As other Freepers have noted, a copy with original notes is original information. The real question is whether the information Berger destroyed is retrievable. So really a key issue is whether the handwritten notes were backed-up, or whether any have been irretrievably lost when Berger destroyed the documents he stole.
My guess is that the handwritten notes were not backed-up and some were likely lost irretrievably. I base this on the following points:
1. Visually you can see whether you are looking at a note written by hand with a pen versus a copy of the same. If Berger could see that the handwritten notes he was reading were xeroxed, there would have been little point in taking them. On the other hand, if he could see that the marginal notes were in blue ink and had scored the paper, he knew he was holding the original.
2. Generally speaking, archives aren't about making copies, they are about keeping originals, (or in this case copies of drafts which were originals by virtue of the original handwritten annotations. So if an archive got a document that had handwriting in the margins, they would catalog it but would not make copies. Remember there's thousands of pages involved, and the archivist didn't know ahead of time what Berger was after. They can't make copies of all that stuff. Archives never have enough space, and they certainly don't have departments or procedures in place to make precautionary copies for routine document review requests.
3. For the archives to have copied beforehand the documents given to Berger would have been no small task. You don't just walk over to the xerox machine and make a copy of a top-secret document. So had the original hand-written notes been copied there would have been a cumbersome procedure to go through. There's no indication that could have happened when Berger requested docs from the archivist, especially on his first visit. They had more chance to hand him dups on his second visit, but even still given the paperwork undoubtedly involved in copying top-secret docs, I don't this happened.
4. Handwritten marginal notes would not be something normally duplicated. Normally the reviewer writes the notes and returns the document to the author, and waits for the next draft version. Not duplicating margin notes goes double for secret documents, which aren't allowed to be copied except under prescribed rules and procedures.
5. The Post is reporting that the Archives contacted Bruce Lindsey, a Clinton guy. That shows either that they were sympathetic to the liberal view, or that they considered it merely an administrative and not a criminal matter. In either event, this suggests the likelihood of them having backed-up any document given to Berger as less.
Thank you for your comments on this and yes I know, the issue is if the handwritten notes were copied. I agree, the documents wouldn't have been copied at the time of his request but was curious about the whole archival procedure and the use of microfilm & microfiche.
More juicy info on the National Archives here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177171/posts
This is an article from the WSJ that details the political opinions of the NA folks, as expressed through their bookstore. Very illuminating.
There is a remote possibility that after the first round of doucuments went missing, later ones were copied. If I were running a sting, I would hand out good color copies (or keep good color copies).