Thread: Clinton adviser on Israel had commercial ties to Middle East

Clinton adviser on Israel had commercial ties to Middle East



By SARAH WESTWOOD

•

8/8/15 3:39 PM

A controversial Clinton adviser who faced penalties for conflicts of interests under President Bill Clinton was still assisting Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, despite the fact that his consulting firm was engaged in commercial activities in countries where she worked, emails show.

Sandy Berger, who gained notoriety when he stole classified documents from the National Archives prior to testimony before the 9/11 Commission, had Hillary Clinton's personal email address and emailed her about Israel, Pakistan and terrorism in 2009.

Berger's consulting firm, the Albright Stonebridge Group, has engaged in business in more than 100 countries around the world, according to its website.

It has worked extensively in the Middle East, an area that Berger sought to assist Hillary Clinton on during her State Department tenure.

In discussing methods of dealing with Israel in September 2009, Berger said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's positioning in Palestinian negotiations "suggests Bibi is the obstacle to progress." Berger outlined a number of ways to put pressure on Netanyahu to bend to the will of the U.S., outlining guidance that was skewed in favor of Palestinian statehood.
It was not the only time Berger referred to Netanyahu as an "obstacle," although Hillary Clinton was publicly working on strengthening her relationship with Israel at the time.

Clinton asked Berger "how to gain leverage over the Pakistanis" in October 2009, emails between the two show. She had also asked Berger for advice on ways to encourage Pakistan to more aggressively pursue al Qaeda.

A "monthly thinking group" listed among Clinton's emails included Berger. Other attendees appeared to include John Podesta, Clinton's present campaign chair, and Maggie Williams, who worked at the Clinton Foundation before State.
Berger was not the only Albright Stonebridge executive with whom Hillary Clinton had regular contact. Wendy Sherman served as vice chair of Albright Stonebridge before Clinton tapped her to join the State Department in 2011.

Sherman has been deeply involved in the Iran negotiations, and her name surfaced in several Benghazi-related emails the State Department released in May. In July of 2009, Sherman complimented Clinton's appearance on "Meet the Press" from her company account. The exchange indicates Sherman had Clinton's private email address.
Months later, Sherman was sending Clinton regards before the secretary departed for a trip to Africa.

Berger's role mirrors that of Sidney Blumenthal, who emailed Clinton advice throughout her tenure, despite having business ties to at least one of the countries on which he advised her.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cl...rticle/2569883

Leadership

• 
  Madeleine K. Albright
  
  Chair
  
  • Read moreabout Madeleine K. Albright
  
  
• 
  Samuel R. Berger
  
  Chair
  
  • Read moreabout Samuel R. Berger
  
  
• 
  Carlos M. Gutierrez
  
  Chair
  
  • Read moreabout Carlos M. Gutierrez
  
  
• 
  Amy Celico
  
  Principal
  
  • Read moreabout Amy Celico
  
  
• 
  H.P. Goldfield
  
  Vice Chair
  
  • Read moreabout H.P. Goldfield
  
  
• 
  Anthony S. Harrington
  
  Chair, Managing Board
  
  • Read moreabout Anthony S. Harrington
  
  
• 
  Jin Ligang
  
  Principal
  
  • Read moreabout Jin Ligang
  
  
• 
  James C. O'Brien
  
  Vice Chair
  
  • Read moreabout James C. O'Brien
  
  
• 
  Dan K. Rosenthal
  
  Principal
  
  • Read moreabout Dan K. Rosenthal
  
  
• 
  Michael J. Warren
  
  Managing Principal

- See more at: http://www.albrightstonebridge.com/a....kNVy5Wu2.dpuf

Berger Thefts Still Weigh on Archives Agents

The Clinton-era national security adviser smuggled documents out of the National Archives.

By Caitlin Huey-Burns and Paul Bedard
March 14, 2011 | 11:56 a.m. EDT+ More

It's been almost eight years since Clinton-era national security adviser Sandy Berger smuggled classified documents out of the National Archives that detailed his boss's efforts to thwart terrorist threats to the millennium celebrations. The crime cost Berger $50,000, 100 hours of community service, his security clearance, and his law license. But the agents who went after him haven't forgotten. "It weighs on you," says Archives Inspector General Paul Brachfeld.


And now they've made Berger the poster boy for a new anti-theft initiative. The outreach to archivists includes a slide show that pictures Berger and three other smugglers under the headline: "To Catch a Thief." What's more, Brachfeld now has an archival recovery team assigned to work theft cases. "Those acts I don't think can be re-created today," he tells our Caitlin Huey-Burns.

Still, the Berger episode gnaws at Brachfeld because the former top official abused his privileges and because Berger's actions might have robbed the 9/11 Commission of key details related to its probe of the terror plot. Brachfeld says Berger was given "unique privileges" just "because he was Sandy Berger." But, he adds, that kind of special treatment will never again be provided. "Those unique privileges were rescinded, in terms of it wasn't going to happen again," says Brachfeld.

