Archivist's Resignation Questioned
Democrats Seek Reason for His Being Pushed Out
Back to the Booger PageBy George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 26, 2004; Page A17Archivist of the United States John W. Carlin was pushed by the White House in December to submit his resignation without being given any reason, Senate Democrats disclosed last week at a hearing to consider President Bush's nomination of his successor.
The Democrats said the White House should explain why it asked Carlin to resign. He said in a letter to Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales called him Dec. 5 and told him "the administration would like to appoint a new archivist." Carlin said, "I asked why, and there was no reason given."
Critics have suggested Bush may have wanted a new archivist to help keep his or his father's sensitive presidential records under wraps. Under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, many of President George H.W. Bush's papers are due to become public in January.
The 1984 law establishing the National Archives and Records Administration provides that the archivist will serve an indefinite term and can be replaced if he resigns or is removed by the president. If he is removed, "the president shall communicate the reasons for any such removal" to Congress, the law says.
Disclosure of the circumstances surrounding Carlin's decision to step down overshadowed the testimony of Bush's nominee, Allen Weinstein, and could delay any plans to confirm him before the November elections.
Carlin said in his July 22 letter to Levin he would like to remain in his post for four more months so he could complete several initiatives he had undertaken. They include getting congressional funding for development of "a groundbreaking system that will allow the government to manage and preserve any kind of electronic records, now and in the future."
Two weeks after the call from Gonzales, Carlin told the president he would resign -- the Dec. 19 letter contained no hint of what prompted his decision. Democrats on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee said it amounted to a forced removal, and Bush should be required to give his reasons for it.
Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) pointed out that Carlin has not quit yet. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, Carlin wrote Bush that he would submit his formal resignation "upon the confirmation and swearing in" of the next archivist.
The White House had no immediate comment when asked why the president wanted to replace Carlin. White House spokeswoman Erin Healey said only that "Mr. Carlin has submitted a letter stating his intention to resign, and Mr. Bush has a responsibility to appoint someone to fill that position."
Weinstein, a historian and an expert on emerging democracies, won praise for what both Republicans and Democrats called remarkably candid testimony about his determination to open as many government records as possible and his disdain for partisan considerations.
Asked about an executive order restricting release of presidential records that Bush issued in 2001, Weinstein expressed distaste for it as a private citizen. He said it "tilts the balance -- at least temporarily -- in favor of greater confidentiality and less public disclosure." If confirmed, he said he would work to change it but would feel obliged to defend the order against a lawsuit by the American Historical Association seeking to overturn it.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said Weinstein should put the Presidential Records Act first. It envisions disclosure of confidential presidential records 12 years after a president leaves office, but Bush's order establishes new hurdles to access to such records.
Weinstein rejected the notion that he had made a deal to keep the Bushes' papers secret. He said no one at the White House had raised the issue. If anyone had, he said, he would have declined the nomination.
At the same time, Weinstein offered a chronology that reflected an early White House determination to get rid of Carlin. Weinstein said he was invited to meet with Dina Powell, director of presidential personnel, on Sept. 23 to talk about the possibility of his nomination.
In late November and early December, Weinstein said he was asked to fill out White House and FBI investigative forms for the job. Bush announced the nomination April 8.
In an interview earlier this year, Weinstein said that when he was first contacted about the job, he noted he was a Democrat.
Weinstein, a former professor at Boston University, Georgetown University and Smith College, has written several books, notably "Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Reply 1 - Posted by: No Left Turns, 7/26/2004 12:44:39 AM
I don't recall anyone asking Clinton why the travel office was being replaced. Don't these people serve at the pleasure of the President ?
Reply 2 - Posted by: NavySEAL F-16, 7/26/2004 12:50:29 AM
Maybe it has to do with Berglargate?
Reply 3 - Posted by: clw54, 7/26/2004 12:57:36 AM
Does it seem like most of these articles are written about what Democrats have to say about stuff?
