Will,

I think the brou-ha-ha over the nature of the documens (copies v. originals) was one of "Did he remove original copies of documents that might be damning of the Clinton Administration." Why he would attempt something so stupid is beyond me, however. Of course there will be other copies of said documents, so what removing the originals would accomplish is unclear. I cannot even begin to fathom what in the hell he thought he was doing. One thing is (at least in my mind) for sure - it wasn't unintentional. Were these part of the package that Kerry didn;t read before the war vote? Maybe JfK wanted a second chance at a peek...

This is tres bizzaro. Mr. Berger knows very well what he can and cannot do with those documents. He walked with them. He did not check them back in. His intent is pretty clear (you are generally presumed to intend the natural consequences of your actions. This presumption is rebuttable, but your explanation better be really credible).

What is unclear in his motivation. I intend to sit back and watch this unfold because I am motivated by curiousity.

One thing is certain -- Sandy Berger is a dishonest politician and permanent shill for the discredited Clinton Administration. Had anybody related to Bush Sr. or Reagan performed a similar action, the LSM would be all over it decrying the criminality of the action. The fact that the LSM hasn't shredded Berger's lame explanation is proof enough of media's role in the VLWC working against the American people.

All together now, he took classified papers out of a secured area by stuffing them in his pants. That is not an inadvertant picking up some classified papers while gathering up your own notes. Or does Mr. Berger usually carry his notes down his pants? This was intentionally. It's theft.

Modern journalism protocols:

When a Clinton toady is revealed to have done an undeniably illegal, never mind immoral act, like stealing classified documents and then losing them, look for a Republican moral equivalency to be revealed. The rightwing transgression might go back to Nixon, McCarthy -- but somewhere a right winger did that was much, much worse, so Berger gets off the hook.

Watch for it. At this point, they've used up all the good recent ones, so they'll be digging deep for an undisclosed scandal.

I thought the "Clinton toady / undeniably illegal act" was a subset of the Modern Journalism Protocols.

For Republicans the rule is "Focus on the Seriousness of the Allegation".
For Democrats the rule is called "Focus on the Motivation of the Accuser".

Let's see how this one plays. I suppose it hinges on the identity of the accuser. Either way, the Mental Gymnastics should be incredible.

The identity of the accuser might be interesting, but Berger has admitted to taking and "losing" the documents.

Well, it's not like they were that careful when they were in office.

Anybody remember John Deutch? While Director of Central Intelligence, classified information "somehow" wound up on his unclassified computer. More to the point, same said computer was then hooked up to the Internet.

Result? A slap on the wrist, with no crimes report, and no other actions undertaken for over a year AFTER he'd resigned as DCI.

There's really only one explanation that makes sense.

Sandy Berger is a spy for one of our enemies.

If they were copies, then stealing them wouldn't keep embarrassing info from the commission. No he took these so he would have copies of our anti-terrorism strategy at the millinium.

The only question is who was he working for? Is Berger one of those former Exicutive branch employees who found a lucrative job with some Saudi-financed think tank?

Trust me, I work in a SCIF. If I were to 'walk away' with classified documents and get caught, guess what? I'd be making small rocks out of big rocks in no time flat. The same should be true for Mr. Berger. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Hmmm a party operative stealing documents...where have I heard that one before?

Archivegate, anyone? I'm sure the media will pursue this will all the effort and intensity that was afforded to Nixon and the Republicans. (how sad is it that no believes that's possibly going to be true?)

If I were to 'walk away' with classified documents and get caught, guess what?

And stuffing them in your pants is as inconceivable as a bank teller doing it with cash. I wasn't allowed to take anything I wrote out the SCIF, even if it was just my grocery list. But this will be all too easy for the press to downplay.

If I would have done that with any document I worked with as an Air Force linguist in Germany, the SPs would have had me spreadeagled on the tarmac.

You have codeword clearance, you respect codeword material.

Erp:

Nicely put. I'd just been thinking, "Of course, if Condi had done this, Josh Marshall et al. would be defending her in the same terms, with the same intensity."

Dean: I do remember John Deutch. Know him professionally, as it happens. I wouldn't dare ask him about that (he's sort of an intimidating fellow), but I am as sure as I can be that that was a piece of absent-minded professorship, nothing more. (We're all a bunch of flakes.) He's a good man, period.

Grr. Sorry. Marshall didn't defend Berger's actions; I was thinking of some who have tried to explain this away, and transposed them. (Already said I was a flake.)

