What was Sandy Berger hiding when he gave up his law license?

What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.

Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.

Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.

This is just one more example of either incompetence on the part of the Bush administration, or more of the waging of war on it by the bureaucracy, or perhaps something worse.

Hey you voted for Bush and Gonzo, take it up with him.
For that matter, why didn't the GOP in the house
investigate this, when they had control?

Dumb troll doesn't even know when he is agreeing with the host.

It just seems like a false complaint to raise this
when nothing can be done about it.

Why wasn't rand complaining when the DoJ case was open
and the GOP ran the congress? Why didn't he call for
congressional investigation then? Why complain
after the horse is out?

I don't know why you're asking me these idiotic questions, Anonymous Moron, since I'm not a Republican, and never have been.

Oh, right. You're a moron.

I could ask it you imagine that the prosecution would have been more aggressive if a Democrat administration had been in charge, but that would be a question as stupid (well, OK, that's a high bar so probably not) as you are.

Rand,

If you are going to delete him, then delete him.

Mike, Rand traded Oler in for him with the Blog Fairy ! Robert is in fairyland having a magically dyslexic time, while anonymous is back here to irk you. Fairies and dyslexic acts. He might come back straightened out.

Meanwhile, back to the subject.

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem to you that past administrations get a break from the present ones as a "you scatch my back..." perk?When Clinton came in, his minions didn't root out every nook and cranny looking for dirt on Bush 1, they just went ahead and did their thing. Likewise, the Bush administration will expect the same courtesy. So it doesn't behove them to look too closely into the Berger case since it is undoubtedly Clinton historical CYA.

Seeing all the back biting from James "I got Martha Stewart" Comey, particularly on the
eve of the Madrid train bombing, regarding the
terrorism surveilance program, as well as Goldsmith, McNulty et al; on proper historical
precedents on military tribunals, is it really
such a big surprise that Sandy Burger got away?

anonymous idiot thinks Rand (or anybody?) voted for Gonzalez? That's impressive ignorance, even for it.

Sherlock Holmes knows why Sandy did it...

http://www.youmeworks.com/sherlock_holmes.html