New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | April 5, 2005

Read how Sandy Berger got away with treason, in Reason Express.

Comments

|4.5.05 @ 6:46PM|#

Is there going to be an oral exam on this later?

(I hope so.)

|4.5.05 @ 7:11PM|#

... we can surmise, because the penalty was so light given the nature of the breach, that it was Berger and his attorneys who dictated the terms of the deal to the Justice Department and not the other way around.

Quick quiz:

(1) In a criminal case, who has more resources to devote to the case: (A) a private citizen defending himself from charges, or (B) the entire Justice Department?

(2) Did Sandy Berger and his attorneys not comment publicly on the plea deal because (A) they didn't have anything on their minds, or (B) the DOJ routinely requires as a condition of a plea agreement that the defendant not comment publicly on the matter?

(3) Have the editors of Reason forgotten what it means to be libertarian? (A) No, but it just so happens that the U.S. government is a particularly toothless form of government. (B) No, but a couple of them loathe the Clinton administration so much that they are willing to suspend common sense for purposes of taking potshots at a Clintonite.

|4.5.05 @ 7:15PM|#

I still believe that what's good for smacky is good for America.

|4.5.05 @ 7:18PM|#

Alkali - What????

To the point though,

... we can surmise, because the penalty was so light given the nature of the breach, that it was Berger and his attorneys who dictated the terms of the deal to the Justice Department and not the other way around.

It seems to me this is simply the powerful protecting the powerful.

IMO - this is basically a preemptive move, so if the next administration happens to be Democrats, they won't go after their administration officals either. In the alternative, when the media finds out, and it's actually crimminal, we'll get deals like this one.

|4.5.05 @ 7:30PM|#

alkali, not sure about your point here: Do you think that the DOJ has persecuted Berger until he ran out of money and capitulated to the worst possible sentence? I think the link provided at least one decent alternate reason why the administration may have swept it under the rug. Also, I don't think the bit drew any special conclusions about Bergers attorneys failure to comment, other than we still don't have a lot of answers. As for Bergers actions, you don't have to hate Clinton to be disturbed by them. Mishandling classified is a serious problem that needs no political component to be damaging. In short, I'm not sure why this bit provokes you to question Reason's libertarian credentials?

|4.5.05 @ 7:34PM|#

Stevo - I agree. smacky should be subject to as many oral exams as she can stomach.

(I'm sorry, but smacky always gets me talking dirty.)

The Wine Commonsewer|4.5.05 @ 10:07PM|#

I'm with Jeff, 100%

|4.5.05 @ 10:18PM|#

Lowdog -- you might be making assumptions about who is taking the exams, and who is giving them.

|4.5.05 @ 10:23PM|#

Smacky,

Outstanding post. ;)

My question is "Where was all this oral sex when I was in high school? or "friends with benefits" for that matter? People wonder why I'm bitter.

Nice deal for Berger. It pays to be connected.

|4.5.05 @ 10:29PM|#

Jeff, you corndog. Unless another employee is the minutemen fan, in which, they are the corndog.

|4.6.05 @ 8:56AM|#

Clinton's NSA admits to stealing and destroying classified documents and somehow Reason Express surmises it is Bush that is hiding something. My guess is the document showed Clark had problems with Clinton's pursuit of Bin Laden too.
Sure, I'd have preferred a stiffer sentence, but there are many benefits, other than cover ups, that come to mind. Most of which is not letting our enemies see how divided we are.The more evidence we expose that proves one party is totally dedicated to themselves, country be damned, the weaker we look.

|4.6.05 @ 9:13AM|#

I suppose Reason Express's take on the deal is plausible. What seems equally plausible is that they really didn't have anything on Berger, and he agreed to a symbolic punishment so they'd stop bothering him.

|4.6.05 @ 9:37AM|#

Well, at least the Fox News Channel will have something to obsess about until the Pope's funeral on Friday.

|4.6.05 @ 12:31PM|#

"My question is "Where was all this oral sex when I was in high school? or "friends with benefits" for that matter? People wonder why I'm bitter."

That was reserved for all the cool kids in the in-crowd. Geeks, like me, had to wait for "pity-dates" after college.

|4.6.05 @ 4:41PM|#

I still believe that what's good for smacky is good for America.

That's it. I'm running for President!


(I'm sorry, but smacky always gets me talking dirty.)

My work here is done.

|4.6.05 @ 11:11PM|#

James Taranto of the WSJ thinks Jeff's comment is the work of "Angry Left Libertarians."

Funny, I'd be willing to bet Freepers and Cornerites aren't any happier with Sandy's deal.

Kevin