His lawyer says he didn’t. No one has any evidence or any reason to believe he did. That’s pretty much the end of it. The suggestion is ludicrous, IMO.
He admitted to destroying documents. There are only two possibilities: he’s a complete nut job or he was destroying materials incriminating to himself or the Clinton administration.
He should be in prison and the prosecutor who agreed to the plea bargain should have been fired.
And by the same token, Nixon obviously wasn’t a crook. I mean come on - he said so. Case closed.
The suggestion that someone of Berger’s stature would steal documents by stuffing them into his socks, and hide other documents under a trailer at a construction site, are also ludicrous.
But true. He admitted so.
He admitted to destroying COPIES of documents. There is no evidence that any original documents were destroyed.
Diogenes, if this had been a Republican operative there would be no way in hell you would be taking his claims at face value.
Blind partisanship is ugly regardless of which side you’re on. That there may be no way of knowing exactly what he destroyed doesn’t make it stink any less.
Berger certainly acted suspiously, hiding the documents under a trailer to retrieve them later.
I mean, WTH? He was acting like someone with something to hide, which makes me ask…what was so all-fired incriminating he felt he needed to act the way he did? And don’t tell me he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to take anything out of the archives.
I believe there was something in the documents that shed an unfavorable light on President Clinton. Perhaps it was President Clinton wanting to turn a blind eye re the U.S.S. Cole, or perhaps it was something way more damning. We’ll never know. I simply don’t believe Berger when he says it was all innocuous. He’s already proven to be a thief. Being a liar isn’t a stretch.
Incidentally, I also believe that someone in the Bush camp stole those infamous Coast Guard timesheets before the '04 election. Do I have proof? Not a shred. Sometimes you just don’t need to actually see it with your own eyes to know that there’s a pile of dogshit nearby.
No cite for this, but I happened across Rush Limbaugh one day a while ago and he commented that he was so much concerned with what Berger took from the Archives, but what he took in. He was planting evidence to exonerate someone. Or incriminate someone. Someone else who was not involved with whatever it was Berger was trying to cover up. Probably the Clintons, those despicable miscreants.
Diogenes, if this were a Republican who took documents you’d be howling. Take a step back and think about it.
Good old reliable Sammy, never letting
the facts get in the way of a good anti-Democrat conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:
Daddy, that’s a pretty creative one, give Limbaugh credit. 
If the known facts were the same, I wouldn;t be making any big deal out of it.
I’m not a Democrat. I have no allegiance to any party.
Turnip, from the first Wall Street Journal editorial (!) I linked:
What was that about “blind partisanship” again? :dubious:
Going back to the OP, then WHY did he steal them?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Then, after he realized the nosy, busy body archive staff had been spying on him and ratted him out, he panicked and tried to get rid of them.
[QUOTE]
Yes, boy were they stupid for watching him closely. You know, because he turned out to be so trustworthy and all. Jesus, you drink the purple Kool-Aid by the gallon, don’t you?