One question, updated
For a good fisking on the Berger story, here's Balloon Juice.
Sandy Berger admits (through his lawyers, of course) that

• He had walked out -- unintentionally, he says -- with important papers relating to the Clinton administration's efforts to combat terrorism
  
• He had also taken 40 to 50 pages of notes during three visits to the Archives beginning in July
  
• The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 "after-action review" of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium

So my question is, isn't it time he's prosecuted?
UpdateBelgravia Dispatch takes the NYTimes to task. Roger L. Simon's paying attention to the clues

Versions of the millenium review supposedly had handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials... hmm... Now that just about puts the kibosh on the idea that these documents were merely copies, doesn't it?. . . And some of the copies are still missing.
Was Berger spending all that time rummaging through those documents, taking them out of the building twice, etc., to find and get rid of one or two or three notations scrawled in the margins?

Meanwhile the Democrats are going on TV saying "Sandy was sloppy", "we haven't heard his explanation yet", etc. What they don't want us to realize is, as Hugh Hewitt puts it, "Every "copy" is an original if a note has been made in the margin". No amount of sloppiness can cover that fact.