What is the credulity level of a reporter who can write a story like this with no allusion to how little sense it makes?

First, the lead:

The Justice Department said yesterday there was no evidence that former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger was trying to conceal information when he illegally took copies of classified terrorism documents out of the National Archives in 2003...

...Department lawyers concluded that Berger took the documents for personal convenience -- to prepare testimony -- and not with the intent of destroying evidence or thwarting the Sept. 11 panel's inquiry as to whether the Clinton administration did enough to confront a rising terrorist threat.

Then, she writes:

In acknowledging the crime to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, Berger said he knowingly took five copies of different versions of the same classified document -- briefings for the Clinton administration on terrorism threats -- from the National Archives in the fall of 2003. As part of his plea, Berger also acknowledged that he destroyed three of the copies, and returned the remaining two to archives officials and said he had "misfiled" them.

How does destroying documents help one "prepare testimony"? The story makes it sound like they were accidentally destroyed, but she can't be bothered to mention that he deliberately shredded them with scissors. There is still no explanation for this, from either her, or at least as she reports, from the Justice Department people.

And what are we to make of this?

Hillman noted that Berger only had copies of the documents -- not the originals -- and so was not charged with the more serious crime of destroying documents.

But if they were only "copies" (indicating that the information on them was identical) why did he need five of them? And what was the purpose of destroying three of them? Is Hillman an idiot? Why did he get such a light sentence when there are so many seemingly unanswered questions?

And I loved this bit:

Friends of Berger said he hopes the embarrassing episode does not badly tarnish his reputation.

As long as Berger, like all corrupt former Clinton officials, has friends in the press, his reputation will apparently be just fine. And does anyone think that this reporting would have been the same if it were a Bush administration official accused of the same thing? No, I suspect there's be much more curiousity on the part of this reporter, and others.

[Update on Monday morning]

For those visitors this morning from Instapundit, note that this is a follow up of an earlier post on this subject.

Despite the wall-to-wall coverage of the passing of the pontiff, we can't let this story fall off the radar, no matter how badly the press wishes that it would go away.

This falls into the bin labeled legal findings/fictions. In other words, it has no relationship to the real word other than allowing another miscreant to escape punishment, and regain his security clearance just in time to aid and abet the 2008 Dummycrat nominee.

Rich

You'd think in the course of unraveling the security failures that led to 9/11, someone else might have looked over these documents before they were destroyed. Records should show and, if so, I'd love to hear that person's recollections of what made these copies unique. Or even whose personal copies they were (in fact, shouldn't it be possible to work out from archive records which copies are missing?).

Weasel

If I recall what I've read correctly, S. Burgler lifted draft copies of counter-terrorism reports written Richard Clarke that had been circulated for comment among national security principals in the Clinton White House. Essentially, he eliminated those comments and 'corrections'.

So, for lying to the Feds Martha Stewart gets five months in the can for a felony. For stealing government classifed documents and destroying them, Berger gets temporary loss of his security clearance and a fine - - for a misdemeanor!!!

Did Jamie Gorelick get her copy? Did she make some notes in the margin, making it an original document? Do lawyers destroy original documents with scissors? Is Sandy Berger a lawyer? Wasn't he the lead attorney at Hogan & Hartson for the People's Republic of China? Wasn't China suspiciously involved in the '96 elections? Didn't Gorelick's famous 1995 memo erect a "wall" between law enforcement and national security at a time when Chinese money was flowing into the Clinton campaign and all the witnesses could not recall, pled the 5th, or fled the country?? Was Jamie Gorelick on the 9/11 Commission?

Forget about this story falling off the radar. It never got on it, as this column, "The story that never was", points out.

What he said was "factually correct." He had five Xerox copies of a draft document each of which was routed through various executive offices for comment and correction. The original unmarked document remained in the National Archives. Each of the Xerox copies differed from the other only in the marginal comments. Three of them had damning information written on them. He took all five. He compared them and found "they were substantially the same" (Duh! They were Xerox copies where only the comments differed) and used this excuse to destroy the one with the embarassing comments. So, no, he didn't destroy the original, he only destroyed "copies" but the copies were carrying the damning comments. The documents "were substantially the same" differing only in the handwritten comments. "It depends on wht the meaning of 'is' is."

He should be in prison and the Justice Dept is helping him to cover up his crime by accepting his transparent obfuscation of what he did.

Here is an alternate theory...

Ashcroft said that he saw the docs and that the Clintonistas had basically ignored the info. Suppose what Berger was really doing was hand writing in stuff in the margins of these docs so that he could go back and point to this during the commission and say, "See, we were taking this all seriously!" And then he realized that he had copies of the docs and not originals, and that everyone was going to know that the handwritten stuff had been added in 2003 rather than when the memos were originally circulated in 2001. He had only doctored 3 of the 5 versions of the memo when he figured out that he was dealing with copies.

So then he needed to destroy the evidence of his attempted coverup. And so he invented this lame story of taking them accidentally and destroying the 3 accidentally...

