New York Times: Buries the story at the bottom of page A16. If you can’t find the story, maybe it doesn’t exist.
Berger and one of his lawyers said he inadvertently removed copies of a classified memo and his handwritten notes on the material he reviewed, but immediately returned them when he was told by the Archives the documents were missing.
“I immediately returned everything I had, except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded,” Berger said in a statement.
Heh. “Inadvertent.” Mr. Berger, what’s that in your hand? No, the other hand. Stop playing games, Mr. Berger. Show me both hands.
Or, “I inadvertently slept with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.” Hey, that excuse works for everything.
The documents that are missing are handwritten notes about how Clinton handled terrorism threats between December 1999 and the end of his term. We certainly wouldn’t want *that* to contradict public testimony, would we, Mr. Berger?
He apparently was seen stuffing classified documents into his pants and his coat, according to some newspaper reports.
However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press.
I can see how you could inadvertently stuff things into your pants and forget they were there. In fact, I went grocery shopping last night and…. whoa! A rhutabega! How did *that* get in there?
Chasing the Wind 
Yannow, this is serious stuff…and then you pull the rhutabega card and make me pee my pants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
There’s nothing more serious than a rhutabega in your pants!
LikeLike
NYTimes buries the story on Day 1, doesn’t cover it at all on Day 2.
Day 3, the NYTimes question the White House about Bush’s involvement. They report that Bush declines to answer questions and defers reporters to the Justice Department, they report that the Presidential spokesperson denies leaking the story, they quote a Kerry aid claiming the leak done by the White House under suspecious timing. The NY Times say “the Republicans accuse” this and “the Republicans deny” that….
Why the heck are they focusing on the White House when it’s former Clinton adviser Sandy Berger stealing documents? Why isn’t the NY Times focusing on what’s missing?
Sheesh. The Democrats do something stupid and illegal, and the NY Times tries to interrogate the Republicans.
LikeLike