[what's up]

Heeheehee...Susan Schmidt hot on the trail. Wasn't she the Washington Post reporter who covered all the unravelling details from the Clinton-Monica scandals.

She's pretty good.

[passionfruit]

He was seen stuffing classified documents into his clothes, and the best the dems can come up with is "the timing is suspicious"!

[rotstan]

If i'm not mistaken, Schmidt is also the reporter who first exposed Joe Wilson's lies a few weeks ago. Busy lady!

[wildbill]

The Dems recently charged her with being a tool of the white house smear machine.

[MindBender26]

>"The notion of one of Washington's most respected foreign policy figures being subjected to treatment that had at least a faint odor of a sting operation is a strange one."

No, it's not a sting, you liberal reporterette twit. It's not a 'sting." It's a THIEF GETTING CAUGHT!

A sting would be where some 5' 10" tall blond female Archives employee whispered "Pssst, Sandy Baby. Slick Willie would really like to see a copy of this...."

This was an out and out theft by a man who knew better. The only real question is, and the one the pest should be asking is: Why?

What was in those papers Burger wanted to destroy or take to someone else, and who was that someone else.

Clinton, probably not. He certainly would have access to all if those records himself. Kerry, same thing. Certainly Burger didn't just need the data for himself.

Who?

Ask yourself, "Who?" "Who" had enough money to get Burger to do this? "Who" wanted to know what was in those papers very badly?

Add this into the mix. Burger's lawyers are tried twice to get DOJ to accept a quick "I did it."

Why doesn't Burger want the "Why" question asked or answered.... and of course for us old newsie types "Why" quickly leads to "Who" for....