My theory does turn on a point of fact which I have not seen clearly explained anywhere: it appears that there were orignally some number (5?) of copies of the report which were circulated to various officials in early 2001. Each one of those would have collected the marginal notes of the officials who got that copy. Once you start collecting notes in a document, it is no longer a copy of the original, but a new version. So when the archives says that Berger only got "copies," does that mean that the archives has the original reports that were circulated, and then gave Berger copies of each one of these versions? Or does this mean that the archives has the original that Clark wrote before any marginal notes were made, and that Berger has destroyed the only copies of 3 of the versions that were circulated? Reading the MSM reports of the archive spokescritters' ambiguous comments doesn't really tell you which.

Despite the wall-to-wall coverage of the passing of the pontiff, we can't let this story fall off the radar, no matter how badly the press wishes that it would go away.

Somehow, it probably will. It doesn't seem to be getting any traction as it is.

Yes, there is obfuscation of the meaning of "copy" going on here. Nobody's managed to spin "destroy" away yet, but they'll try.

I suspect Burger's little program of doctoring the historical archives was more successful than is being acknowledged. He got caught, but that doesn't imply that any earlier successes will now be revealed. He's being allowed to reveal only what he chooses to reveal, which is nothing we don't already know. He's a weasel, but not an idiot, and it's starting to seem that by that measure, he's outclassing anyone at Justice - the wool's being pulled over their eyes, and they're helping to hold it in place.

The documents Berger destroyed would, of course, have been the ones with marginalia too damning to spin into harmlessness. Those he returned have, we should suspect, been "enhanced" for the benefit of historians. Did Berger have collusion on that, to disguise similarity of handwriting which the helpful new marginalia might reveal?

I suspect it's going to get just enough play so that people have heard of it, and filed it away as resolved. That way, when it comes up again in 2008, Hillary and the gane will be able to resurrect their tactic of dismissing things like this as "old news."

to disguise similarity of handwriting which the helpful new marginalia

But that's the beauty of the whole scheme -- he could go back in 2003 and write in marginalla, and it's supposed to be in his handwriting, right? Then he creates this whole-cloth alternate-reality where he was diligently occupied with al Qaeda's threats.

The other curious piece of this whole story is how Clark's testimony apparently mutated over the life of the 9-11 Coverup Commission. In earlier private testimony he is said to have portrayed himself as the "lone voice in the wilderness" in the Clinton administration, and then went on to be critical of the early Bush administration for not paying much attention to terrorism, either. By the time he got to his book, the Clintonistas were diligent and only the Bushies were at fault. Perhaps the difference was that he knew that Berger had destroyed the evidence against the Clintonistas...

Martha got her chance to see the world from Inside.

John Rowland, former governor of Connecticut, is getting his chance, for a year and a day.

Why not Berger King?

File this under:

How Stupid Do They Think We Are?

Burger got caught this time, but we don't know how many other "corrections" to the archives he may have made in the past. Why did he have access at the present time anyway. He holds no office.

I hope the evil puppeteer Karl Rove has plans for the hapless little toad.

I can't imagine that Berger will ever get a position that requires Senate confirmation again.

I can't imagine that Berger will ever get a position that requires Senate confirmation again.

Ya know, it would have been sad to put Monica in jail. And, what did Sandy do? He loved this guy Bill. Wore special sox and underpants. And, went into the library to cop some copies of memos written by Richard Clarke;

And, no one asks the conductor? What's so entertaining about Richard Clarke's memos? Even with "marginalia?" Clinton was being Impeached at the time this stuff was written. And, "on target" only means he HIT the Blue Gap Dress. He didn't miss. And, no one was really paying attention to Richard Clarke.

Later, Condi gave Clarke the cold shoulder.

The only thing I'm absolutely sure of is this: Clarke has one heck of a speed dial system into the MSM. He's the one who made this "mischief" possible.

So Sandy, I guess, has his own Linda Tripp.

Ya can't get me mad.

And, I think it's a hoot that Sandy thinks he gets back into government in 2009. Some people will believe anything. But a res-ERECTION, from Bill. Who never returns. Nope. He never returns after ya gave him is "all." Some relationships just are that way.

And, Sandy moans as loudly as Monica.

Did we really have to put Sandy in a prisoner's suit because of this? REALLY, NOW. That's not right. It's as bad as killing brain damaged people. Besides. The People can figure this out. Windows of opportunity, all around.

Richard Clarke took advantage of Clinton. To set himself up as a 9/11 prognosticator. Didn't exactly work out, huh?

Wasn't it supposed to catch our GWB on the snooze? Blaming him, instead of Clinton? Except for those creepy alerts from this mishuganah, Richard Clarke.

Bet there are never surprises like this that are gonna come out of GWB's presidency. (He just doesn't have all that much time to talk to the furniture.)

Meanwhile, who here said Sandy's in line for some great job opportunities? Da ya think he can replace Dan Rather-Blather?

It could be a good show, ya know? I mean, he'd pull stuff out of his sox. And, his underwear. I think people would watch to see this. Then, on news he doesn't like; he can take paper and cut it up with scissors.

Are we on the same page, or what?