Or am I just cynical?
Reply 4 - Posted by: Photoonist, 7/26/2004 12:57:51 AM
''Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, Carlin wrote Bush that he would submit his formal resignation 'upon the confirmation and swearing in'' of the next archivist.''
Maybe he was pulling a Berger as well. Are the Dems sure they want to push into this matter?
Reply 5 - Posted by: Sid Shovel, 7/26/2004 1:05:08 AM
RATS trying to pry out info on what Feds have. RATS trying/obstructing justice.
Reply 6 - Posted by: ScienceMike, 7/26/2004 1:06:33 AM
I'll go one step further and bet this guy was actively working with Berger to remove documents, got caught and was offered the resignation sword to fall on.
Any takers?
Reply 7 - Posted by: BoBo the King, 7/26/2004 1:27:56 AM
I wouldn't take that bet, though it's possible that he was working independently of Berger. But a Clinton appointee in charge of natioal security documents is not good for national security, anymore than Clinton in charge of a Girl Scout troop is good for Girl Scouts.
Reply 8 - Posted by: suedotsue, 7/26/2004 1:33:34 AM
Is our government running a rehab or nursing
home for Clinton holdovers? How many Americans have to die for these hideous,
incompetent, out-of-touch holdovers to con-
tinue on?
Reply 9 - Posted by: danu, 7/26/2004 2:04:56 AM
dump dump dump
another one bites the dust
Reply 10 - Posted by: puffy1, 7/26/2004 4:05:49 AM
Has it occurred to anyone that he was asked to resign because of Hot-Pants Berger's actions. The time-line makes sense....but the Rats will say it's because of President Bush wanting to keep his father's papers from being released.There is much more to this story than the Post will print.
Reply 11 - Posted by: pineledger, 7/26/2004 5:58:45 AM
I'm with Mike.
Reply 12 - Posted by: geo11, 7/26/2004 6:25:37 AM
If the man was not in cahoots with the Bergler than he is simply incompetent. These are some of the most highly classified documents of our nation and Sandy steals them on multiple occassions. The archivists don't even know what doc's were missing. Sandy when asked returns stuff they did not even was gone.
This guy should be locked out of the building.
Reply 13 - Posted by: caprine, 7/26/2004 6:49:26 AM
Critics have suggested Bush may have wanted a new archivist to help keep his or his father's sensitive presidential records under wraps.
And those critics would be....? Democrats?
Not ONE mention of Berger in this entire article.
Reply 14 - Posted by: Cisco, 7/26/2004 7:02:16 AM
Bush should have cleaned out all the old Klinton appointees the minute he took office.
He has tried to be the nice guy and it has continually come back to haunt him. You cannot properly control a huge organization when the field level management is dedicated to the success of your opponents.
It is like having an army staffed with enemy captains, leutenants and seargents.
New CEO's and presidents generally clean house for that very reason.
Reply 15 - Posted by: morgoth, 7/26/2004 7:05:36 AM
I would go with the earlier punter and say this guy was helping Berger. Perhaps by insuring that what Berger wanted was made available when Berger was on site. He may have also attempted to brush aside the archivests who saw Berger steal the documents.
My Father was in the Air Force and classified documents were a part of his daily routine. A simple mistake like leaving the documents out of the safe while going to the bathroom would have ended his career. Taking them out of the office would have subjected him to a criminal investigation as a spy. Why is Berger being treated diferently?
Reply 16 - Posted by: Betty Jean, 7/26/2004 7:17:33 AM
Mr. Carlin probably needs to be seen wearing orange at the Graybar Hotel! But the wussie MAJORITY Republicans wouldn't do anything atrocious like that.
Reply 17 - Posted by: Halfgenius, 7/26/2004 7:19:20 AM
We don't really know just how the Berglar is being treated, but my bet is after they securely hooked him they let him run until he led them to his lair. I'd be willing to bet there are going to be many clintonistas quietly submitting resignations in exchange for non-prosecution and info. Perhaps the 'Rats nest is being sanitized and cleaned, perhaps W is going to put the 'Rats on defense, you know the timing and all that...and perhaps we've just gotten a glimpse of our October surprise...Bush's Texas style!
