Is that a secret file in your pants?

Or is Sandy Berger just happy to see you? To be fair, it is probable that early reports of Berger smuggling documents out of the National Archives in his "pants and socks" may not be accurate. His own notes he admits to carrying out in his jacket and pants. But the actual documents (we're talking 15-30 pages here, each) he probably just put into his briefcase/portfolio, not his pants!

But that's just a niggling distinction for his lawyers to act indignant over. You cannot take the documents without permission, period. You cannot take down notes containing confidential information and take those out either! The fact that Berger was hiding the notes on his person before leaving points to his intent to circumvent the secrecy rules. And his claim that his absconding with the document originals was "inadvertent" is complete hogwash. If it were a complete accident, how did he manage to make off with all the different drafts of the same report, and spread that accident over at least two (maybe three) different visits?? In fact, this supposed accident was so drawn out that National Archives employees became suspicious and started marking documents so their later absence after Berger's visit would be easier to discern.

Just imagine if another national security advisor (her name rhymes with "mice") had done this, how different the tone of the media coverage would be. Wouldn't we be seeing editorials printed in major newspapers speculating that the document heist was intended to cover something up? But in Berger's case we're supposed to just accept that it was carelessness and have a chuckle over it. Oops! Such is the spin so far. I know that if I were writing for the NY Times, I'd be adopting their scandal template and remarking on the "disturbing similarity" between this and other Clinton scandals, and noting that this is "only the latest in a long series of illegally mishandled document cases," (Rose Law Firm billing records, 1100 FBI dossiers, raid on Vince Foster's office).