Dick Morris, who knows a thing or two about scandal, sets the record straight with Berger:
Berger’s “explanation” stinks: He claims he was too tired to review the documents in their secure venue, that eye fatigue moved him to stash them in his pocket for later comparison in the leisure of his home and office.
That’s nonsense. After all, he went back a week later and helped himself to more documents.
Berger would also have us believe he “inadvertently” cut up and “inadvertently” destroyed the documents
Bob
Berger’s explanation does stink, and Dick Morris has cut a few himself, although the “inadvertent” part of Berger’s explanation is now not operative.
The problem with trials about secrets (or secret trials about problems)is that there is so much room for speculation for those of us on the outside.
Was Berger covering up for Clinton? If so, how? Was there a connection to Kerry? Was there a political significance to his actions other than him besmirching the Demos during an election?
Who knows? As I recall, the event (theft and removal of archive docs by Berger) occurred in the fall of 2003, and the timing of the investigation came forth in the middle of the campaign, which at the least suggests that there was a political motive in the timing of the revelations. The rightwing noise machine treated it as the number one pony ride for at least two weeks.
So what’s the significance about the case other than that it probably shaved a couple of points off of Kerry’s vote total?
Kimmitt
The WSJ appears to have confirmed that Berger destroyed copies, rather than originals. So this is now in the “baffling idiocy” category, rather than the “coverup” category.