There have now been two separate "awww, shucks, let ol' Sandy off with a really stern lecture" editorials (unsigned, naturally) in the last week. The first on 4/6 said the Justice dept. showed "admirable restraint" in declining to punish theft and destruction of government property; the second today actually scolds conservatives for daring to question his motives, as though Berger were the soul of probity and not a nasty little political operative whose removal of the documents was neither honest nor a mistake, as he claimed when they nabbed him.
What I can't figure out for the life of me is why the WSJ is making approving noises about the soft kisses treatment for a man who has no respect for the public trust (which, yes, just makes him the perfect poster boy for the Clinton administration.) For the love of all that's holy, he stole documents and then cut them up with his scissors. That's a hell of an effort; you might inadvertently run something through the shredder, but no one inadvertently cuts up big memos with scissors.
Then there's the wording of the denial from Hillman, that the "contents" of the memos were intact in the archives, which sounds a little too preciously precise; if there were, in fact, notes in the margins of the memos Sandy cut into paper dollies, it's possible those notes could be legalistically excluded from the definition of "contents", having been added after the reports in question were issued. If that's not the case, in fact, I don't understand why multiple copies of the same goddamn memo were taken, and I am utterly flabbergasted to see the WSJ happily whitewashing the entire affair. I still like Taranto's Best of the Web column, but I'm becoming more and more perturbed with the Journal's anonymous voice of reason. I'll be goddamned if I'm going to have someone without the nuts to sign his name so that I can evaluate his agenda tell me nothing's going on and not to worry my pretty little head about it.