Available at 
Tweet
It was revealed today that, for the past 4-5 months, Sandy Berger, the disgraced former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, has been an unpaid advisor to Hillary Clinton's campaign on issues of national security.
Sandy Berger plead guilty in federal court to (post-9/11) stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives related to, among other things, the Clinton Administration's handling of Kobar Tower bombings and African embassy bombings. He snuck out the documents by stuffing them in his pants and socks. It remains unknown, to this day, all of the documents he took and the significance of those documents (clearly, though, it would be safe to assume that they made the Clinton administration look bad). It's not like this is a little misunderstanding that resulted in inadvertent destruction of documents. The sentencing judge deviated upward from the recommended fine at sentencing (5x) due to the seriousness of the crime and Berger avoided being disbarred by the DC Bar by surrendering his license to practice (which also got him out of having to plead the 5th or testify under immunity before the Bar regarding the documents). This was a big deal. This was a breach of national security in a time of war.
He probably would be a great resource for Hillary (given his professional experience as well as in light of the fact that he's clearly willing to go to jail in Bill's interest). I am not debating that. But just because someone could be strategically helpfully doesn't mean they deserve the privilege of serving. It seems incredibly irresponsible to turn to a convicted criminal--who is convicted of crimes relating to national security--as someone who you think is appropriate to advise a potential future president. His willingness to prioritize the Clintons' interests over those of the nation (these documents were highly classified and federal law prohibited their removal and destruction) would make him an unacceptable choice as an advisor (whether paid or not).
What was she thinking?
Sandy Berger plead guilty in federal court to (post-9/11) stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives related to, among other things, the Clinton Administration's handling of Kobar Tower bombings and African embassy bombings. He snuck out the documents by stuffing them in his pants and socks. It remains unknown, to this day, all of the documents he took and the significance of those documents (clearly, though, it would be safe to assume that they made the Clinton administration look bad). It's not like this is a little misunderstanding that resulted in inadvertent destruction of documents. The sentencing judge deviated upward from the recommended fine at sentencing (5x) due to the seriousness of the crime and Berger avoided being disbarred by the DC Bar by surrendering his license to practice (which also got him out of having to plead the 5th or testify under immunity before the Bar regarding the documents). This was a big deal. This was a breach of national security in a time of war.
He probably would be a great resource for Hillary (given his professional experience as well as in light of the fact that he's clearly willing to go to jail in Bill's interest). I am not debating that. But just because someone could be strategically helpfully doesn't mean they deserve the privilege of serving. It seems incredibly irresponsible to turn to a convicted criminal--who is convicted of crimes relating to national security--as someone who you think is appropriate to advise a potential future president. His willingness to prioritize the Clintons' interests over those of the nation (these documents were highly classified and federal law prohibited their removal and destruction) would make him an unacceptable choice as an advisor (whether paid or not).
What was she thinking?
Comment