For some reason, the National Archives has a hard time keeping its hands on information related to the Clinton Administration:
dead drop brief time.
The first inclination is to suggest that someone wanted the information disappeared. Washington is so thick with intrigue and interested parties that it doesn't take much of an imagination to come up with a couple of dozen suspects. The fact that the Archives simultaneously claims that 1) it's trying to find out what was stolen, and 2) it's certain that there's a copy of it somewhere around here (shuffles papers on desk), opens the door to blackmail as well as protection. And remember who's our current Secretary of State.
The Post doesn't appear to have bothered to put this in its print edition, but it'll be interesting to see if there's any follow-up.
Correction: The article did appear on page A20 of Wednesday's paper.
The National Archives lost a computer hard drive containing massive amounts of sensitive data from the Clinton administration, including Social Security numbers, addresses, and Secret Service and White House operating procedures, congressional officials said Tuesday.Um, political records? The Clinton Administration had a hard time keeping its White House operations, it politics, and its FBI files separate, and now it turns out that much information of this type is missing.One of former Vice President Al Gore's three daughters is among those whose Social Security numbers were on the drive, but it was not clear which one. Other information includes logs of events, social gatherings and political records.
The aide, who was not authorized to be quoted by name, said the hard drive was left on a shelf and unused for an uncertain period of time. When the employee tried to resume work, the hard drive was missing.Sure, and Sandy Berger was just looking for a place to make change when he stuffed those meeting notes and memos under a trailer for a
The first inclination is to suggest that someone wanted the information disappeared. Washington is so thick with intrigue and interested parties that it doesn't take much of an imagination to come up with a couple of dozen suspects. The fact that the Archives simultaneously claims that 1) it's trying to find out what was stolen, and 2) it's certain that there's a copy of it somewhere around here (shuffles papers on desk), opens the door to blackmail as well as protection. And remember who's our current Secretary of State.
The Post doesn't appear to have bothered to put this in its print edition, but it'll be interesting to see if there's any follow-up.
Correction: The article did appear on page A20 of Wednesday's paper.