Reply 18 - Posted by: auntdot, 7/26/2004 7:42:46 AM
Bush has left far too many Clintoon folks in office. He has not cleaned house.
Illustrious examples include Joe 'CakeMan' Wilson, George 'I know nothing, I see nothing' Tenet and my personal favorite Norm 'We don't do no stinkin profiling' Minetta.
When you're the boss and do not clean house, you will wind up with a really big mess.
Reply 19 - Posted by: killerbee, 7/26/2004 8:08:48 AM
Auntie, don't forget Richard 'don't wanna work for no black woman' Clarke. If there's one thing Clinton holdovers know how to do it's cover their own booties and bash Bush.
But it's not fair to give W too hard of a time. He was impeded in his transition and then had a war to fight. He just made the mistake of thinking the Clintonistas loved their country more than their 'master'.
Reply 20 - Posted by: gumbino, 7/26/2004 8:29:07 AM
What this article hints at (but doesn't state outright) is that 'the White House' knew about the Bergler episode. Hence, Carlin's firing.
Remember, the Dims and the media are focused on the 'who leaked' story, not the criminal actions of Bergler. They want to pin blame on 'the White House.'
Reply 21 - Posted by: lasvegaslou, 7/26/2004 8:34:55 AM
Some of you are amazingly optimistic that Burger will be punished. Fugetaboutit. Face reality, folks. Nothing is going to happen to Burger for the same reason sharks don't eat lawyers - professional courtesy.
When this blows over (soon), he will get a fat job with a K Street law firm - or some such place - and become a beloved and highly respected member of the Democrat in-crowd.
Reply 22 - Posted by: gumbino, 7/26/2004 8:35:12 AM
One other thing: President Bush's nominee for archivist, Allen Weinstein, is the author of the excellent Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case, proving Hiss's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This man would make a great archivist.
Reply 23 - Posted by: MMC, 7/26/2004 8:55:00 AM
The Trousergate was discovered in November of last year- makes sense that December would be a resignation timeframe. However, the resignation should have been immediate, not until a replacement.
Reply 24 - Posted by: YY4U, 7/26/2004 8:58:15 AM
Hummmmm ---- GWB has snockered the partisan media and the rest of the Democrats on many occasions. Do you suppose he did this to keep the story going? I mean, the partisan media hardly can get all incensed over the "firing of a loyal federal employee" ---(never mind that they didn't give a rip over travel office firing, leaking Linda Tripp's FBI file, transferring her to the Pentagon then letting her go, transferring Monica out of the WH when the heat got too high) ---
without CHANCING exposing something they're helping cover up. Smart move, I say. Real smart move.
Reply 25 - Posted by: glorybee, 7/26/2004 9:13:26 AM
I actually know something about the Archives, and the past Archivist has always been totally incompetent for that position. He ignored the actual Preservation part of the job, while implementing and funding biased exhibits of posters, gifts, etc. I won't even mention the serial-secretary-adultery and the background as a 'gentleman farmer' not scholar. The Bergler incident probably just put the last nail in his coffin.
Reply 26 - Posted by: mitzi, 7/26/2004 9:30:09 AM
I wonder if he's the one who called Bruce Lindsay when 'Sock' Berger was doing his act?
Reply 27 - Posted by: Happy Katy, 7/26/2004 9:33:36 AM
#20 hit it on the head as far as my thinking goes, too. Remember, the archive employees reporting to their boss in Sept. their suspicions re: Berger?? It's very possible one of those loyal employees reported it even further up when they saw that the head archivist did nothing. It was Berger's return trip in Oct. that absolutely proved that he was stealing. Did the Archivist call Lindsey in Sept or Oct? I think we've been told Oct., but I bet there was a whistleblower after the Sept. incident!!
