A reader makes an important catch:

Hi Jonah! Long time reader, first time correspondent. While perusing the articles on Berger’s ‘indiscretions’ (Archivegate), one line stood out. “The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits* that he was removing materials.” *(italics mine) See [here ] One other thing. I recall reading, after Berger’s conviction was announced, that the Bush/Ashcroft Justice Dept. had filed a friend of the court brief asking for a lenient sentence. No doubt this action was taken to ‘insure his cooperation’. John Ashcroft channeling Janet Reno? And the band played on. Love the Corner!

Me: It seems to me that if there’s actual evidence that Berger had a habit of doing this, then a new investigation needs to be opened, and if merit’s found, he needs to be prosecuted, unless his plea agreement gives him blanket immunity for any and all such transgressions. And if that’s the case, his plea agreement was an even bigger scandal than we were led to believe.

Update: Woops. Now that I think about, I’d forgotten that this was all in the context of the 9/11 Commission stuff. We knew that they were suspicious of his behavior during that limited time frame, so that’s probably what the AP is referring to. Still, it’s worth looking into to see how far back this behavior might go.