Patterico's Pontifications


More on Bergler

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:43 am

Responding to my post about whether Sandy Berg(l)er took documents or originals, commenter Matthew Hoy points to this Wall Street Journal piece:

The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that’s simply an “urban myth,” prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was “so inaccurate as to be laughable.” In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror “after-action” report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

I reported the details of that “urban myth” here. It was originally reported in the Washington Post.

Oddly, Berger’s actions are more consistent with the Post‘s “urban myth” than they are with the official line. If Berger had originals with damning information, it might make sense to cut 3 of 5 versions with scissors.

To believe prosecutor Hillman’s version, you have to believe that, as Matthew Hoy says, Sandy Bergler is “dumber than a bag of hammers.”

Perhaps he is. But I’m not so sure. I still think there may be more there than meets the eye.

Hillman says we’ll know more details in July. Maybe this will all be clearer then. I hope so.

[UPDATE: I see See-Dubya already handled this issue below. Great minds link alike. This illustrates the dangers of blogging with a Treo.]

4 Responses to “More on Bergler”

  1. Here in Washington we’re still arguing over the Nov ’04 Governor’s election.

    We’ve got exactly the same set of choices: Either there was fraud, or the people involved are dumber than a bag of hammers.

    I’m just assuming (and pronouncing) ‘dumber than a bag of hammers’, then if anyone says slander or libel I can offer to switch to the only other possibility.

    Al (00c56b)

  2. Prosecutor Hillman tells us the leak was:

    “so inaccurate as to be laughable.”

    I heard that President Clinton laughed about it too. Pardon my lack of a sense of humor, but exactly what part of taking secret documents is funny??

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  3. Wouldn’t there be a written record of what was printed, and by whom, given that these are secret docs in question?

    ras (f9de13)

  4. Well, this is pretty much a joke. Why on earth should anyone take the word of the WSJ as based on the word of Hillman? They ask us to believe that Berger is nothing but a stupid stumble-bum. I’m surprised Hillman didn’t say there isn’t any evidence Berger even knew where he was when a few stray papers just sort of fell into his pockets, waistband, and shoes. Jeesh. If Berger cut the papers to shreds with his scissors (I guess he thought he was making paper snowflakes to hang on the Christmas Tree or something), how does Hillman know what the hell was on them? I mean, Bubba and The Gang (“We all”) cracked up when they heard that Poor Silly Sandy was being accused of stealing papers from the Archives, when everyone who knows anything knows that the poor jerk hardly ever even knows his own name, much less knowing what to steal and destroy. Would you getta loada that! These guys are the original Gang-That-Could-Barely-Walk, let alone Shoot Straight–or so they would lead you to believe.

    I’m thinking maybe the guy who wrote that WSJ piecelet is the same guy who thinks Eason Jordan never did anything anyone should be fired for. What’s going on with these people, anyway? What sorts of fools do they take us for? I’d be insulted if I didn’t consider the sources.

    This story stinks to high heaven. It won’t do.

    betsybounds (ae6f35)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2338 secs.