And the Dem's suspect this too, hence the attempt to get a reason for the request in Sept. for the resignation.
Reply 28 - Posted by: Margie, 7/26/2004 9:37:39 AM
Maybe this was the guy who called Bruce Lindsay, Bubba's lawyer, when Burglar's activities were exposed. He should have called the FBI right away instead. More CYA in action.
Reply 29 - Posted by: wildbill, 7/26/2004 9:40:25 AM
I don't know when the investigation of the Berger Burgle began--but anyone at the National Archives who thought the proper response was a chummy call to another Democratic operative should go.
And Carlin was in charge of the Archives and that means security.
Reply 30 - Posted by: meema, 7/26/2004 9:41:58 AM
Now that's a good question! I bet that calling Bruce Lindsey would call into question his qualifications for the job.
Reply 31 - Posted by: pomom, 7/26/2004 9:43:19 AM
Carl Levin and the democraps better shutup on this one. Carlin was given the chance to resign and save face rather than face the truth that he was complicit with Sandy Berger's theft.
Carlin's contact with Bill Clinton's ''go to guy,'' Bruce Lindsay is evident because Lindsay won't comment when asked.
One of the lower ranking Archivists probably squealed on Carlin and said they were ordered to ''look the other way.''
Reply 32 - Posted by: PJSam, 7/26/2004 9:56:46 AM
Great posts!......more insight into politics than all the lefty lib media. Notice how everyone has to read between the lines. Pres Bush needs to clean house. Makes the 9-11 panel conclusions obsolete...garbage in garbage out.
Reply 33 - Posted by: Delilah, 7/26/2004 10:00:01 AM
Hey people, remember Watergate? That was all the Washington Post and their proving that they could force a Republican president from office. Why should they stop at Nixon - they want Bushes scalp too.
Reply 34 - Posted by: RTChoke, 7/26/2004 10:10:30 AM
Sandy 'Pantload' Bergler could Depends on him for confidence in his document stuffing.
Reply 35 - Posted by: silverbyte, 7/26/2004 10:11:00 AM
Weinstein was first interviwed for the job Sept. 23. No way the Administration moved that fast after supposedly getting a Berger tip. Sorry, but this has nothing to do with Berger. Put the Moorish conspiracies back in the cellar.
Reply 36 - Posted by: nancyb, 7/26/2004 10:11:45 AM
Maybe Bush asked for his resignation because these might have been not the first purloined documents from the Archives.
Now, they install cameras, locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen?
Reply 37 - Posted by: delta dave, 7/26/2004 10:20:20 AM
Since President Bush is famous for his loyalty to subordinate......unless crossed, lied to or demonstrate disloyalty.... one must assume that the Carlin committed one of the unpardonable sins .....
If the dimolibs insist on a reason, they may regret the explanation....being made public.
Reply 38 - Posted by: olderyzer, 7/26/2004 10:25:22 AM
If he is the one who called Bruce Lindsey, then I would say he called the wrong person and the right person called the shot to have him fired.
He was out trumped..."You're Fired!" (Ahmm)
Reply 39 - Posted by: Dolley Madison, 7/26/2004 10:31:47 AM
The Clinton Legacy; it is in the shadows, it is overhead, it is in the broad daylight, it is everywhere. AND coming undone. The dims are going to squeal everytime President Bush takes out one of the clinton's plants.
Remember Gary Aldrich and his book about the dismantling of the security in DC? This guy may have been an archivist who turned his back when the chicoms went through our secrets, as well as leaving he room for Sam Bergler! Who knows?!
But one thing I know; everyone that President Bush sees fit to retire from a clinton appointment I support 1000%.
