Just Like That, Huh?
People spend three years of their lives in a pressure-cooker graduate program to get law degrees. They spend years honing their craft by playing gopher to accomplished attorneys and judges in order to garner the experience they need to earn a good living at practicing law. A few talented individuals earn partnerships in prestigious law firms, while others work hard in the political sphere to reach a point where they can write their own ticket at any firm fortunate enough to put their name on the letterhead.
So when someone who has achieved all of that just tosses away a lucrative asset like a law license, one has to ask why:
Samuel R. Berger, the Clinton White House national security adviser who was caught taking highly classified documents from the National Archives, has agreed to forfeit his license to practice law.In a written statement issued by Larry Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, the former national security adviser said he pleaded guilty in the Justice Department investigation, accepted the penalties sought by the department and recognized that his law license would be affected.
"I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license," he said. "While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize."
As Michelle Malkin points out, it's the next paragraph that tells the story:
In giving up his license, Mr. Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel, where he risked further disclosure of specific details of his theft. The agreement is expected to be formalized today.
Rep. Thomas Davis of Virginia has pressed the Justice Department to administer the polygraph that they included in his plea-bargain, and this shows that there may be more to learn about Berger's theft of documents from the National Archive. The DoJ concluded that Berger had revealed everything he knew about the thefts and that further investigation was not warranted. However, Berger could have fought to keep his license if he had been willing to be questioned about the thefts -- and his easy acquiescence to the forfeiture should tell the DoJ that he has more to hide than they admit.
Interestingly, Henry Waxman wants to block further investigation by Justice. The man who made investigations into supposed government malfeasance his and the Democrats' major campaign theme and who now chairs the House Oversight Committee suddenly wants to avoid further investigation into a real crime and cover-up, one that impacted our review of the worst attack on American soil. I'd call that at least a magnitude more important than whether Dick Cheney listened to energy producers when he helped develop the administration's energy policy, one of the supposed "scandals" that Waxman has promised to investigate.
The DoJ committed to interrogating Berger further under polygraph, and they failed to do so. Now Berger has relinquished his law license and all of the financial benefits it brings just to avoid questioning by the Bar. Someone needs to finish the job and find out why Berger is so reluctant to talk that he voluntarily disbarred himself.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on May 17, 2007 5:53 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (13)
Posted by ordi | May 17, 2007 6:58 AM
We need to know everything this jerk did and why. Any lawyer out there know if he can be sued civilly? I know you'd have to have standing, so would a spouse of a 911 victim have standing? Or maybe just a garden variety American citizen?
Discovery and depositions would be FASINATING!
Mr Burglar, At anytime did Bill or Hillary Clinton speak to you about taking or destroying the docs?
Posted by MarkD | May 17, 2007 7:12 AM
This is insufficient. Berger needs to come clean under oath and forfeit the right to any security clearance for life.
Posted by gringoman | May 17, 2007 8:07 AM
The Clintonista Burglar in effect absconds with critical state secrets in a global war. He is permitted to avoid full disclosure. The DOJ enables. And this is not another reflection on the Bush White House (and what current gringoman post calls THE BC ERA (Bush-Clinton)?
Posted by gringoman | May 17, 2007 8:10 AM
The Clintonista Burglar in effect absconds with critical state secrets in a global war. He is permitted to avoid full disclosure. The DOJ enables. And this is not another reflection on the Bush White House (and what current gringoman post calls THE BC ERA (Bush-Clinton)?
Posted by gringoman | May 17, 2007 8:11 AM
The Clintonista Burglar in effect absconds with critical state secrets in a global war. He is permitted to avoid full disclosure. The DOJ enables. And this is not another reflection on the Bush White House (and what current gringoman post calls THE BC ERA (Bush-Clinton)?
Posted by gringoman | May 17, 2007 8:13 AM
The Clintonista Burglar in effect absconds with critical state secrets in a global war. He is permitted to avoid full disclosure. The DOJ enables. And this is not another reflection on the Bush White House (and what current gringoman post calls THE BC ERA (Bush-Clinton)?
Posted by Greg | May 17, 2007 9:00 AM
Yes, there may well be some support for the argument that Berger forfeited his law license in order to block further questions from the attorney disciplinary commission in whichever state(s) he's licensed. But I'm not so sure that his license would really have been all that lucrative to him in the future.
Bill Clinton got his license suspended/revoked by Arkansas, and I think we can all see how anxious he's been to get that back. The chances of Sandy Berger ever appearing in court (in his capacity as attorney) are microscopic, as is the likelihood of him ever actually performing legal services following his fade from the public eye.
Posted by Labamigo | May 17, 2007 9:04 AM
Question for Mrs. Clinton: Why did your husband send Sandy Berger to the National Archives with instructions to steal and later destroy classfied documents?
Posted by Bender | May 17, 2007 10:30 AM
It would be nice if the newspaper story bothered to tell us exactly WHERE HE HAS (HAD) A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW. Which state is this?? Was he licensed in only one state?
Posted by Lightwave | May 17, 2007 12:20 PM
So, Sandy Berger *disbarred himself* rather than submit to testimony.
Why isn't this front page news? Unlike Gonzales, unlike Scooter Libby, unlike Karl Rove or Cheney or Bush SANDY BERGER IS GUILTY.
Does Waxman care? Does the DoJ? WHY THE PARTISAN COVERUP!?!
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | May 17, 2007 1:07 PM
Bush's DoJ allows itself to be pilloried over AG Gonzales and some political appointee firings while spending enormous capital against a witch hunt. Meanwhile, the same DoJ will not complete a deal made to conclude the Berger affair to determine what the Clinton administration knew and when they knew it re terror policy prior to 9/11. Neither will this DoJ prosecute leakers for their revelations about our defenses against handling terrorists.
How dysfunctional can a department be? Who is charged with prioritizing the department's mission? This administration cannot terminate quickly enough for me. While I stand behind it for the Iraq/Afghanistan policy and because I cannot fathom supporting any current Democrat administration in view of contemporary Democrat platforms, I find Bush's lame duck term to be rather pathetic. Even looking past the entrenched MSM bias, there really isn't much to write home about. Worse, he's better than would be Hillary!, Obama, or Silky Pony.
Considering the Berger affair, this is the only administration that could manage to whiff on a low hanging softball. I doubt even the top-tier Dem Presidential hopefuls would commit such an error.
Posted by JEM | May 17, 2007 3:32 PM
Frankly, I think this would be a perfect occasion for waterboarding.
Posted by sherlock | May 17, 2007 6:06 PM
I suppose it is belaboring the obvious to mention it, but Bill and therefore Hillary know what Sandy took, and probably so do some other prominent Democrats, like Gore, Albright, Cohen, and Jaime Gorelick.
Here's how to smoke one of them out, anyway. Some reporter needs to ask Hillary: "Do you have any idea of what Sandy Berger was attempting to conceal in removing and destroying NSC documents?", and then keep pressing her until he gets a flat "no" answer. I'll bet he won't be able to get one... since she DOES know, she cannot afford to make a flat denial in case the facts come out and she stands exposed as lying to the American people about a crime. I'm not called "sherlock" for nothing.
Remember he has admitted to removing, hiding, AND destroying documents by cutting them into pieces with a scissors, AND then attempting to replace those that were not, shall we say, "of interest". That is not an accident. And those admissions flatly contradict the statements he made to the FBI, but fortunately for Sandy only Republicans are prosecuted for lying to federal agents.