I still haven’t gotten a single email from someone who regularly deals with classified info who isn’t scandalized by this. Meanwhile I get a half-dozen of these every hour or so:
Jonah:
I’m a historian at a govt agency (won’t tell you which
one, and don’t publish my name please). a) the Reports
can be anywhere from 5-50 pages and b) your readers
are right to be upset about the Berger thing. I’m
furious because i know that i can’t get away with
entering or leaving the secure rooms without a
security guard checking EVERYTHING I have – I go a few
times a month and if I ever did this I’d be
disciplined severely, if not outright fired.
You’re not allowed to take originals or copies outside
the secure room since COPIES RETAIN THE ORIGINAL
CLASSIFICATION STATUS AS THE ORIGINALS. Anyone with a
security clearance up to codeword (indeed the highest
level) knows that, you’re briefed and must watch a
video on how documents need to be protected. So
that’s just phony Clinton/Dee Dee Myers talking points
designed to obfuscate the issue (i know that shocks
you). They’re also trying to spin the whole thing
about the fact that these were drafts. Historians want
to see how drafts change as they move through the
bureaucracy. So why would he stuff them down his
pants or in his socks unless he knew that his person
wouldn’t be searched but his briefcase would be? Did
he or Clinton or Albright say something embarassing in
a post-9/11 world? Like maybe they weren’t “obsessed”
with UBL?
And again these reports of concealing documents in
clothing came from the National Archives staffpeople,
who even gave him a break by contacting Bruce Lindsey
(popping up yet again!) before they contacted the FBI
because he did the same thing on more than one
occasion. That’s why his “inadvertent” comment is
ludicrous on its face.