa

That was sloppy of me. You have my apologies.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. And where does "stuffed in his pants" show up in the DOJ press release?

[napi21]

21. You are right xgsnk, however there are slightly mitigating circumstances.

Sandy did not take ANY originals from the archives, but made copies. it was the copies that he stuffed in his underware because it is also illegal to make copies of anything in the archives. I'm sure Sandy knew he wasn't allowed to make copies either, but mentally excused his actions because the originals were allleft intact, and at least he BELIEVED he needed the info to prepare for his upcoming testimony.

Were his actions wrong? Yes, of course. But I believe it's a stretch to compare this with shoplifting, since nothing of material value or original belonging to someone else was taken. There was a law broken, but it was something other than theft.

[FormerDem06]

27. He didn't "Make" copies

He took five different copies that belonged to the archive. According to the Washington Post write up these were copies on one document altered five different ways to be sent out of the WH. I.E. One to the CIA, one to the FBI, one to the Justice Department, etc. etc. etc.

He destroyed three of the five. My theory is that those three were altered in a way that could be misconstrued that Clinton knew more than he did (or admitted) about the terror threat.

Berger always struck me as a fall on the sword for your boss kind of guy. Just from the times I saw him on TV in the 90s.

[Igel]

34. It's confusing because the originals were copies.

Berger didn't make copies; he took copies.

Imagine a meeting: Everybody gets a copy of the same text for review. People mark up their copies. After the meeting, the copies are retrieved. I've been in such meetings involving university personnel. Our copies were shredded. Papers from such meetings at the White House, they wind up in the archives.

Are the copies originals? No. But the mark-up makes them originals. The only reason apart from mild dementia for stealing multiple copies is if you're either after all the copies, or want the marking-up erased from the record.

Remember the Wilson-related article bearing Cheney's comments/questions about Wilson's trip being a 'junket'? Had that piece of paper been archived before anybody became interested in it Cheney could have come along and stolen it. Then one could say a simple copy--one of many thousands--had been taken and destroyed, no big deal. Or he was merely stealing his own notes, no big deal. Cheney might have replied that it wasn't anything of consequence. Who'd be able to challenge him?

There are reasons why even marked up copies are considered originals and stealing them is wrong.

[Cassandra]

4. It's like a giant game of telephone, isn't it?

Berger took copies of classified documents that he himself had written from the National Archives so that he could have them before testifying before the 9/11 commission. He wasn't supposed to do that and was given a large slap on the wrist.

[FormerDem06]

29. The documents were written by Richard C Clarke....

But the notes in the margins belong to Berger.

[gumby]

7. Rush Limbaugh always

refers to Sandy Berger as "Sandy Burglar."

I believe that after the investigation, Burger may have paid a fine, but was exonerated of 'evil doing.'

But, this 'Sandy Burglar' story has been repeated so often, it has become "real" history for the wing-nuts.

[sistersofmercy]

11. Amazing how that happens

My friend can't stand Rush which makes the whole thing kind of funny but sad. I'm going to email the above link and tell him congratulations for pouting off RL talking points. He can't stand Ann Coulter either but I guess if Michael Savage says it it must but true :eyes:

[cigsandcoffee]

10. What bothers me the most is that the documents were lost.

I've never tried defending the Berger thing against a RWer, and really wouldn't like to. If one of theirs had done what Berger did, I'd have crucified him.

[Exiled in America]

14. No documents were lost.

He made copies - copies were lost. The orginals were never removed at all, according to the media matters write-up posted earlier.

[cigsandcoffee]

19. Well, not exactly.

What was lost was his hand-written notes from the time. That leaves it all open to speculation as to what was on them, and suggests he may have wanted to remove something incriminating.

As I said, if a RWer had done what he did, I'd have nailed him. I'm not going to hold a political ally to such a noticeably different standard.

[Exiled in America]

32. Ah, thanks for the clarification

[merh]

35. You are so wrong.

Please see my post #33 - please stop spreading rumors and false versions.

[merh]

33. Guess you have NEVER done any real research, on your own

without a computer or a blog to point you in a direction.

If you get the chance, go to the National Achieves and try to do some research of your own.

If you bothered to do that, you would discover that the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS are never provided to you and what copies that are provided to you are tracked by the National Achieves employees. They log the description of the documents (which may or not be bates stamped or have a bar code, depending on the inventory method used by the achieving agency), date when the documents are copied and who it is that has requested the copies and the staff monitors the COPIES. The ORIGINALS are returned to their storage folder or whatever means it is the agency uses to maintain the ORIGINAL documents. THE ORIGINALS ARE MAINTAINED AND NEVER GIVEN TO THE RESEARCHER OR THE AGENCY REQUESTING THEM. (The 9/11 commission was provided COPIES, never the originals.)

