Former Clinton National Security Advisory Sandy Berger gave up his law license and likely will never practice law again. Facing the prospect of an embarrassing cross-examination by the District of Columbia Board on Bar Counsel related to his theft of classified documents from the National Archives, Berger forfeited his law license on May 17. The Washington Times broke the story.
“I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license,” said Berger in a written statement.
Trust me. I doubt there was much that was “voluntary” about it. In 2005, Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the Office of Bar Counsel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the matter was subsequently referred for investigation by the court. After two years, it seems that Berger forfeited his law license because he did not want any more public attention given to his reckless and illegal behavior.
In April 2005, Berger pled guilty in federal court to stealing classified documents from the National Archives, destroying some of those documents, and lying to federal investigators. Why would Berger take such a huge personal and professional risk? Apparently, the stolen documents included a highly secret memorandum (possibly with handwritten notes) that was allegedly critical of the Clinton administration’s response to the “Millennium 2000” terror plot to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport.
Obviously, Berger attempted to hide and destroy embarrassing and incriminating information related to the Clinton administration’s (and his) failure to adequately address the threat of terrorism. He was caught red-handed by an informal “sting” operation staged by National Archives staff members, lied, and then came clean.
The salacious details of Berger’s astonishing theft of classified documents were a fairly well-kept secret, until the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform released a scathing 61-page report earlier this year. Members of the 9/11 Commission were horrified to find that the Justice Department never told them the full truth about Berger’s crime. We will never know the truth about what documents Berger may have taken because he had access to originals that had not yet been catalogued by Archives staff.
In response to the congressional report, the 9/11 commission’s former executive director, Philip Zelikow, said the commission should have been told the full truth about what Berger did because it would have triggered additional questions under oath, while the commission’s general counsel said it was “unnerving” to later learn the details.
Berger received a slap on the wrist from the Bush Justice Department, including a $50,000 fine and 100 hours of community service, in addition to a temporary loss of his security clearance. Yet, even though Berger violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for an attorney in the District of Columbia by his own admission, the Bar has yet to report what it did to hold him to account.
I’m glad Berger won’t be able to practice law. But his license should have been stripped after he pleaded guilty. He should not have been allowed to end his law career on his own terms.
Of course, Berger doesn’t need a law license to take a top-level position with the presidential administration of Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Don’t worry. He’s eligible to get his security clearance back in time for a new Clinton administration.) Berger recently served as a foreign policy advisor to Senator Clinton, and still stands in good stead to obtain a position of power should Hillary be elected in 2008.
To view Judicial Watch’s documents concerning our Berger bar complaint, click here.
Senate, White House Strike Amnesty Deal for Illegals
The U.S. Senate last week took a big step that most think was in the wrong direction on Thursday in dealing with the illegal immigration crisis. This according to the Associated Press:
“In a striking reach across party lines, the White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday on a sweeping immigration plan to grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully.
According to press reports, this new plan creates what is called a “Z” visa, which enables illegal aliens to remain in the United States permanently without ever having to return home. In other words, amnesty for illegal aliens is closer to becoming the law of the land – again.
President Bush claims this new proposal will, “help enforce our borders.”
But according to Border Patrol survey results uncovered by Judicial Watch in 2005, President Bush’s initial amnesty proposal lured greater numbers of illegal immigrants to cross the border. In fact, according to these surveys, 80% crossed in the hopes of obtaining amnesty. Here are just a few of the responses Border Patrol received from illegals caught trying to cross the border in response to the question: Did amnesty rumors influence your decision to enter the U.S.A…
· “Yes, I am coming for the Bush amnesty program.”
· “Yes, after hearing it on the news, I thought I could fix my papers.”
· “Yes, that’s why I crossed.”
Once news of the survey was leaked to the press, the Bush administration shut it down and ordered Border Patrol agents not to discuss the survey’s findings. (Is there any wonder why?) And now, here we are several years later, surely providing another incentive for illegal aliens to come rushing across the border. I’d be interested to know of any spikes in illegal immigration as a result of the news of amnesty this week.
Too many politicians here in D.C. are out of touch with voters on this issue. A recent Zogby International poll of likely voters commissioned by Judicial Watch shows that Americans overwhelmingly (66%) believe that more emphasis should be placed on law enforcement when addressing the issue of illegal immigration. This supermajority includes 51.6% of Hispanics and 56.8% of self-described political “liberals.” Only 5% said the emphasis on law enforcement should be diminished, including 3% of Hispanics. Our phone lines have lit up with opposition to this latest immigration plan.
In the meantime, we will continue to fight for more information from the government and for the strong enforcement of our immigration laws across the United States. Click here to find out the latest news on our illegal immigration campaign.
Top Hillary Campaign Contributor has Terrorist Connection
Hillary Clinton recently crowned Palestinian lobbyist Hani Masri, as one of her coveted “Hillraisers,” for bringing more than $100,000 into her presidential campaign in the first quarter alone. Marsi, who also hosted a secret $50,000 fundraiser at his Washington, D.C. home for Hillary’s Senate 2000 campaign, was a close associate of the late Palestinian terrorist leader Yassar Arafat. Arafat was responsible for the murder of Americans and thousands of other innocents, including children.
Masri, according to the New York Observer, “is a Palestinian-American businessman who is one of the most influential supporters of the Palestinian cause in Washington,” and “has the ear of some of the most powerful Democrats in the country, including Bill Clinton and of former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe.”
When questioned on the Masri connection, the Clinton campaign was unapologetic. “Mr. Masri has been a longtime supporter of Senator Clinton, her husband and the Democratic Party, and we are grateful for that support,” said Clinton’s spokesman Howard Wolfson. Masri is supposedly tied to the “peace camp” in the Palestinian cause. The problem is “peace” is an elastic word in that area of the world.
This is not the first time Hillary has accepted funds from a source with ties to terrorism. In 2000, the Clinton campaign was forced to return a $1,000 contribution from Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is now serving a 23 year prison sentence for reportedly laundering money from Libya to fund terrorist activities.
Alamoudi, founder of the radical American Muslim Council, held numerous meetings with the Clintons, and once boasted, “"We are the ones who went to the [Clinton] White House and defended what is called Hamas." Incidentally, on its campaign finance disclosure forms, the Clinton campaign listed Alamoudi’s affiliation as the American “Museum” Council. Just a typo?
According to The New York Daily News, as First Lady, Clinton “held several White House Muslim holiday receptions to which individuals opposed to the Mideast peace process and Israel's existence were invited.”
Hillary Clinton continues to openly court the financial support of the radical Islamic community, just as she has always done. The question that remains is what do they expect in return for their investment?
Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.