He notes that the 9/11 Commission report, which also looked at the Clinton administration's handling of terrorism, could have been compromised. "We all know what 9/11 meant to the country, and his treating those records in such a manner will always leave, in my mind, a cloud over whether or not the 9/11 Commission got full production of the records that they requested, and that to me is extremely serious and an affront to all Americans."

The misdemeanor to which Berger admitted took place in late 2003. "It was a terrible experience for me," Brachfeld says. "I was going after big game." He adds: "It was very disquieting to me that somebody that was a household name in Washington, somebody that was a trusted person, somebody that you hope would be a good steward of the records and would be responsive to the 9/11 Commission, treated the records in the opposite manner. So you know, you lose faith. It's a success in terms of getting him to admit to the crime in some degree. But at the same time, it's sad."

Berger had no comment.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...rchives-agents

Sounds like hiding documents is an OLD game with this crowd.

Inspector General Says Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Hid Classified Docs

Published December 21, 2006
Associated Press

President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.
The report was issued more than a year after Sandy Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removing the documents.

Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration's representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.

Berger's lawyer,Lanny Breuer, said in a statement that the contents of all the documents exist today and were made available to the commission.

But Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., outgoing chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said he's not convinced that the Archives can account for all the documents taken by Berger. Davis said working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives.

"There is absolutely no way to determine if Berger swiped any of these original documents. Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials," Davis said.

Berger pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that National Archives employees spotted Berger bending down and fiddling with something white around his ankles.

The employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said.
Later, when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he lied by saying he did not take them, the report said.

Brachfeld's report included an investigator's notes, taken during an interview with Berger. The notes dramatically described Berger's removal of documents during an Oct. 2, 2003, visit to the Archives.

Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets.

"He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said.

He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

"He was aware of the risk he was taking," the inspector general's notes said. Berger then returned to the Archives building without fearing the documents would slip out of his pockets or that staff would notice that his pockets were bulging.

The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.

In October 2003, the report said, an Archives official called Berger to discuss missing documents from his visit two days earlier. The investigator's notes said, "Mr. Berger panicked because he realized he was caught."

The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."
After the trash had been picked up, Berger "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck," the notes said.

Significant portions of the inspector general's report were redacted to protect privacy or national security.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/12...erger-hid.html

Berger's lawyer,Lanny Breuer, said in a statement that the contents of all the documents exist today and were made available to the commission.

Does the name Lanny Breuer sound familiar? Sure it does, he had to resign from the present administration over Fast and Furious. They just keep coming back and being put into higher positions. Similar to Silvia Mathews Burwell, the The Secretary of HHS that went through Vince Foster's trash for the Clintons.

DOJ'S LANNY BREUER TO RESIGN IN WAKE OF FAST AND FURIOUS SCANDAL



by MATTHEW BOYLE
24 Jan 2013

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, the head of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division who played a critical role in lying to Congress about Operation Fast and Furious, plans to resign soon, the Washington Post reports, citing anonymous sources.

“It is not clear when Breuer intends to leave his post, nor what he plans to do once he departs, but it is certain that the prosecutor’s days in office are winding down, according to people who were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter,” the Post wrote.

When asked for a comment on the Post’s report, and to verify its accuracy, DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler wouldn’t confirm or deny the report’s veracity. She did, however, tell Breitbart News the obvious–that, at this time, “Lanny Breuer hasn’t resigned.”

Breuer is the last one of the three highest-ranking Department of Justice officials heavily criticized in the Inspector General investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal to step down. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein both resigned in the wake of the IG report.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley–the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee–called for Breuer’s resignation over a year ago, in December, 2011.

“I have been investigating … Operation Fast and Furious for almost 11 months now,” Grassley said on December 7, 2011, on the floor of the U.S. Senate. “It is past time for accountability at the senior levels of the Justice Department. That accountability needs to start with the head of the Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer.”

Then, Grassley said it was “time for [Breuer] to go.” It’s now been two years since Grassley first launched his investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, and Breuer’s impending resignation brings it closer to full circle.

Breuer was directly involved in providing false information to Congress. Emails show that he was consulted on a February 4, 2011, letter that the DOJ sent to Grassley denying the administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ever walked guns. In Fast and Furious, the ATF “walked” roughly 2,000 firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. That means, through straw purchasers, the agency allowed sales to happen and didn’t stop the guns from being trafficked, even though they had the legal authority to do so and were fully capable of doing so.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens-estimates put it around at least 300-were killed with these firearms.

The DOJ has since withdrawn that February 4, 2011, letter and admitted it was inaccurate.

Also, in 2009 emails, Breuer called gunwalking and Operation Fast and Furious a “terrific idea.”

Those were just some of the many instances in which Breuer was involved in Fast and Furious and its subsequent coverup.