Reply 40 - Posted by: Dolley Madison, 7/26/2004 10:37:57 AM
I Googled John W. Carlin, and came up with his biography; interesting reading! Here are a few sentences to whet the appetite:
"Mr. Carlin was appointed Archivist by President William J. Clinton in 1995. He immediately began a comprehensive strategic planning effort that resulted in a 10-year plan to refocus the agency and bring it into the 21st century.
One of the major initiatives of NARA's Strategic Plan is the Electronic Records Archives (ERA), which aims to preserve and provide access to virtually any type of electronic record created anywhere in the Federal Government. This is an unprecedented effort involving partnerships with other Federal agencies and experts in the private sector to solve the problem of preserving the ever-increasing volumes of diverse, complex digital records that are being created worldwide. The entire Federal Government—indeed, today's "information society" at large—has a stake in ERA's success."
BINGO! This guy is troublesome.
Reply 41 - Posted by: knub, 7/26/2004 10:43:24 AM
Each copy of the purloined documents should have been logged and accounted for separately since they were unique. They became unique when they were marked-up by the reviewers. That is what Berger was trying to destroy.
Reply 42 - Posted by: Dolley Madison, 7/26/2004 10:44:19 AM
Think: Wen Ho Lee and Los Alamos. Electronic records, just like electronic voting, make for easy fraud. Any hacker with the desire, can access our most sensitive documents.
clinton ALWAYS cloaked this kind of traitorous action in "bringing it into the 21st century" -- propadandist-speak for easy break in; Watergate pales by way of comparison!!
I believe that our archives NEED to remain low tech for reasons of security.
Reply 43 - Posted by: YY4U, 7/26/2004 10:49:08 AM
There are two ways to wage Civil War. With guns and slowly and incrementally by taking it over from the inside. The Bolsheviks did it with guns, the CPUSA from the inside.
Leftists went into Journalism in droves, got gov jobs (bureaucracy) and gradually got the judiciary. These are unelected "branches" of government...We can't vote them out of office because we never voted them in.
I suspect GWB knows this, too, and simply removed a "fellow traveler" from an important government post.
Reply 44 - Posted by: One small Voice, 7/26/2004 11:17:34 AM
'ReWriting History' by Sandy Berglar:
Step one, destroy true story.
Step two, insert new story.
Step three, stay out of parks.
Reply 45 - Posted by: rectifier, 7/26/2004 11:35:59 AM
The fact that Carlin whined to Carl Levin on several occasions should be reason enough to bounce him. [Interesting non sequitur: Carlin/Carl Levin]
Perhaps the reason that the Administration didn't push for an immediate canning of Carlin was that once the Justice Department uncovered the Berger affair, Carlin became a “person of interest” worth watching to see whom he connected to. What does that say about Carl Levin (that we don't already know)?
A known rat on the inside is sometimes better than a mole because, unlike a mole, he may not be aware that he's a source of intelligence.
The Post is showing its true colors by writing articles that attempt to suppress Jockey-Gate rather than pursue it as in the Watergate analog. Ironically, handling this current scandal in this desultory way tends to call into question the real motivation for Woodward and (especially) Bernstein's pursuit of Nixon.
Watergate started off slowly. This Berger affair is potentially a much bigger scandal.
One more reason why the DNC needs GW out of office..now.
Reply 46 - Posted by: Christie, 7/26/2004 11:44:59 AM
Yes, the Clinton leftovers, the ones that continue to serve as handiwipes to the worst couple will squeal like they are being impailed (sp?) everytime someone is exposed for the criminals that they are. The truth is hiding in plain sight and the brighter the light (of Truth) gets, the more they will squeal. We are used to this and have come to expect it. Bring it on, I have my earplugs in place.
Reply 47 - Posted by: mabelkitty, 7/26/2004 12:08:16 PM
Is this the guy that contacted Bruce Lindsay instead of the FBI when he witnessed Berger stealing archives?
You know this mess is a high crime when they start dragging out Lanny Davis and pushing him around the screed shows.
This is very very bad.
Reply 48 - Posted by: booshkindoggin, 7/26/2004 12:17:11 PM
Looks like Legs to me.
