[Matchett-PI]

"I don't think Berger would have taken the documents so Kerry could read them (after all, Berger could read them in the archives, and relay the information to Kerry). If documents were taken and the "lost," it was to conceal information."

Kerry is laying the groundwork to sue everyone and their brother before AND after the election. Ginsberg is laying the groundwork to neutralize him.

Berger is already tied in to Clinton and everyone knows that the papers that diasappeared are damning to his administration, and therefore his legacy. SEE Mark R. Levin's article of April 15, 2004

The point is that Berger is NOW also an advisor to Kerry and is on his re-election team. We must not allow the media to get away with only tying Berger to Clinton. Berger's alleged criminal activity must ALSO rightly be tied to Kerry since he's working for him now, and it's reasonal to ask the *essential* question that Ginsberg says must be answered.

[xm177e2]

I agree that this is probably more about Berger or Berger-Kerry than about Berger-Clinton.

But I see it as a defensive action, rather than the first stage of an attack. Berger is ashamed of whatever was in those documents. He returned most of them, but whatever was in the last two was so terrible he won't give them back.