Sandy Burglar.

From the Wall Street Journal in 2005:

More than a few conservatives have been crying foul, or whitewash, in part because Mr. Berger's plea means he'll likely avoid jail and lose his security clearance for only three years. So we called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

Cass writes (which you base your entire post upon):

We don't know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes - and whose notes - may have been on them.

This is incorrect, if the statement by Mr. Hillman is true. (And there is no reason to believe it is not true.)

And, of course, Cass cites no proof of the allegation. His statement is opinion.

It is a matter of the historical record that the papers Berger stole were copies and their content is also a matter of record.

A correction would be in order. But, doubtful.

he may wish to stay away from ft. marcy park...or picnics altogether.

why is it that clinton's people will go to jail,commit sucide,lose everything,rather than tell what they know?did he make them an offer they can't refuse?

That 2005 WSJ article is old news, and has been overtaken by events. The House report on Sandy Berger's crimes at the National Archives came out in January 2007. The executive summary makes it plain that the situation is far worse than we had been led to believe. Key excerpt:

The full extent of Berger's document removal, however, is not known, and never can be known. The Justice Department cannot be sure that Berger did not remove original documents for which there were no copies or inventory. On three of Berger's four visits to the Archives, he had access to such documents.

Report is available at http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/BergerReport010907.pdf

>>>It is a matter of the historical record that the papers Berger stole were copies and their content is also a matter of record.

Are you 100% sure of that? CAN you be 100% sure of that?
Burger admitted that he destroyed ORIGONAL documents, that he delibratly cut them up. If they were "only copies", he would not have taken such pains to HIDE THEM when he took them from the archives, he could have gotten photocopies LEGALLY since he had a right to examine the evidence as Clinton's attorney.

"It is a matter of the historical record that the papers Berger stole were copies and their content is also a matter of record."

hhmmm... so he's giving up his law practice to cover up.....what then? Sounds to me like you're just crying "nothing to see here, people. move along. ignore the man behind the curtain..."

It's a shame that people like this would rather see harm come to this country than to their beloved BJ clinton...a liar after their own heart.

It's a bit amazing how much fantasy and sheer speculation presented as fact is at hand here.

The full extent of Berger's document removal, however, is not known, and never can be known.

This is specualtion. Not fact. Meant to raise the specter of possibility. But, again, no facts are given that any documents other than those known were taken.

It's great fodder for the conspiracy nuts isn't it? Yes. It is.

The Justice Department cannot be sure that Berger did not remove original documents for which there were no copies or inventory. On three of Berger's four visits to the Archives, he had access to such documents.

More speculation which you confuse for fact.

Are you 100% sure of that? CAN you be 100% sure of that?
Burger admitted that he destroyed ORIGONAL documents, that he delibratly cut them up.

Berger never admitted that the documents were "originals". Please, cite where this "fact" came from. And, even if he did, it has been established by the NA that what Berger had access to were copies. He may have THOUGHT they were originals, but according to the NA, they were not. (Now, this is where you start the conpiracy theory stuff, you know, that they WERE originals, and the NA is covering it up etc etc.)

The information from the DOJ Public Integrity Section is not "old news". No new information, no FACT BASED information, has ever been brought forth. Only speculation.

Billfry, the House "report" from January 9, 2007 that you cite presents no new facts, only instigates conspiracy theories, a point so appalling that the WSJ felt compelled to reiterate the point once again for those who haven't been paying attention:
From January 13, 2007:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534

The Text:

Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go. We're referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003.

On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn't register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation.

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.

Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them," Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, "there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn't have notes." Mr. Berger's sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice's sentencing memo will lay out the facts and "make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it." Meanwhile, conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left.

Take note of that last bit. Cause it rings true two years later.

The final facts on this issue were presented by the NARA Inspector General Paul Brachfeld in December of 2006.

Anything beyond the facts is conspiracy nut fodder.

Just the facts maam... if you can.

Sorry, linked and copied incorrect article above. Both articles are titled The Berger Files. The one above is from April 2005, here is the one from January 2007:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009522

The Berger Files The case of the purloined archives gets stranger all the time.

Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:01 a.m.

The more we learn about Sandy Berger's brilliant career as a document thief, the clearer it becomes that there is plenty we still don't know and may never learn. On Tuesday, the House Government Reform Committee released its report on Mr. Berger's pilfering of classified documents from the National Archives.

The committee's 60-page report makes it clear that Mr. Berger knew exactly what he was doing and knew that what he was doing was wrong. According to interviews with National Archives staff, Mr. Berger repeatedly arranged to be left alone with highly classified documents by feigning the need to make personal phone calls, and he used those moments alone with the files to stuff them in his pockets and briefcase.

One incident is particularly suggestive. By his fourth and final visit to review documents and prepare for testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Archives staff had grown suspicious of how Mr. Berger was handling the documents, so they numbered each one he was given in pencil on the back of the document. When one of them--No. 217--was apparently removed from the files by Mr. Berger, the staff reprinted a copy and replaced it for his review. According to the report, Mr. Berger then proceeded to slip the second copy "under his portfolio also." In other words, he stole the same document twice.

This gives the lie to Mr. Berger's story that he was taking the documents for his own convenience, to assist with his preparation for testimony to the commission. If that were the whole story, one copy of document 217 would surely have been sufficient. That document was an email pertaining to a draft of the Millennium After-Action Report on the attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. The episode suggests that Mr. Berger had some other motive for removing No. 217, even if he was ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. But neither his April 2005 plea agreement, nor the Congressional report, nor the report of the Archives' Inspector General shed any light on what that motive might have been.

Another telling revelation concerns Mr. Berger's access to original, uncopied and uninventoried documents from the files of former NSC antiterror official Richard Clarke, among others. At the time Mr. Berger made his misdemeanor plea agreement, we were assured by then-federal prosecutor Noel Hillman that there was no evidence that Mr. Berger destroyed or intended to destroy any original documents. That was, strictly speaking, true. But during three of Mr. Berger's four visits to the Archives in 2002 and 2003, the former National Security Adviser did have access to original documents of which no adequate inventory existed or exists.

This seems relevant, given the concern that Mr. Berger's breaches of national security might have denied evidence to history of the Clinton Administration's approach to al Qaeda and the threat of terrorism. And yet the Justice Department clearly gave the impression that there was no danger that Mr. Berger abridged the historical record. We now know that this was not true. Mr. Berger was in a position to remove documents from Mr. Clarke's files, and thanks to lax security, breaches of protocol and undue deference on the part of Archives staff, we may never know whether Mr. Berger took documents other than the five he's admitted to removing.

It is true that there is no affirmative evidence he did so. But it is equally true that he had opportunity and a demonstrated willingness to breach security in his handling of the documents. As for motive, this remains shrouded in mystery, in part because the documents Mr. Berger has admitted to taking remain highly classified, so the precise nature of his interest is unclear.

Thanks to Justice's and the Archives' leniency, or laxity, or both, Mr. Berger's plea deal expires in 2008--just in time, perhaps, for the next Clinton Administration.

Until we have facts, this is what we are left with...

The most up to date article on this is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001344.html