In today's editorial, however, not only does it seem as if they're doing damage control on the behalf of the Justice Department, but they took a knock at doubting conservatives:
and later: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.
It seems as if the WSJ wanted to make this a mix between a news article and editorial. However, it would have been better served as a news article, minus the commentary.Meanwhile, conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left.
However, through it's editorializing the WSJ places the cart before the horse. After all, informing readers about the facts while claiming they are being "impervious to facts" in the same piece doesn't make much sense, unless this assertion had been reported before. WSJ never resported a statement like this previously, nor has any other media outlet - at least any that I've known - disputed any notes possibly destroyed by Berger.
Also, for Hillman to simply dismiss the note controversy as an "urban myth" is hot garbage. People didn't make this up out of hot air.
The Washington Post:
If people were engaging in an urban myth, it was due to the information reported by the press, and Hillman waited until now to respond to it. It was his failure to respond to the allegations that allowed for these "myths" to foster for so long.The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it.
Maybe the WSJ and the Justice Department is correct in stating Berger wasn't trying to engage in a cover up for the Clinton Administration. However, that's still no excuse for giving him a slap on the wrist for stealing and destroying documents from the National Archives. I still say Berger should have his Archive privilege taken permanently, and possibly some jail time added as well.
But as I said before, I'm not holding my breath.