what was returned. After the first visit they only
gave him copies.
What they know he took and I'm not sure if they have
the original was the report Richard Clark wrote after
y2k.
-sm
--- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok but if these were copies no real harm is done,
> right? Not that I
> say that it's all ok. A security breach is a
> security breach. They
> just shut down Los Alamos over something pretty
> similar.
>
> Dana
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: RE: trousergate
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- Marwan Saidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry miniRush, but I don't buy that for a minute.
> hehehe... I'm flattered :)
>
> > They have been
> > investigating this for what, 9 months? I would
> think
> > that they knew EXACTLY
> > what Berger had in his possession, and what was
> and
> > was not returned. If
> > they don't know, then how do they know that he
> took
> > over 70 pages of file?
> > Heh, you debunked yourself...
> Not quite.
> They called him and said there were missing docs. He
> said I found some come pick them up. He returned
> about
> 50 docs. They didn't know he had that many.
> He claimed he accidentally threw some away. They
> have
> no idea how many he took the first time and how many
> weren't returned. From then on they marked the docs
> and only gave him copies. Then he took about 20
> more.
>
> Read the Washington Post piece, it's all there.
>
> -sm
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
>
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