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) , who joined Grassley in investigating Fast and Furious in March 2011, said in a Thursday statement that Breuer’s resignation is “long overdue.”“Breuer was at the heart of several critical failures in Operation Fast and Furious: he knew about reckless tactics, failed to take seriously allegations that they were continuing, and only owned up to his failures once they were publicly exposed,” Issa said. “The Inspector General’s report admonished Breuer for failing to inform the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General when he learned, in April 2010, that the reckless tactic of gunwalking was used in a prior operation. Furthermore, several of Breuer’s top deputies authorized sensitive wiretap applications under Breuer’s authority that, according to the OIG report, contained stark, incontrovertible evidence of the exact same gunwalking tactic. Had Breuer taken any action whatsoever, Fast and Furious would have ended eight months sooner than it did. This resignation paves the way for needed new leadership in the Criminal Division.”

Breuer’s resignation leaves two main officials involved in Fast and Furious and its cover-up in power in the Obama administration: Attorney General Eric Holder and acting ATF director B. Todd Jones–whom Obama has appointed to be the full-time ATF director.

Jones was involved in meetings in which the legal justification for gunwalking was created. Holder remains in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with the congressional investigation, including his unwillingness to give documents up to Congress.

Breuer came to President Barack Obama’s DOJ with Holder from law firm Covington & Burling, where the two worked alongside one another.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...rious-scandal/

Is is time to end the infestation in DC? The same people have been around for years pulling the same shenanigans.

Sandy Berger’s crime



By - The Washington Times - Monday, April 4, 2005

Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to federal investigators. But for lying after stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives — in an apparent attempt to alter the historical record on terrorism, no less — former Clinton national security adviser and Kerry campaign adviser Sandy Berger will get a small fine and slap on the wrist. He will pay $10,000 and get no jail time. His security clearance will be suspended until around the end of the Bush administration — meaningless for a career Democrat like Mr. Berger. It makes us wonder who at the Department of Justice is responsible for letting such a serious offense go virtually unpunished.

On Friday Mr. Berger pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges for stealing five copies of one of the nation’s most highly classified terrorism documents. The document, an “after-action” memo on the millennium 2000 terror plot authored by terrorism expert Richard Clarke, is so highly classified that any person removing it from secure rooms must do so in a case handcuffed to his or her wrist. Mr. Berger stuffed the five copies in his coat jacket and secreted them out of the archives. He proceeded to cut three of them to pieces with scissors at his downtown offices. Archive officials observed Mr. Berger stealing the documents and reported it to their superiors.

When confronted, Mr. Berger lied. He told investigators he had mistakenly taken the documents and then disposed of them inadvertently afterward. In public statements on the matter he called the theft “an honest mistake.” He declared his only intent had been to collect materials for testimony about the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies for the September 11 Commission. At the time, Bill Clinton dismissed the matter with a chuckle. “The innocent explanation is the most likely one,” Mr. Clinton told reporters in Colorado. “We were all laughing about it on the way over here.”

But it wasn’t innocent, and it wasn’t a laughing matter. As Mr. Berger admitted last week, the account he initially gave federal investigators was wrong. The plea agreement he reached with the Department of Justice details that, in fact, he deliberately removed the documents from the National Archives and that far from disposing of them mistakenly, he cut them to pieces with scissors. None of this was inadvertent, a Berger associate acknowledged last week to the Washington Post.

What was Mr. Berger doing with the documents? And why did he destroy only three? The likeliest answer is that he sought to conceal comments he or other Clinton administration officials wrote on them when they were circulating in January 2000. He couldn’t have been trying to erase the document itself from the record, since copies besides the five exist elsewhere. What’s likelier is that jottings in the margins of the three copies he destroyed bore telling indications of the Clinton administration’s approach to terrorism. Mr. Clarke’s document reportedly criticizes the Clinton administration’s handling of the millennial plots and mostly attributes the apprehension of a would-be bomber headed for Los Angeles International Airport to luck and an alert official.

If that turns out to be the case, Mr. Berger erased part of the historical record on terrorism. The Clinton administration’s cavalier attitude toward terrorism is by now well-established; it’s likely to be evident in the archival records and will crop up in official communications. An after-action report like Mr. Clarke’s, written nearly two years before the September 11 terrorist attacks, is as good a candidate as any for the telling aside in the margin.

Mr. Berger committed an egregious violation of the rules that govern the handling of sensitive national-security documents. His offense would cost most any government employee his job, security clearance and future in government. Quite possibly it would cost him his freedom. On top of his crime, Mr. Berger lied about it to federal investigators. But Mr. Berger won’t likely suffer any of the consequences. For those who suspect that different rules apply at the top, a case like this is reason for cynicism. Meanwhile, his associates from the Clinton years are silent, perhaps hoping the scandal will blow over so Mr. Berger can remain a don of the Democratic foreign-policy establishment.

We can only speculate as to why the Department of Justice would agree to such lenient terms for the offense. Perhaps career employees or holdovers with ties to Democrats are responsible. Perhaps the Bush administration went soft. Whatever the reason, we can be reasonably sure it wasn’t done for reasons of national security, justice or truth.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-084700-5791r/