As Samuel "Sandy" Berger had a security clearance because of his job in Clinton's administration, he was allowed to see the COPIES of documents that were classified and that he or others working with him, had in fact created. I believe it was a memo that had four or five versions before the final memo was produced relative to terrorism and the Clinton's administration's policies. You or I could not see those documents if we asked to see them given we have no security clearance. BERGER had the proper security clearance and was PROVIDED COPIES and not the original documents.

When the National Achieve staff checked the copies log, they realized that Berger had removed the COPIES provided on two occasions. They contacted him and he provided them with some of the copies, but he had tried to destroy others by cutting the COPIES up with scissors in his office. (Which he admitted to in his misdemeanor case.) Why he removed the copies and tried to destroy some of them only he truly knows. I would surmise that he was accustomed to having the ability to remove copies of documents that were once his own and that he unwittingly walked out with them. Once he realized he had, he was either embarrassed or worried that he had copies of classified documents and he tried to destroy them, rather than admit his mistake.

There is a factual finding by the US Attorney General's office, the United States Attorney's handling the Berger misdemeanor case, that finds that the 9/11 Commission DID RECEIVE COPIES of the documents.

7. The National Commission on Terrorism Attacks Upon the United States (Also known as the 9-11 Commission) received copies of each document in the normal course of document
production.

If you would bother to actually research on your own and not settle for what a blog tells you or a message board argument contains, you can use the PACER court system and find the "Factual Basis for Plea" (proffer) filed on April 1, 2005, in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Cause no 1:05mj-00175-DAR (Docket #6). The case is styled USoA versus Samuel R. Berger and it was a MISDEMEANOR charge of "unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents", not the grand felony scheme of trying to steal documents to protect the Clinton administration as is tauted by the vast rightwingnuts that worship the "dreamy weed in chief".

If anyone has the ability to scan the document and post it as an image, will be glad to provide you with the PDF copy I have.

In closing, you seriously need to try to think outside of the blog world and beyond what you are told.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

37. Ahem, read ABOVE

Excellent post, merh, thanks for laying it out.

[merh]

39. I get so damned tired of folks regurgitating blogs and

message boards. The Berger court documents are on file and available to anyone that wants to invest $.08 a page for them. Just sign on to pacer and have at 'em.

I wish I had the capability to save them as images to post here but I don't. I do have the PDF documents.

I'm funny in that I like to THINK FOR MYSELF and make up my own mind based on the actual documents and court record and not on what someone tells me.

/rant off


thanks sandnsea :hi:

[sistersofmercy]

45. Thanks for that explanation

Wow Bravo! i've been waiting for the full answer to arrive and now I understand. The whole copies language was confusing. I didn't know the National Archives gives out copies of the originals. Thanks for that information. I read the plea agreement but still found the answering puzzling and without the information you provided I can see why even the well intentioned could have it wrong. Thanks again for the clarification. :toast:

[Catherine Vincent]

51. As others said, Merh...excellent post!

:hi:

[merh]

57. hi cat

:hi: thanks for the kind words :hug:

you don't know how they are so needed :loveya:

[FormerDem06]

13. From his plea agreement.....

He took five copies of the same document that had slight variations based on the audience they were to go too. He destroyed three of them with scissors. He NEVER stuffed anything into his socks or pants. I wonder if he was trying to get rid of some innocuous stuff that could be leaked and used against Clinton and Clarke (i.e. taken out of context).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

snip
=================================================================
The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."
=================================================================

snip
=================================================================
The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
=================================================================

snip
=================================================================
The Berger associate authorized to speak with reporters described the chronology the former national security chief gave to the Justice Department in his negotiations with the Justice Department. On Sept. 2, 2003, the associate said, Berger put a copy of the Clarke report in his suit jacket. He did not put it in his socks or underwear, as was alleged by some Republicans last summer.

=================================================================

[sistersofmercy]

22. It seems to me that he may have

taken copies of the documents to review, make sure he knew what he needed to know. I don't see how taking copies, not originals, would have benefitted Clinton and Clarke in anyway. Thanks for the link.

[FormerDem06]

25. Each copies had handwritten notes in the margins

Or they were altered based on the audience. He may have destroyed the three copies that were altered in a particular way that could have been requested by someone else and used erroneously in the 9/11 commission hearings.

Just a thought, but he did DESTROY with scissors, gov't property. Thus, his plea agreement.

