Al Gonzales should have been on this like white on rice. But that wouldn’t be "bipartisan," now would it?

Makes me curious also. Someone with clout or access should pursue this.

In three years Berger can do it again.

We can rest easy knowing that documents that affect our nation’s ability to learn to avoid mistakes, and documents that will affect our grandchildren’s understanding of history are taken so seriously by the the "Justice" Department.

G.M.

Is it possible that he’s being let off easy in exchane for cooperating with a larger investigation, such as testifying against ’larger fish’? Or is that wishful thinking?

Always possible, but this is a politically charged case. I never like the idea of giving a Democrat something tangible in return for what amounts to a mere promise. It seems to be a common way of doing business in Washington, and helps to explain why Republicans lose more often than they should.

For what it’s worth, the opinion journal is claiming the weak sentence is justified.

The Opinion Journal wrongly equates "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals" with "He did not intend to destroy originals." These are very different concepts. The fact that the government could not prove his intent does not mean he is innocent of the more serious crime.