But I did enjoy the post above Will's link, where Marshall writes that the timing of this story points to a malicious link to distract from the 9/11 commission report. Priceless.

JPS: I blogged a comparison between Josh Marshall's POV and, as CNN's John King reported, the POV of an unamed former Clinton official. Remarkably their conclusions are identical. The "timing" is what you, me and the media should look at.

On Deutsch, I think it was a general mistake, a stupid one, but one that many people have made in the past. Rules are rules though and the fact that classified information gets out, then plugged into the Internet, is concern enough for me for that person to resign. Deutsch, though, was about to plea to escape a harsher sentence. However, Clinton pardoned him.

Another person important to the 9/11 dilemna was Special Agent John O'neill. He too took classified documents out of the FBI with him, left them in a briefcase, which then went missing from a conference, and severely hampered his influence within any future meetings. He later retired from the FBI to become head of security at the WTC. He died when the first tower fell.

His problem was that nobody would trust him anymore because of the briefcase incident. He had vast knowledge of Al Qaida and Bin Laden and arguably was the most serious player in pushing the government to take Bin Laden's threats seriously.

Berger's off the Kerry team. Should happen within in the next few days. He may advise in an unofficial role to Kerry, but a cabinet post is as likely as a North Korean gold medal at the Summer Games.

My guess is that Mr. Berger's age is showing. He was going to be grilled by the committee. It wouldn't do to tell them he couldn't recall. He was probably stressed and exhausted and wanted to take a short cut. He probably felt a need to review the documents right up to the day of testifying so that he would come across as competent and on top of things. Lawyers by trade are dependent on their recall, he's at an age where it doesn't come up as quickly. If he hems and haws in high-profile testimony, it would kill his ability to pitch himself as an expert in his field.

Whereas breaking the law (aren't lawyers officers of the court?), shoot, what's the problem?

Berger's off the Kerry team. Should happen within in the next few days.-brennan stout

It's happened.

JPS, I also know John Deutch a bit, and mostly agree with what you have said. I can only add that I suspect that there may have been a certain element of hubris in his action. Nothing malicious, just the sort of hubris that I have often noted in sucessful academics of his generation. Remember that at the time he went into academia the demand for academics was extraordinary, so that a remarkably talented person like John has become used to being feted for his entire professional life. Someone with such a professional life would have difficulty remembering and understanding rules that inconvenienced him.

That said, I most definitely agree with you that he is a good man (and very intimidating!) I have enjoyed the very little bit of time that I have spent with him and wish that I could have spent more time with him. When I heard about his problemwith classified documents I felt sorry for him; he always dreamed of becoming the Secretary of Defense, and these problems shattered that dream forever. I am sad to see his name dragged through the mud again by the analogy to the current scandal. In the context of the current scandal, I could not imagine him stuffing classified documents down his pants. He does not deserve the (even implied) abuse.

"Someone with such a professional life would have difficulty remembering and understanding rules that inconvenienced him."

Jeebus, Average! If this is the only defense that can be mustered for Berger, then he's in deeper shit than you'd want to believe. For someone who (presumably) has spent the better part of their professional life handling classified documents, it can be safely assumed that Mr. Berger has been briefed, read-on, read-off and debriefed enough times to know instinctively what is expected of him in regards to handling classified material. And if he is incapable of "remembering the rules," that alone would be grounds for an immediate revocation of his clearances.

I cannot imagine why anyone would feel compelled to make excuses for this man! His actions were deliberate and illegal. The man should be in a cell next to Aldrich Ames.

Not every good man is qualified for every job---not even the jobs that they most want.

If you can't handle classified documents and materials, at a fundamental level, there is an incompatibility between who you are, and what job you are suited for.

Case in point: Robert Hanssen. I've now heard, from someone who knew him, that he would have trusted his own life and that of his children to Hanssen (and did). My guess is, that's the sort of sentiment that allowed a Hanssen to do as much damage as he did: "Hey, there's this small problem, but I KNOW him, he's a good guy, it's probably just a small problem/a temporary thing/a momentary lapse."

How did Ames last so long in HIS position? Probably at least some of the same sentiments.

Not to say Deutch (or Berger for that matter) are spies, but that your or my impression that he's a good guy is (and should be) irrelevant to whether he can handle classified materials.

And, getting back to the meat of the issue, motivation in compromising classified information is only relevant to the seriousness of the crime, not to whether a crime was committed or not. There's a separate section to the code that addresses accidental compromise, and yes, there is prison time and/or fines that can go with accidental compromise.