[sistersofmercy]

31. The plea agreement does sort of read that way, doesn't it?

It does read that it was 5 copies of the same document in the archives that he removed, 2 returned and 3 shredded with scissors. If it's against the rules to copy documents from the archives how could he have made copies himself?

[merh]

38. Please stop making assumptions that are based on your understanding

and not on what occurred or the facts as they exist on record in the US District Court.

See post 33.

[FormerDem06]

48. based on the newspaper article I just read....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

----------------------------------------------
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.
----------------------------------------------

This is not a blog, and that is what I was basing my assumptions on.

[merh]

55. GO read the court documents on file

They contain the facts -- newspapers tend to slant the news too.

[Feuerhexe]

58. Do you have a link for the court documents?

I'm lazy or not so interested as to spend more then a few minutes searching (one of those two .. maybe both). Thanks in advance if you have one :)

[merh]

60. See my post 33 for a description of the case

This is the link to Pacer https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?court_id=00idx

you have to sign up for an account, but the costs are minimal.

:hi:

[Feuerhexe]

62. Aha you work for PACER don't you!

Whats your commission per page, 2 cents .. 3 cents ?? Oh, wait a second hmm public ... .gov, ok you're off the hook :)

Actually thats kind of cool

[merh]

63. It really is a cool site

You can access all sorts of actual pleadings and documents on file in some of the most interesting cases filed in most federal courts through out the nation.

Like I said, I don't like to accept what is written by another if there is a chance that "facts" are of record and can be what they are, legitimate facts.

BTW - welcome to DU :hi:

[Feuerhexe]

66. Thanks

:hi:

I'm not a big fan of smilies, but I feel obligated to return the hello :)

[Feuerhexe]

47. I read they were copies, as in computer print outs, of the originals,

nothing (not even notes in the margins on the originals) was lost (WSJ article, but opinion). Perhaps thats mistaken .. anyone know?

[FormerDem06]

49. See Post 48...I think you are right.....

Then destroying three copies did not make any sense at all. Unless he didn't know he had the copies or it was inadvertant. Who knows.

[Feuerhexe]

54. I can make sense of it, I think.

Ok, you are Sandy Berger and you take computer print outs from the archive (of several original copies of the same document .. copies of copies) home with you because either a. (stupid, but not so evil) You don't want to be chained to the archive while you work with them or b. (bad and maybe evil) You want someone to see them who legally should not.

Now you have those papers in your office and either you (happy Sandy Berger glasses) want to destroy them so sensitive material does not get out as a result of your dumb decision to take the stuff with you or (evil Sandy Berger glasses) you don't want to get caught with the documents, so you destroy the evidence of your evil deeds. As to why destroy some and not others ... that I don't have a good guess at. It seems to me to point toward the scatter brained defense, but it could be that for whatever reason he wanted to keep a copy for himself to read in the future?

On edit: Square brackets makes things invisible? My whole commenting on my own statements style is going to suffer.

[KoKo]

53. My goodness you have an interesting name: "FormerDem06?"

Wha?

[FormerDem06]

64. One day I am going to save my reponse to this post...

I am a NC Democrat who is refusing to vote Dem (or Repub) in North Carolina until Republican in Democrat's clothing House Speaker Jim Black resigns. I didn't realize I could never change my name so I'm stuck with it. I will however vote Dem in EVERY national election race I am allowed to cast a vote for.

Black is taking lobbyist money by the fistfuls (from big business) and he recently took a bunch of blank checks and passed them out on the Senate Floor. Top it all off with his recent buy out of a Republican at an International House of Pancakes, and I am very angry right now. Dems are not supposed to act this way.

[KoKo]

65. Thanks....

Agree with you on Jim Black. Makes one wonder how it's tolerated. Why it's tolerated.

Welcome to DU. Your name might have folks wondering if you are a Freep, though. Maybe you could PM Skinner and ask him if you can modify it so you don't get folks questioning.

[Catherine Vincent]

50. "stuffing security documents in his pants and socks"

I wonder where did this start. Probably some right winger wrote an editorial and printed that as a half-hearted joke and the dittoheaded bushies have been repeating it ever since!

[merh]

36. please see my post #33

:hi:

[sistersofmercy]

46. ((((((((((THANKS)))))))))))) REALLY GREAT INFO!!!!!!!!

I understand. Thanks so much if I have questions in the future I will wait to hear from you! :toast:

[merh]

56. you are welcome

:hi:

[merh]

59. please pmail me if you need to.

I may not have the answers, but I will be glad to help you try to find them.

[Sam Odom]

61. Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."

...

The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html