Reply 49 - Posted by: Rumblehog, 7/26/2004 12:53:30 PM
Carlin wrote Bush that he would submit his formal resignation "upon the confirmation and swearing in" of the next archivist.
Uh, could somebody please tell the "political appointee" that he is NOT in a bargaining position here? How can they open the req to hire someone unless there's first a vacancy?
Buh-bye, Clintonista.
Reply 50 - Posted by: Stars-stripes, 7/26/2004 1:35:38 PM
I like "Trousergate" as a name for the scandal. It has a real ring to it. Have you noticed how it is completely out of the news already? The RAT Convention is the story of the day now. It is our job to keep the story alive. REMEMBER TROUSERGATE! It is a smoking gun we have been looking for.
Reply 51 - Posted by: IDA LIL, 7/26/2004 1:49:48 PM
The resignation didn't go foreward because the Dems hijacked the US senate two months into W.'s term. He couldn't get any appointees confirmed.
Perhaps it's time to implement some changes in ordinary confirmations.
No matter who called the dems about that Berger was busted the archivist is responsible for not running his department with honesty and efficiency.
Reply 52 - Posted by: micktexan, 7/26/2004 2:14:53 PM
I have long said, and sent the Bush transition team this advice: "Immediately get rid of any person that was appointed or hired into Civil Service above the grade of GS-15 during the Clinton Administration. It is better to have a blank job slot than a Clinton Spy/Obstructionist."
.............
Can't fire Civil Service workers, isn't true....you simply delete the position they are in and they go away because they have no seniority...
I guess they didn't listen.........
Reply 53 - Posted by: Bob Campbell, 7/26/2004 4:20:06 PM
Match the DNA on the purloined documents with thwe DNA in Berger's shorts and socks. That is how other criminals are caught and convicted. Please don't let this die. The corruption of the Clinton gang at the highesy level must be shown to the American public before it is too late. The Democrats have always been the party in power harboring and protecting enemies from within and without. Save America...Vote Bush/Cheney. (Psst...The papers are in the pumpkin).
Reply 54 - Posted by: kujhawk, 7/26/2004 8:03:51 PM
Does anyone from Kansas read this Web site?
John Carlin used to be the Governor of Kansas for two terms in the 70's and 80's.
He was a left-wing Governor that got elected in a conservative Republican state because of backlash created by Watergate. He was first elected Governor in 1978, Jimmy Carter days.
He was well-known for cheating on his first wife and getting his younger second wife a job at the University of Kansas, in position she wasn't qualified for, etc. I'm sure that he is on trophy wife number 5 by now.
He was a loser as Governor and was a lackey for Clinton--so Clinton paid him back with a political appointment to the Archives. So what is the big deal about asking him to resign???
Reply 55 - Posted by: stormy, 7/26/2004 9:45:47 PM
According to the article, Weinstein was approached about the job in September. Don't know if this was before or after Sandy's first visit, but, methinks someone knew something even then.
I've got CSPAN on in the background waiting to hear PIAPS introducing her spouse. I can't stomach watching it. I just want to see if she starts her shrieking again.
Reply 56 - Posted by: master sergeant, 7/26/2004 11:18:20 PM
Bush should stop his "new tone" crap and start cleaning house. It's none of Levin's business why Bush wants a new Archivist. Bush - Get tough or the DemocRats/NYTimes/ WaPo will destroy you!! Stop being nice to these Rats.
Reply 57 - Posted by: Cedarina, 7/27/2004 12:22:31 AM
It's way past time when all the Clinton holdovers should be out the door. The archivist serves at the pleasure of the President & GWB can give him the boot at any time; no reason to wait for new one to be sworn it. That's what assistant administrators are for, to hold the fort until someone else is appointed. No doubt the Archivist was doing some CYA for both Clinton & Berger & got caught. Time for a thorough housecleaning, including Mineta, et al.
